5 ms·

Yes, but it doesn’t provide baseload elevator and therefore requires backup power plants which cost extra money. Germany has invested a lot in wind and solar a

Yes, but it doesn’t provide baseload elevator and therefore requires backup power plants which cost extra money. Germany has invested a lot in wind and solar and as a result they have the highest electricity prices in the world: > https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-price... Yet, Germany’s energy sector is seven times dirtier than France’s: > https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?tab=table&country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-emissions-by-sector?t... France has 50 million tons of CO2 per year, Germany 350 million tons of CO2 per year in the energy sector. Germans pay over 30 cents/kWh, the French pay about 20 cents/kWh.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Because Germany has shut down their nuclear plants, and France didn't. Nuclear energy is greenest energy possible, but some people are too influenced by endless fear-mongering to accept that.
- puranjay 5y ago
  Seems so absurd to me that we already have the solution to our energy problems - nuclear. But for some reason we just don’t want to use it.
  - otherme123 5y ago
    Shutting down nuclear plants is an error. But building more of them is also a mistake. France is slowly stopping their plants to make room for the cheaper wind and PV. And the nuclear plants currently being built are an economical nightmare both for EDF and the gobernment: frenchs are paying a hidden cost in "cheap" nuclear electricity by subsidizing EDF through the backdoor.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      The cost of nuclear energy is rising only because unlike wind and solar energy it faces more and more restrictions, regulations and bureaucracy redtape. This is a direct result of above-mentioned fear-mongering. Had it received support and proper funding for R&D, by now we'd been swimming in cheap, abundant, reliable and safe nuclear power.
      - 7952 5y ago
        Do you imagine a world in which nuclear reactors are as easy to mass produce as solar cells and batteries?
        Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        We just need to produce 3-5 times more nuclear reactors than we already have to satisfy all current power demands of human civilization with a significant reserve. Doesn't look an impossible task to me.
        7952 5y ago
        How to do that quickly though? It took decades to build that existing capacity.
        Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        If we didn't stop building plants 3 decades ago, you wouldn't have to worry. Anyway, USSR was building new plants in 3-5 years, I'm pretty sure we could get by for a decade more it would take to make 100% generated energy without burning fossil fuels.
        7952 5y ago
        And if NASA had kept its funding after the moon landings we would have a base on Mars now. But we don't. We have to make do with what we can achieve within the society we live in. Not compare our world to some alternative history.
    - findthewords 5y ago
      If this planet had a carbon tax, perhaps those subsidies wouldn't appear so egregious.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      The tell with France is when they terminated the ASTRID project, which was taking another stab at a sodium-cooled fast reactor. What this means is they don't see nuclear growing enough to require breeders on any time scale that would justify retaining fast reactor expertise. Which means they don't see nuclear addressing climate change to any large extent, globally.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    We could use that same logic for renewables.
- serial_dev 5y ago
  Yes, it's very sad to see. I moved to Germany, and it was surprising to see how many uninformed people have very strong opinions about nuclear.
jillesvangurp 5y ago
You are half right in that solar doesn't provide base load (obviously). However, other renewables do. E.g. offshore wind is pretty reliable and geothermal and hydro are pretty decent too. And storage seems a more economical alternative to having gas-peaker plants and is commonly paired with solar. Having all of that seems to be a winning solution for many countries that never had much nuclear to begin with and that are shutting down remaining coal and gas production. Germany's energy sector is dirtier than France because France has a lot of nuclear power plants left from mid last century. And Germany of course built a lot of coal plants during that time and never had that much nuclear due to the political sensibilities of that era. Germany has invested a lot in early and relatively inefficient solutions over the last few decades. As these are being modernized, their cost will gradually improve. E.g. wind turbines from last century are a very different proposition than a modern 15MW offshore turbine. So yes, Germans paid a price for being early but they now they have a thriving industry that is about helping others switch to renewables. Many coal plants in Germany are being shut down until 2038 and most of those French nuclear plants are reaching their end of life pretty soon as well. France has actually been decommissioning old nuclear plants for a while and has been gradually shifting to other renewables. E.g. wind and solar are growing relative to nuclear in France (quite a lot actually). Of course the issue is less urgent in France as they have (mostly) clean production already. But proportionally, nuclear is becoming less important for them. Both France and Germany pay too much for their power. Solar and wind can be cheaper than that. That's actually what is driving these changes and that's the point of this article. It's not just a little bit cheaper but massively cheaper and still getting cheaper. We are talking orders of magnitude here (plural long term). Enough that you can consider some pretty wild solutions to address the base load issue and still end up with an overall cheaper solution. New nuclear plants to provide base load don't make a lot of sense economically when that is true. This seems to be what you are implying. France is of course still building some new plants and they are deploying wind and solar too. They are doing more of the latter and less of the former however. The net proportion of nuclear is actually decreasing. That's true for most countries that are still building nuclear plants: they are increasingly less dependent on those plants. Like China, the USA, etc. That's because the base load argument is simply wrong. Neither nuclear, coal, nor gas are long term needed for that. All of those are unattractive from a cost perspective long term.
hef19898 5y ago
Residential prices maybe. And only due to a screwed up legislation requiring to consumers to bear the brunt of the state subsidies for renewables. Screwed up because solar and wind are competitive now without subsidies and because industrial consumers are basically paying none of that. To the point these large consumers can make more money from brokering electricity and their consumption than from selling there products in certain periods. None of that has anything to do with renewables per se.
- imtringued 5y ago
  >state subsidies for renewables It's not a subsidy for renewables because it's integrated into the price. The EEG is a subsidy for energy intensive industry that is paid by retail customers. The electricity bill of other people shouldn't be on yours. However, buying electricity at 0€ and then paying 0.08€ in EEG is the same as paying 0.08€ in the first place. The only difference is that renewables get feed in priority.
imtringued 5y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27799850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27799850 The EEG makes cheap electricity expensive for no reason. The fundamental problem is that retail pays industry electric bills instead of the state subsidizing those like it is the case with nuclear. (nuclear is entirely subsidized). Yes, the problem with expensive electricity in Germany is that renewables are one of the few unsubsidized power sources. Retail customers pay for everything. Of course they are expensive if they don't receive the same subsidies other technologies receive. With nuclear retail customers barely pay any of the costs involved in constructing and decomissioning the power plants.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

