6 ms·

6 months ago I would have hot-headedly agreed with everything you say. The discussions I found on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21992958 https://news.y

6 months ago I would have hot-headedly agreed with everything you say. The discussions I found on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21992958 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21992958 changed my mind though. Nuclear power in France is heavily subsidized and it doesn’t make much economic sense. I mean, the radioactive emission from coal plants is higher than from nuclear powerplants - but the overall costs are too high. Check out what Patagonia has to say on hydro plants and the ecological impact in case you are interested. I do think that the way Germany is tackling electricity/energy is not great. Like so many things they are not solving...

ebalit 6y ago
What do you count as subsidies to nuclear power? Wind and solar have been heavily subsidized in France through buying it at an above market rate. [0] 0: http://www.bsi-economics.org/1016-evolution-prix-electricite-secteur-residentiel-france-tp http://www.bsi-economics.org/1016-evolution-prix-electricite...
- michaelt 6y ago
  For example, the UK's "Hinkley Point C" nuclear plant expansion has the following subsidies [1] * Guaranteed minimum price for the electricity generated, well above current market rates. Taxpayer pays £92.50 per Megawatt Hour - when the wholesale price of electricity has been £35-£42 for the last year or so. The guaranteed price rises with inflation, and lasts 35 years. * Loan guarantees, reducing their interest rates. * Guaranteed maximum price for waste disposal, taxpayer pays anything above that. * Capped liability / reduced insurance requirements for nuclear accidents. Taxpayer pays if an accident exceeds their insurance. * Guaranteed maximum cost for decommissioning. Taxpayer pays if decommissioning costs more than predicted. When the whole project was kicked off it was pre-brexit and our politicians were pro-chinese-investment. So a nuclear plant built with French expertise and Chinese money seemed like a great way to replace our ageing coal-fired power plants and keep the lights on. [1] https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/united-kingdom-subsidize-nuclear-power-at-what-cost.pdf https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/united...
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    So ... nuclear isn't viable, and companies want to privatize profits and socialize losses. I've been saying on HN for years that the risks and decommissioning costs make nuclear not viable in the US, but the HN nuclear fanbois simply refuse to listen. Nuclear is a debt trip. One of the items you didn't mention is that to defer decommissioning costs, 20-year operating extensions are granted, very likely corrupting the licensing and safety boards, and increasing risks for residents.
  - ebalit 6y ago
    The parent comment was talking about nuclear being subsidized in France and your example is in the UK. My point was about France if it was not obvious.
  - ebalit 6y ago
    I don't know enough about the UK nuclear program, so I might be wrong, but it seems wrong to compare a guaranteed price to an ongoing price. Could you even get someone else to guarantee you an inflation pegged price of electricity for the next 35 years? And in that case, how much would it cost?
    - jerven 6y ago
      Yes, many offshore windfarms will do this. At about 40GBp, in somewhat current tendering (Contract for difference (CFD) auction round 3, UK). Although normally on a 15 year period (for arbitrary reasons Hinkley Point C was allowed a 35 year period and did not participate in the 2015 CFD auction). I think anyone would love to offer a CFD over a 35 year timeline, only HinkleyPoint C (and Sizewell C in the same agreement) where offered these conditions. i.e it makes financing much easier. HinkleyPoint C is in planning since 2008 or so, not exactly a quick process. Real construction since 2018 (but some prep work done in the decade leading up to this.) Expected generation is in 2025/2026. This sounds bad but is actually decent, 10 years from idea to generation is common and outliers exist in both directions.
      - ebalit 6y ago
jjoonathan 6y ago
Dams burst and kill lots of people. Not often in the scheme of things, but by comparison they make nuclear look like a saint. Incident Location Fatalities Banqiao China 171000 Machchu India 5000 South Fork USA 2208 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure The environmental impact of flooding entire basins is also pretty rough, and basins don't exist everywhere you might want one.
- cma 6y ago
  Nuclear is very often (majority?) located on connected lakes with dams cooling and pumped storage.
- bsder 6y ago
  Neither Machchu nor South Fork Dam are good examples in this particular argument. They were never used for power generation. Banqiao, however, is spot on.
  - natmaka 6y ago
    Not so sure about Banquiao, at it "took place during the Chinese Cultural Revolution when most people were busy with the "revolution" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure The "Cultural Revolution" began in 1966. In such a context an otherwise avoidable catastrophe may happen. This Revolution followed the "Great Leap Forward" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward ), with famines. "In the subsequent famines of the early 1960s popularly attributed to the Great Leap Forward, Henan was one of the hardest hit and millions of lives were lost." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era . Moreover all this came after a civil war and violent Japanese invasion, during which dams were bombed, causing "massive flooding in Henan" (same source). Predicting and adverting this catastrophe was possible, but given such a context nobody was able to do so.
gwright 6y ago
That is an argument against nuclear power in France as an economical base load generation mechanism. The remaining points about the intermittent nature of renewables and how difficult it is to incorporate them into a reliable grid economically are still valid.
tweetle_beetle 6y ago
> Check out what Patagonia has to say on hydro plants and the ecological impact in case you are interested. This is Patagonia's brand strategy to sell products, rather than a political policy. So they have the luxury of pointing out problems and being light on the detail of solutions. They get to focus on the negative ecological role of dams, and generally promoting reducing resource consumption. All energy production has a negative ecological impact to a greater or lesser degree, and it's rich for a company selling mainly things we don't need to talk about reducing consumption. The headlines are also different to the detail which calls for decommissioning the worst offenders rather than all dams. The difficult broader question of where energy comes from instead is ducked: > ... solar, wind, tidal, wave, geothermal and biomass are helping us to transition to a clean energy future. [1] The cynic in me feels like there is probably scope for future marketing campaigns about the ecological impact of these too. I had professional dealings with the company and advise taking it with a pinch of salt. [1] https://www.patagonia.com/on/demandware.static/Sites-patagonia-us-Site/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/en_US/PDF-US/DamNation_Statements_v1.pdf https://www.patagonia.com/on/demandware.static/Sites-patagon...
- looping__lui 6y ago
  I do not know what was their ultimate motive to go ballistic on hydro power. I guess if it was all about marketing I would have picked a different “enemy” than hydro power... I learned about it through Blue Heart: https://blueheart.patagonia.com https://blueheart.patagonia.com And the story I heard about it was: their CEO went on a fly fishing trip there, really loved it, was told by the local guide that all will be gone in short time for hydro plants. He then decided to use all/most/a significant portion of the marketing budget in this campaign instead. You can always criticize ulterior motives - and we will never know for sure. But I give them some kudos for the initiatives they take - like taking their biggest revenue driver (e.g., dry suits) and deciding to make it “as ecological as possible” and 3x as expensive along the way... Every company is in the business of making money. And the fashion industry is known for making little money and having a big environmental impact. I don’t mind if somebody goes a more risky route that also makes them money along the way...
  - 6y ago
swebs 6y ago
>Nuclear power in France is heavily subsidized and it doesn’t make much economic sense ... the overall costs are too high. How much would it cost per kilowatt hour without subsidies?

