9 ms·

This has been debunked and proven in various papers and scenarios. The latest one in France is by RTE (our national grid management company). https://www.connai

This has been debunked and proven in various papers and scenarios. The latest one in France is by RTE (our national grid management company). https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/les-futurs-energetiques-2050-de-rte-en-infographies-211026 https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/les-futurs-energetiq... They made 6 scenarios, from "100% renewable" (M0) to "50% nuclear-50% renewable in 2060" (N03). And here is there result cost wise: https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/RTE-futurs-energetiques-2050-3.png https://www.connaissancedesenergies.org/sites/default/files/... N03 means we actually restart building nuclear plants and maintain the existing ones longer than expected. And yes there is 50% of renewable, because France didn't do anything for 20 years and it's "too late" to replace and extend the existing ones.

Retric 5y ago
The wholesale price seen be RTE is post subsides. From their perspective nuclear is awesome, it’s also awesome for French consumers or would be if they didn’t have to pay taxes.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  Mandatory myth busting here: there is no subsidies on French nuclear which in facts yields billions in profit ever year to the French government, but a tons of subsidies on its competitors (and below-the-market-price access to nuclear electricity for them so they can “freely compete” with EDF. For those interested see ARENH). There are compelling arguments against nuclear in France (namely the aging of the existing reactors and the industrial inability to ship new reactors because we've lost most of the learning curve after several decades without significant reactor construction) but imaginary subsidies ain't one. I know Retric won't change their mind, but I hope other readers won't buy their bullshit.
  - Retric 5y ago
    > no subsidies on French nuclear The most obvious French subsidy for nuclear is who pays for possible 500+ billion Euro nuclear accident. The Paris Convention and the Brussels Convention both require insurance for nuclear accidents, but cap liability to operators with the difference being made up by taxpayers. That’s an easy to verify subsidy, as was the recent bailout for Areva S.A., I could go on but subsidies get convoluted. Pressure from the French government for people to use electric heating, well it’s in support of the nuclear industry but not really a “subsidy” or is it? Let’s say no. What about low interest government loans? Sure that’s an obvious subsidy.
    - littlestymaar 5y ago
      > The most obvious French subsidy for nuclear is who pays for possible 500+ billion Euro nuclear accident. The Paris Convention and the Brussels Convention both require insurance for nuclear accidents, but cap liability to operators with the difference being made up by taxpayers. That's stretching the meaning of the word “subsidy” quite a lot… > That’s an easy to verify subsidy, as was the recent bailout for Areva S.A. Oh please tell us more it's gonna be funny because you obviously don't know what you're talking about. > Pressure from the French government for people to use electric heating, well it’s in support of the nuclear industry but not really a “subsidy” or is it? Oh you mean the type of heating that's been FORBIDDEN in new building for a decade? Please be serious… > What about low interest government loans? Sure that’s an obvious subsidy. Yes, too bad it doesn't exist. (In France, UK has some kind of state-guaranteed loan for Hinkley point, but that's not the right country and not “low interest loan” either).
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - pydry 5y ago
        Since when does free insurance stretch the definition of subsidy? Clean up costs in Fukushima will total about $1 trillion. Probability of a core melt accident in 1 year or reactor operation is apparently 1 in 3704. Insuring for that much with zero profit margin would be $269 million per year per plant. That's about 1.5x-2x the cost of operating a nuclear plant. It's a lot of money to handwave away.
      - Retric 5y ago
        The heating thing seems like an odd bit of trivia today, but back in 1988 French nuclear reactors had a capacity factor around 60% and home electric heating such as heat pumps was considering one way of boosting consumption especially at night. Things have clearly changed over time, but I am unaware of any current regulations banning new homes with electric heating. > obviously don't know what you're talking about. Please enlighten us: European Union antitrust regulators approved the French government's plan to inject 4.5 billion euros ($4.8 billion) into embattled nuclear group Areva AREVA.PA, saying the rescue would not unduly distort competition. www.reuters.com/article/us-areva-restructuring-eu-idUSKBN14U1L0 PS: Hinkly is somewhat interesting as the French government has a major stake in the UK power plant. Digging into the financing gets rather interesting.
edhelas 5y ago
RTE is pushing a lot for renewable to be deployed as well as more nuclear. More renewable means more grid deployment, so more work for them. Don't shoot the messenger.