Because Germany has shut down their nuclear plants, and France didn't. Nuclear energy is greenest energy possible, but some people are too influenced by endless fear-mongering to accept that.

puranjay 5y ago
Seems so absurd to me that we already have the solution to our energy problems - nuclear. But for some reason we just don’t want to use it.
- otherme123 5y ago
  Shutting down nuclear plants is an error. But building more of them is also a mistake. France is slowly stopping their plants to make room for the cheaper wind and PV. And the nuclear plants currently being built are an economical nightmare both for EDF and the gobernment: frenchs are paying a hidden cost in "cheap" nuclear electricity by subsidizing EDF through the backdoor.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    The cost of nuclear energy is rising only because unlike wind and solar energy it faces more and more restrictions, regulations and bureaucracy redtape. This is a direct result of above-mentioned fear-mongering. Had it received support and proper funding for R&D, by now we'd been swimming in cheap, abundant, reliable and safe nuclear power.
    - 7952 5y ago
      Do you imagine a world in which nuclear reactors are as easy to mass produce as solar cells and batteries?
      - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        We just need to produce 3-5 times more nuclear reactors than we already have to satisfy all current power demands of human civilization with a significant reserve. Doesn't look an impossible task to me.
        7952 5y ago
        How to do that quickly though? It took decades to build that existing capacity.
        Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        If we didn't stop building plants 3 decades ago, you wouldn't have to worry. Anyway, USSR was building new plants in 3-5 years, I'm pretty sure we could get by for a decade more it would take to make 100% generated energy without burning fossil fuels.
        7952 5y ago
        And if NASA had kept its funding after the moon landings we would have a base on Mars now. But we don't. We have to make do with what we can achieve within the society we live in. Not compare our world to some alternative history.
  - findthewords 5y ago
    If this planet had a carbon tax, perhaps those subsidies wouldn't appear so egregious.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    The tell with France is when they terminated the ASTRID project, which was taking another stab at a sodium-cooled fast reactor. What this means is they don't see nuclear growing enough to require breeders on any time scale that would justify retaining fast reactor expertise. Which means they don't see nuclear addressing climate change to any large extent, globally.
- imtringued 5y ago
  We could use that same logic for renewables.
serial_dev 5y ago
Yes, it's very sad to see. I moved to Germany, and it was surprising to see how many uninformed people have very strong opinions about nuclear.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

