7 ms·

Yup, and we will end up paying 50% more for our energy usage, just because of political swings.

by csunbird 5y ago

dv_dt 5y ago
Avoiding nuclear will save you money in the long run though
- wildmanxx 5y ago
  Sad that this is downvoted. The hidden cost of nuclear is one of the biggest issue the tech-affine crowds tend to ignore and not want to hear about. You may not pay it on your utility bill, but society and later generations will pay it.
  - Tenoke 5y ago
    Except Germany has largely been replacing it with coal (and gas) which has costs paid in lives today rather than in unlikely future hypotheticals.
  - Zigurd 5y ago
    Almost every nation with nuclear power has underestimated decommissioning costs. Those costs will go on long after the lifespan of the power plant.
  - euler2100 5y ago
    Care to explain how exactly? I'm genuinely curious.
- luckylion 5y ago
  As a leading politician of the German social democratic party famously said: a kwh you don't use is least expensive. I guess they'll save plenty of money when there's power rationing.
- belorn 5y ago
  Energy subsidies in the EU says the opposit: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/default/files/annex_to_the_state_of_the_energy_union_report_on_energy_subsidies_in_the_eu.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/default/files/annex_to_the... Countries that need a lot of reserve energy is paying a lot of subsidies to fossil fuels. Year in, year out. First you need to pay them in order to keep the plants on standby when renewables are plenty, and then you need to pay them again when demand exceeds the productions of renewables. The outcome is very large and steady stream of money going into the pockets of those who invest into fossil fuel. Nuclear would need a lot in order to catch up to the same level of subsidies.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    Your document's graph shows that France, and a bunch of other countries with nuclear, are subsidizing fossil fuels more than Germany. That seems to be proving the oppposite of your point. It's also interesting that France has generic "electricity" subsidies that are bigger than their "nuclear" subsidies and yet 70% of their electricity is nuclear.
    - belorn 5y ago
      The generic "electricity" subsidies in France seems similar to other countries, so my read is that they are things like transmission lines and other costs that is independent of the technology that generated the power. Could you explain the logic behind that idea that France subsidizes to fossil fuel is proof that nuclear is expensive? To me it is proof that the fossil fuel industry will extract its cut as long as the grid is dependent on it. Also, a technical details. In actually billions, France is not subsidizing fossil fuels more than Germany. France total subsidize is about half of Germany, so the actually money that goes to fossil fuels are quite much smaller as a result.
      - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
        Someone said nuclear is expensive (compared with renewables) which is factually correct. You said that this was wrong, because countries that deployed renewables needed to pay fossil fuels to standby and then pay them again when there's no wind or sun. To back this up you pointed to a document about level of subsidies. That document shows that Germany gives less subsidies to fossil fuels than other countries with nuclear plants, notably France, as a percent of GDP. You now appear to be trying to wiggle out of this on a technicality because Germany has a bigger economy than France, though even then the final numbers are 12.2 billion vs 11.5 billion. But, let's pretend that's what you were saying, oh look, countries with nuclear on average subsidize fossil fuels more in absolute terms. (This is because they are bigger economies, so this is an entirely spurious correlation but even playing by your changed rules, your document doesn't support your argument).
wildmanxx 5y ago
Which is a good thing. Just converting energy sources is not going to save us. We need to tackle the energy sinks too, i.e., getting smarter about how we use the available energy, i.e., mostly being more energy efficient. ("We" as in "humankind".) Raising prices is the right incentive here. In the long run, +50% is not actually that bad. There is room for a lot more.
- _dain_ 5y ago
  paying way more for electricity is not a good thing, sorry.
  - wildmanxx 5y ago
    Funny, I had this exact discussion with a colleague at work the other day. She claimed this is nonsense and won't change anybody's mind. Then she mentioned that she just had bought a new car. I asked what kind, it's a hybrid. I asked why? Well, because her old car was using so much fuel, and with recent price hikes, that became too expensive, so she just bought one that was significantly more fuel efficient. The _exact_ same person! Just 2 minutes after claiming monetary incentives don't work demonstrated that it actually worked for her! I have high hopes that price hikes are what convinces people to change their behavior. Not ads, not appealing to ethics or conciousness or "the future of your kids" or pictures of dying polar bears. You need to feel it in your wallet, then you act, plain and simple.
    - luckylion 5y ago
      > You need to feel it in your wallet, then you act, plain and simple. In that case, we should make the price of power relative to your wealth, shouldn't we? I'm guessing you're an academic and work in tech or consulting, so you make two, three times the national average if you live in Germany. Trippling the price of power will barely register on your level, so you have little incentive to conserve energy. However, if we said that e.g. a kwh costs 1/15000 of your personal wealth, you'd have a lot of incentive, because even if you start the year as a billionaire, you'd be broke if you used 15000kwh. I have a feeling that none of the -typically well-off- proponents of "we must make the people pay more so that they stop consuming" will be a fan of that.