Retric 5y ago

The wholesale price seen be RTE is post subsides. From their perspective nuclear is awesome, it’s also awesome for French consumers or would be if they didn’t have to pay taxes.

littlestymaar 5y ago
Mandatory myth busting here: there is no subsidies on French nuclear which in facts yields billions in profit ever year to the French government, but a tons of subsidies on its competitors (and below-the-market-price access to nuclear electricity for them so they can “freely compete” with EDF. For those interested see ARENH). There are compelling arguments against nuclear in France (namely the aging of the existing reactors and the industrial inability to ship new reactors because we've lost most of the learning curve after several decades without significant reactor construction) but imaginary subsidies ain't one. I know Retric won't change their mind, but I hope other readers won't buy their bullshit.
- Retric 5y ago
  > no subsidies on French nuclear The most obvious French subsidy for nuclear is who pays for possible 500+ billion Euro nuclear accident. The Paris Convention and the Brussels Convention both require insurance for nuclear accidents, but cap liability to operators with the difference being made up by taxpayers. That’s an easy to verify subsidy, as was the recent bailout for Areva S.A., I could go on but subsidies get convoluted. Pressure from the French government for people to use electric heating, well it’s in support of the nuclear industry but not really a “subsidy” or is it? Let’s say no. What about low interest government loans? Sure that’s an obvious subsidy.
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    > The most obvious French subsidy for nuclear is who pays for possible 500+ billion Euro nuclear accident. The Paris Convention and the Brussels Convention both require insurance for nuclear accidents, but cap liability to operators with the difference being made up by taxpayers. That's stretching the meaning of the word “subsidy” quite a lot… > That’s an easy to verify subsidy, as was the recent bailout for Areva S.A. Oh please tell us more it's gonna be funny because you obviously don't know what you're talking about. > Pressure from the French government for people to use electric heating, well it’s in support of the nuclear industry but not really a “subsidy” or is it? Oh you mean the type of heating that's been FORBIDDEN in new building for a decade? Please be serious… > What about low interest government loans? Sure that’s an obvious subsidy. Yes, too bad it doesn't exist. (In France, UK has some kind of state-guaranteed loan for Hinkley point, but that's not the right country and not “low interest loan” either).
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - pydry 5y ago
      Since when does free insurance stretch the definition of subsidy? Clean up costs in Fukushima will total about $1 trillion. Probability of a core melt accident in 1 year or reactor operation is apparently 1 in 3704. Insuring for that much with zero profit margin would be $269 million per year per plant. That's about 1.5x-2x the cost of operating a nuclear plant. It's a lot of money to handwave away.
    - Retric 5y ago
      The heating thing seems like an odd bit of trivia today, but back in 1988 French nuclear reactors had a capacity factor around 60% and home electric heating such as heat pumps was considering one way of boosting consumption especially at night. Things have clearly changed over time, but I am unaware of any current regulations banning new homes with electric heating. > obviously don't know what you're talking about. Please enlighten us: European Union antitrust regulators approved the French government's plan to inject 4.5 billion euros ($4.8 billion) into embattled nuclear group Areva AREVA.PA, saying the rescue would not unduly distort competition. www.reuters.com/article/us-areva-restructuring-eu-idUSKBN14U1L0 PS: Hinkly is somewhat interesting as the French government has a major stake in the UK power plant. Digging into the financing gets rather interesting.

edhelas 5y ago

RTE is pushing a lot for renewable to be deployed as well as more nuclear. More renewable means more grid deployment, so more work for them. Don't shoot the messenger.