You are half right in that solar doesn't provide base load (obviously). However, other renewables do. E.g. offshore wind is pretty reliable and geothermal and hydro are pretty decent too. And storage seems a more economical alternative to having gas-peaker plants and is commonly paired with solar. Having all of that seems to be a winning solution for many countries that never had much nuclear to begin with and that are shutting down remaining coal and gas production. Germany's energy sector is dirtier than France because France has a lot of nuclear power plants left from mid last century. And Germany of course built a lot of coal plants during that time and never had that much nuclear due to the political sensibilities of that era. Germany has invested a lot in early and relatively inefficient solutions over the last few decades. As these are being modernized, their cost will gradually improve. E.g. wind turbines from last century are a very different proposition than a modern 15MW offshore turbine. So yes, Germans paid a price for being early but they now they have a thriving industry that is about helping others switch to renewables. Many coal plants in Germany are being shut down until 2038 and most of those French nuclear plants are reaching their end of life pretty soon as well. France has actually been decommissioning old nuclear plants for a while and has been gradually shifting to other renewables. E.g. wind and solar are growing relative to nuclear in France (quite a lot actually). Of course the issue is less urgent in France as they have (mostly) clean production already. But proportionally, nuclear is becoming less important for them. Both France and Germany pay too much for their power. Solar and wind can be cheaper than that. That's actually what is driving these changes and that's the point of this article. It's not just a little bit cheaper but massively cheaper and still getting cheaper. We are talking orders of magnitude here (plural long term). Enough that you can consider some pretty wild solutions to address the base load issue and still end up with an overall cheaper solution. New nuclear plants to provide base load don't make a lot of sense economically when that is true. This seems to be what you are implying. France is of course still building some new plants and they are deploying wind and solar too. They are doing more of the latter and less of the former however. The net proportion of nuclear is actually decreasing. That's true for most countries that are still building nuclear plants: they are increasingly less dependent on those plants. Like China, the USA, etc. That's because the base load argument is simply wrong. Neither nuclear, coal, nor gas are long term needed for that. All of those are unattractive from a cost perspective long term.

hef19898 5y ago

Residential prices maybe. And only due to a screwed up legislation requiring to consumers to bear the brunt of the state subsidies for renewables. Screwed up because solar and wind are competitive now without subsidies and because industrial consumers are basically paying none of that. To the point these large consumers can make more money from brokering electricity and their consumption than from selling there products in certain periods. None of that has anything to do with renewables per se.

imtringued 5y ago
>state subsidies for renewables It's not a subsidy for renewables because it's integrated into the price. The EEG is a subsidy for energy intensive industry that is paid by retail customers. The electricity bill of other people shouldn't be on yours. However, buying electricity at 0€ and then paying 0.08€ in EEG is the same as paying 0.08€ in the first place. The only difference is that renewables get feed in priority.

imtringued 5y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27799850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27799850 The EEG makes cheap electricity expensive for no reason. The fundamental problem is that retail pays industry electric bills instead of the state subsidizing those like it is the case with nuclear. (nuclear is entirely subsidized). Yes, the problem with expensive electricity in Germany is that renewables are one of the few unsubsidized power sources. Retail customers pay for everything. Of course they are expensive if they don't receive the same subsidies other technologies receive. With nuclear retail customers barely pay any of the costs involved in constructing and decomissioning the power plants.