7 ms·

Yeah, and aren't like have the plants currently not working, either because it's to hot or they're in maintenance or it's too expensive to repair them? And EDF,

Yeah, and aren't like have the plants currently not working, either because it's to hot or they're in maintenance or it's too expensive to repair them? And EDF, the biggest company behind nuclear power generation has huge amounts of debt and needs (is?) to be nationalized? From what I can gather, nuclear power was never cheap. It seems no country calculates the real cost - everything's subsidized to be even competitive. In Germany, after the power companies reaped the profits, they said they need to be subsidized to dismantle them, as the costs were to high. The waste disposal seems to be also subsidized (be it that the state searches for locations and builds them?) or Building those new and plants seems to be a gigantic money pit - look at the UK. Didn't they surpass the 30 billion mark and no end in sight? And that they can't be built fast? And who talkes about the real environmental (even CO2) cost to even produce a fuel rod? Everybody points to France as the poster boy for nuclear power. But it seems that it is a total disaster. Unfortunatley in German, but can maybe translated: https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2022-08/deutschland-frankreich-atomstrom-energie-stromhandel/seite-2 https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2022-08/deutschland-fran...

Jensson 4y ago
Germany will pay hundreds of billions in electricity this year since they don't have enough. Nuclear would have been a bargain.
- Jansemon 4y ago
  No, this seems to be false. France is importing electricity for years from Germany - at least since 2015. I'm not sure why you're saying that France only has an issue because of Germany? Where do you get that from? Even a french power grid operator is saying that they import more power from Germany, than they're exporting (https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/cross-border-electricity-trading https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/cross-border-electrici...). But you're not even responding to my main concern - that nuclear power is so expensive, that it is never competitive. Only when subsidized. And that is for power plants that are already built - not new ones (which seem to be an even greater money pit). Why is the biggest nuclear power company unable to make money in France and needs to be rescued by the government? I'd say if it makes sense and helps us in our current situation, just subsidize the heck out of it, even if it costs us as a country lots of money. But it absolutely doesn't seem environmentally friendly, not even regarding CO2. And it doesn't seem to be feasible to quickly build nuclear power. But yes, Germany fucked up regarding its dependency on gas (from one source and then it's even from a country like Russia).
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Now put in your cost function all the cost effects of coal to the land, the people and atmosphere. Nuclear has been an absolute bargin and had more countries acted like France we wouldn't have many of the problems we have now. > not even regarding CO2. That is 100% false. Please show me the study that shows this. Every single study I have seen suggest the opposite.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  What makes you think, Germany doesn't have enough electricity? Actually quite the contrary, we produced an additonal 20 TWh to fill in for the gaps left by the French nuclear plants not delivering. (And a lot of other plants in Europe are not running on full power due to lack of cooling water)
  - aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
    >What makes you think, Germany doesn't have enough electricity? @RemindMe_OfThis in January 2023
    - _ph_ 4y ago
      Gladly. But as I said, possible shortages are gas for heating, industrial production, not electricity.
      - aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
        15% of German electricity production is from natural gas. https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterprises/Energy/Production/Tables/gross-electricity-production.html https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterpris...
        _ph_ 4y ago
        Yes, and? Currently less than 35% of the German gas comes from Russia. Leaves way enough for electricity. The question is only, who gets cuts, if there isn't enough gas in the winter. The law says, industry first, heating second. The only debate is, how much cuts to private heating are a good trade off for supporting the industry. And as the Germany are very protective of the industry, there will probably a compromise of somewhat reduced heating (just wear a sweater instead of a t-shirt) and keeping all industry alive. Also of course, all companies are scrambling to secure their energy needs. This is how you deal with looming crisises: you identify them, you act to prepare. And suddenly the worst is no longer a thread. German gas storage is already filled up to 75%.
panick21_ 4y ago
In France the price of electricity is incredibly low so of course power was very subsidized. However the investment in nuclear in France still payed of big time. Consider a alternative solution where you use coal power, the only realistic alternative at the time. Coal is absolutely horrible for air quality and incredibly destructive to the environment. Any rational person would say it a huge advantage for a country to have heavily invested in nuclear. The real failure of France is not having continued the investment in nuclear, their failure is that they stopped investing and advancing technology in 1990s. > And who talkes about the real environmental (even CO2) cost to even produce a fuel rod? Every single end to end analysis shows that CO2 of nuclear is tiny.
- philipkglass 4y ago
  France's newest operating reactor, Civaux 2, entered commercial operation in 2002: https://www.world-nuclear.org/reactor/default.aspx/CIVAUX-2 https://www.world-nuclear.org/reactor/default.aspx/CIVAUX-2 France started building its first unit of the next-generation EPR at Flamanville in 2007: https://www.world-nuclear.org/reactor/default.aspx/FLAMANVILLE-3 https://www.world-nuclear.org/reactor/default.aspx/FLAMANVIL... There was a ~5 year gap where France stopped work on adding reactors. France would probably be building more EPRs now if the planned 5-year construction of Flamanville 3 hadn't stretched out to 15 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
  - urthor 4y ago
    Exactly right. The core problem with nuclear isn't so much the safety record (although this has been a problem). The issue is building Flamanville and co have been so extraordinarily expensive. Any new nuclear plant will lose an incredible amount of money as solar energy becomes more and more cost efficient.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Well we are still building with 1960s technology because the industry has been so beaten down. Are we just gone accept that nuclear is just inherently to expensive and that can never change. Are we just inherently unable to look at those project and ask, why did it happen that way. Why are we building inherently old technology and are doing it far worse then 20 years before. When in the 1970s Jimmy Carter tried to push solar and wind, but the tech clearly wasn't ready. Did we just go 'well that's it then'. No people just pushed it, demanded it, forced politicians to have national labs finance it. When it became almost viable it was subsidized in million large and tiny ways all around the world. When there was negative news about solar and wind the Germans would just double down with their strategy. And yet, a few nuclear reactors are to expensive to build, shut down the whole industry forever. Lets never try to improve or use reactor technology developed after 1960.

