4 ms·

>Nope. Nuke plant did not provide 85% during those 50 years. That's a fair point, but it doesn't change the argument, the cost is over a long period with a big

by hokkos 7y ago

>Nope. Nuke plant did not provide 85% during those 50 years. That's a fair point, but it doesn't change the argument, the cost is over a long period with a big part of the electricity mix. >This 121B€ budget is not spent But locked in with feed in tariff form the pre-2017 poorly functioning 5.1%/1.9% mix. You seems to think that more solar and wind will come with that, no new solar panel and wind turbine will be build with that. https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comptes-alerte-sur-le-cout-des-enr/ https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comp... >this is a very low-key counterbalancing measure No this is a useless way to create an artificial competition, and a disgusting way to kill a company, when EDF OA is forced to buy solar and wind, uncorrelated with usage, at an expansive price. >Germany chose this horrible wind/solar/biomass path. Poor Germans, they don't know that those challenges have no solution, that they are doomed to fail. You should inform them. An EPR or two may save them! They have coal, lot of coal and only a plan to close them in 2038 and to replace it with russian fossil gas when France will have the latest closed in 2022 and since long barely used them. >Source? Look on your electrical bill the CSPE line, and Turpe because of decentralised renewable. https://www.uarga.org/downloads/Documentation/2019_09_12_Soutien_developpement_electri_verte_G.Petit.pdf https://www.uarga.org/downloads/Documentation/2019_09_12_Sou... https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution_au_service_public_de_l%27%C3%A9lectricit%C3%A9#%C3%89volution_du_montant_unitaire_de_la_CSPE https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution_au_service_public... http://www.leparisien.fr/economie/les-prix-de-l-electricite-vont-encore-augmenter-en-aout-02-07-2019-8107959.php http://www.leparisien.fr/economie/les-prix-de-l-electricite-... > Lemme try to guess who will win... France already won in decarbonising its electricity. Why would Germany win all industrial challenge, what are you a German supremacist ?

natmaka 7y ago
EDF (French power company) enjoyed a monopoly lasting 50 years, massive research paid for by the military sector, no real accounting of the public funds they spent (at the very least 228 10e9 euros), the waste problem is not solved, real decommission (nearly all yet-to-be started) costs are unknown and will probably be vastly superior to the budget, the grand total cost must take into account any boo-boo made by a wandering waste during some 10000's years... and for all this they have to concede 1/4 of their current production at cost price. Granted, this is not a total waste because they did and do provide gridpower (given that its price is average in Europe, absolutely not a bargain). In any case this is a superb gift, many industrialists would kill for such a deal. EDF complains w/o any shame! On a more fundamental viewpoint I think that subsidies are always at best inadequate, especially because they establish such vicious circle (subsidizing leads to a problem apparently solved by... subsidizing). This 121B€ budget will be invested ('till 2046) to dynamise applied renewable energy. It has to offer some benefit to anyone investing and therefore accepting the risk inherent to any new and quickly developing tool, it is about long-term effects. You quote a blog, which is an immediate interpretation, not the intent and even less the (future) result. Yes, Germany chose to kick out the bad nuke habit as fast as possible, maybe indeed too quickly for the short-term sake. On the other hand France tried to act slowly... and now its renewables program, not very ambitious, already is wayyyyyy behind previsions. Yes, establishing new production sites implies new connections, and therefore investments. Connecting a new nuke powerplant also costs. Yes, connecting renewables globally cost more given that nukes needs less sites (intensity). However renewables don't blow up, don't produce hot waste, are easy to decommission, create jobs, create know-how and product which are more and more marketable (much more than nuke plants!)... Total lifecycle cost+risk is key. France is indeed right now more efficient than Germany when it comes to decarbonizing gridpower production. However this is a snapshot, while the whole subject is a process. There is no finish line, and if in a pair of decades may Germany lead on all accounts, free of nukes and continuing to be a leader in a growing renewables market. Then we will once more conclude that they adopted an industrial approach much more adequate than ours, as in many other sectors.

by hokkos 7y ago

natmaka 7y ago

EDF (French power company) enjoyed a monopoly lasting 50 years, massive research paid for by the military sector, no real accounting of the public funds they spent (at the very least 228 10e9 euros), the waste problem is not solved, real decommission (nearly all yet-to-be started) costs are unknown and will probably be vastly superior to the budget, the grand total cost must take into account any boo-boo made by a wandering waste during some 10000's years... and for all this they have to concede 1/4 of their current production at cost price. Granted, this is not a total waste because they did and do provide gridpower (given that its price is average in Europe, absolutely not a bargain). In any case this is a superb gift, many industrialists would kill for such a deal. EDF complains w/o any shame! On a more fundamental viewpoint I think that subsidies are always at best inadequate, especially because they establish such vicious circle (subsidizing leads to a problem apparently solved by... subsidizing). This 121B€ budget will be invested ('till 2046) to dynamise applied renewable energy. It has to offer some benefit to anyone investing and therefore accepting the risk inherent to any new and quickly developing tool, it is about long-term effects. You quote a blog, which is an immediate interpretation, not the intent and even less the (future) result. Yes, Germany chose to kick out the bad nuke habit as fast as possible, maybe indeed too quickly for the short-term sake. On the other hand France tried to act slowly... and now its renewables program, not very ambitious, already is wayyyyyy behind previsions. Yes, establishing new production sites implies new connections, and therefore investments. Connecting a new nuke powerplant also costs. Yes, connecting renewables globally cost more given that nukes needs less sites (intensity). However renewables don't blow up, don't produce hot waste, are easy to decommission, create jobs, create know-how and product which are more and more marketable (much more than nuke plants!)... Total lifecycle cost+risk is key. France is indeed right now more efficient than Germany when it comes to decarbonizing gridpower production. However this is a snapshot, while the whole subject is a process. There is no finish line, and if in a pair of decades may Germany lead on all accounts, free of nukes and continuing to be a leader in a growing renewables market. Then we will once more conclude that they adopted an industrial approach much more adequate than ours, as in many other sectors.