Yup, and we will end up paying 50% more for our energy usage, just because of political swings.

dv_dt 5y ago

Avoiding nuclear will save you money in the long run though

wildmanxx 5y ago
Sad that this is downvoted. The hidden cost of nuclear is one of the biggest issue the tech-affine crowds tend to ignore and not want to hear about. You may not pay it on your utility bill, but society and later generations will pay it.
- Tenoke 5y ago
  Except Germany has largely been replacing it with coal (and gas) which has costs paid in lives today rather than in unlikely future hypotheticals.
- Zigurd 5y ago
  Almost every nation with nuclear power has underestimated decommissioning costs. Those costs will go on long after the lifespan of the power plant.
- euler2100 5y ago
  Care to explain how exactly? I'm genuinely curious.
luckylion 5y ago
As a leading politician of the German social democratic party famously said: a kwh you don't use is least expensive. I guess they'll save plenty of money when there's power rationing.
belorn 5y ago
Energy subsidies in the EU says the opposit: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/default/files/annex_to_the_state_of_the_energy_union_report_on_energy_subsidies_in_the_eu.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/default/files/annex_to_the... Countries that need a lot of reserve energy is paying a lot of subsidies to fossil fuels. Year in, year out. First you need to pay them in order to keep the plants on standby when renewables are plenty, and then you need to pay them again when demand exceeds the productions of renewables. The outcome is very large and steady stream of money going into the pockets of those who invest into fossil fuel. Nuclear would need a lot in order to catch up to the same level of subsidies.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  Your document's graph shows that France, and a bunch of other countries with nuclear, are subsidizing fossil fuels more than Germany. That seems to be proving the oppposite of your point. It's also interesting that France has generic "electricity" subsidies that are bigger than their "nuclear" subsidies and yet 70% of their electricity is nuclear.
  - belorn 5y ago
    The generic "electricity" subsidies in France seems similar to other countries, so my read is that they are things like transmission lines and other costs that is independent of the technology that generated the power. Could you explain the logic behind that idea that France subsidizes to fossil fuel is proof that nuclear is expensive? To me it is proof that the fossil fuel industry will extract its cut as long as the grid is dependent on it. Also, a technical details. In actually billions, France is not subsidizing fossil fuels more than Germany. France total subsidize is about half of Germany, so the actually money that goes to fossil fuels are quite much smaller as a result.
    - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
      Someone said nuclear is expensive (compared with renewables) which is factually correct. You said that this was wrong, because countries that deployed renewables needed to pay fossil fuels to standby and then pay them again when there's no wind or sun. To back this up you pointed to a document about level of subsidies. That document shows that Germany gives less subsidies to fossil fuels than other countries with nuclear plants, notably France, as a percent of GDP. You now appear to be trying to wiggle out of this on a technicality because Germany has a bigger economy than France, though even then the final numbers are 12.2 billion vs 11.5 billion. But, let's pretend that's what you were saying, oh look, countries with nuclear on average subsidize fossil fuels more in absolute terms. (This is because they are bigger economies, so this is an entirely spurious correlation but even playing by your changed rules, your document doesn't support your argument).

wildmanxx 5y ago

Which is a good thing. Just converting energy sources is not going to save us. We need to tackle the energy sinks too, i.e., getting smarter about how we use the available energy, i.e., mostly being more energy efficient. ("We" as in "humankind".) Raising prices is the right incentive here. In the long run, +50% is not actually that bad. There is room for a lot more.

_dain_ 5y ago
paying way more for electricity is not a good thing, sorry.
- wildmanxx 5y ago
  Funny, I had this exact discussion with a colleague at work the other day. She claimed this is nonsense and won't change anybody's mind. Then she mentioned that she just had bought a new car. I asked what kind, it's a hybrid. I asked why? Well, because her old car was using so much fuel, and with recent price hikes, that became too expensive, so she just bought one that was significantly more fuel efficient. The _exact_ same person! Just 2 minutes after claiming monetary incentives don't work demonstrated that it actually worked for her! I have high hopes that price hikes are what convinces people to change their behavior. Not ads, not appealing to ethics or conciousness or "the future of your kids" or pictures of dying polar bears. You need to feel it in your wallet, then you act, plain and simple.
  - luckylion 5y ago
    > You need to feel it in your wallet, then you act, plain and simple. In that case, we should make the price of power relative to your wealth, shouldn't we? I'm guessing you're an academic and work in tech or consulting, so you make two, three times the national average if you live in Germany. Trippling the price of power will barely register on your level, so you have little incentive to conserve energy. However, if we said that e.g. a kwh costs 1/15000 of your personal wealth, you'd have a lot of incentive, because even if you start the year as a billionaire, you'd be broke if you used 15000kwh. I have a feeling that none of the -typically well-off- proponents of "we must make the people pay more so that they stop consuming" will be a fan of that.