ebalit 6y ago

What do you count as subsidies to nuclear power? Wind and solar have been heavily subsidized in France through buying it at an above market rate. [0] 0: http://www.bsi-economics.org/1016-evolution-prix-electricite-secteur-residentiel-france-tp http://www.bsi-economics.org/1016-evolution-prix-electricite...

michaelt 6y ago
For example, the UK's "Hinkley Point C" nuclear plant expansion has the following subsidies [1] * Guaranteed minimum price for the electricity generated, well above current market rates. Taxpayer pays £92.50 per Megawatt Hour - when the wholesale price of electricity has been £35-£42 for the last year or so. The guaranteed price rises with inflation, and lasts 35 years. * Loan guarantees, reducing their interest rates. * Guaranteed maximum price for waste disposal, taxpayer pays anything above that. * Capped liability / reduced insurance requirements for nuclear accidents. Taxpayer pays if an accident exceeds their insurance. * Guaranteed maximum cost for decommissioning. Taxpayer pays if decommissioning costs more than predicted. When the whole project was kicked off it was pre-brexit and our politicians were pro-chinese-investment. So a nuclear plant built with French expertise and Chinese money seemed like a great way to replace our ageing coal-fired power plants and keep the lights on. [1] https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/united-kingdom-subsidize-nuclear-power-at-what-cost.pdf https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/united...
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  So ... nuclear isn't viable, and companies want to privatize profits and socialize losses. I've been saying on HN for years that the risks and decommissioning costs make nuclear not viable in the US, but the HN nuclear fanbois simply refuse to listen. Nuclear is a debt trip. One of the items you didn't mention is that to defer decommissioning costs, 20-year operating extensions are granted, very likely corrupting the licensing and safety boards, and increasing risks for residents.
- ebalit 6y ago
  The parent comment was talking about nuclear being subsidized in France and your example is in the UK. My point was about France if it was not obvious.
- ebalit 6y ago
  I don't know enough about the UK nuclear program, so I might be wrong, but it seems wrong to compare a guaranteed price to an ongoing price. Could you even get someone else to guarantee you an inflation pegged price of electricity for the next 35 years? And in that case, how much would it cost?
  - jerven 6y ago
    Yes, many offshore windfarms will do this. At about 40GBp, in somewhat current tendering (Contract for difference (CFD) auction round 3, UK). Although normally on a 15 year period (for arbitrary reasons Hinkley Point C was allowed a 35 year period and did not participate in the 2015 CFD auction). I think anyone would love to offer a CFD over a 35 year timeline, only HinkleyPoint C (and Sizewell C in the same agreement) where offered these conditions. i.e it makes financing much easier. HinkleyPoint C is in planning since 2008 or so, not exactly a quick process. Real construction since 2018 (but some prep work done in the decade leading up to this.) Expected generation is in 2025/2026. This sounds bad but is actually decent, 10 years from idea to generation is common and outliers exist in both directions.
    - ebalit 6y ago

jjoonathan 6y ago

Dams burst and kill lots of people. Not often in the scheme of things, but by comparison they make nuclear look like a saint. Incident Location Fatalities Banqiao China 171000 Machchu India 5000 South Fork USA 2208 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure The environmental impact of flooding entire basins is also pretty rough, and basins don't exist everywhere you might want one.

cma 6y ago
Nuclear is very often (majority?) located on connected lakes with dams cooling and pumped storage.
bsder 6y ago
Neither Machchu nor South Fork Dam are good examples in this particular argument. They were never used for power generation. Banqiao, however, is spot on.
- natmaka 6y ago
  Not so sure about Banquiao, at it "took place during the Chinese Cultural Revolution when most people were busy with the "revolution" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure The "Cultural Revolution" began in 1966. In such a context an otherwise avoidable catastrophe may happen. This Revolution followed the "Great Leap Forward" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward ), with famines. "In the subsequent famines of the early 1960s popularly attributed to the Great Leap Forward, Henan was one of the hardest hit and millions of lives were lost." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era . Moreover all this came after a civil war and violent Japanese invasion, during which dams were bombed, causing "massive flooding in Henan" (same source). Predicting and adverting this catastrophe was possible, but given such a context nobody was able to do so.

gwright 6y ago

That is an argument against nuclear power in France as an economical base load generation mechanism. The remaining points about the intermittent nature of renewables and how difficult it is to incorporate them into a reliable grid economically are still valid.

tweetle_beetle 6y ago

> Check out what Patagonia has to say on hydro plants and the ecological impact in case you are interested. This is Patagonia's brand strategy to sell products, rather than a political policy. So they have the luxury of pointing out problems and being light on the detail of solutions. They get to focus on the negative ecological role of dams, and generally promoting reducing resource consumption. All energy production has a negative ecological impact to a greater or lesser degree, and it's rich for a company selling mainly things we don't need to talk about reducing consumption. The headlines are also different to the detail which calls for decommissioning the worst offenders rather than all dams. The difficult broader question of where energy comes from instead is ducked: > ... solar, wind, tidal, wave, geothermal and biomass are helping us to transition to a clean energy future. [1] The cynic in me feels like there is probably scope for future marketing campaigns about the ecological impact of these too. I had professional dealings with the company and advise taking it with a pinch of salt. [1] https://www.patagonia.com/on/demandware.static/Sites-patagonia-us-Site/Library-Sites-PatagoniaShared/en_US/PDF-US/DamNation_Statements_v1.pdf https://www.patagonia.com/on/demandware.static/Sites-patagon...

looping__lui 6y ago
I do not know what was their ultimate motive to go ballistic on hydro power. I guess if it was all about marketing I would have picked a different “enemy” than hydro power... I learned about it through Blue Heart: https://blueheart.patagonia.com https://blueheart.patagonia.com And the story I heard about it was: their CEO went on a fly fishing trip there, really loved it, was told by the local guide that all will be gone in short time for hydro plants. He then decided to use all/most/a significant portion of the marketing budget in this campaign instead. You can always criticize ulterior motives - and we will never know for sure. But I give them some kudos for the initiatives they take - like taking their biggest revenue driver (e.g., dry suits) and deciding to make it “as ecological as possible” and 3x as expensive along the way... Every company is in the business of making money. And the fashion industry is known for making little money and having a big environmental impact. I don’t mind if somebody goes a more risky route that also makes them money along the way...
- 6y ago

swebs 6y ago

>Nuclear power in France is heavily subsidized and it doesn’t make much economic sense ... the overall costs are too high. How much would it cost per kilowatt hour without subsidies?