Jensson 4y ago

Germany will pay hundreds of billions in electricity this year since they don't have enough. Nuclear would have been a bargain.

Jansemon 4y ago
No, this seems to be false. France is importing electricity for years from Germany - at least since 2015. I'm not sure why you're saying that France only has an issue because of Germany? Where do you get that from? Even a french power grid operator is saying that they import more power from Germany, than they're exporting (https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/cross-border-electricity-trading https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/cross-border-electrici...). But you're not even responding to my main concern - that nuclear power is so expensive, that it is never competitive. Only when subsidized. And that is for power plants that are already built - not new ones (which seem to be an even greater money pit). Why is the biggest nuclear power company unable to make money in France and needs to be rescued by the government? I'd say if it makes sense and helps us in our current situation, just subsidize the heck out of it, even if it costs us as a country lots of money. But it absolutely doesn't seem environmentally friendly, not even regarding CO2. And it doesn't seem to be feasible to quickly build nuclear power. But yes, Germany fucked up regarding its dependency on gas (from one source and then it's even from a country like Russia).
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Now put in your cost function all the cost effects of coal to the land, the people and atmosphere. Nuclear has been an absolute bargin and had more countries acted like France we wouldn't have many of the problems we have now. > not even regarding CO2. That is 100% false. Please show me the study that shows this. Every single study I have seen suggest the opposite.
_ph_ 4y ago
What makes you think, Germany doesn't have enough electricity? Actually quite the contrary, we produced an additonal 20 TWh to fill in for the gaps left by the French nuclear plants not delivering. (And a lot of other plants in Europe are not running on full power due to lack of cooling water)
- aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
  >What makes you think, Germany doesn't have enough electricity? @RemindMe_OfThis in January 2023
  - _ph_ 4y ago
    Gladly. But as I said, possible shortages are gas for heating, industrial production, not electricity.
    - aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
      15% of German electricity production is from natural gas. https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterprises/Energy/Production/Tables/gross-electricity-production.html https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterpris...
      - _ph_ 4y ago
        Yes, and? Currently less than 35% of the German gas comes from Russia. Leaves way enough for electricity. The question is only, who gets cuts, if there isn't enough gas in the winter. The law says, industry first, heating second. The only debate is, how much cuts to private heating are a good trade off for supporting the industry. And as the Germany are very protective of the industry, there will probably a compromise of somewhat reduced heating (just wear a sweater instead of a t-shirt) and keeping all industry alive. Also of course, all companies are scrambling to secure their energy needs. This is how you deal with looming crisises: you identify them, you act to prepare. And suddenly the worst is no longer a thread. German gas storage is already filled up to 75%.

panick21_ 4y ago

In France the price of electricity is incredibly low so of course power was very subsidized. However the investment in nuclear in France still payed of big time. Consider a alternative solution where you use coal power, the only realistic alternative at the time. Coal is absolutely horrible for air quality and incredibly destructive to the environment. Any rational person would say it a huge advantage for a country to have heavily invested in nuclear. The real failure of France is not having continued the investment in nuclear, their failure is that they stopped investing and advancing technology in 1990s. > And who talkes about the real environmental (even CO2) cost to even produce a fuel rod? Every single end to end analysis shows that CO2 of nuclear is tiny.

philipkglass 4y ago
France's newest operating reactor, Civaux 2, entered commercial operation in 2002: https://www.world-nuclear.org/reactor/default.aspx/CIVAUX-2 https://www.world-nuclear.org/reactor/default.aspx/CIVAUX-2 France started building its first unit of the next-generation EPR at Flamanville in 2007: https://www.world-nuclear.org/reactor/default.aspx/FLAMANVILLE-3 https://www.world-nuclear.org/reactor/default.aspx/FLAMANVIL... There was a ~5 year gap where France stopped work on adding reactors. France would probably be building more EPRs now if the planned 5-year construction of Flamanville 3 hadn't stretched out to 15 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
- urthor 4y ago
  Exactly right. The core problem with nuclear isn't so much the safety record (although this has been a problem). The issue is building Flamanville and co have been so extraordinarily expensive. Any new nuclear plant will lose an incredible amount of money as solar energy becomes more and more cost efficient.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Well we are still building with 1960s technology because the industry has been so beaten down. Are we just gone accept that nuclear is just inherently to expensive and that can never change. Are we just inherently unable to look at those project and ask, why did it happen that way. Why are we building inherently old technology and are doing it far worse then 20 years before. When in the 1970s Jimmy Carter tried to push solar and wind, but the tech clearly wasn't ready. Did we just go 'well that's it then'. No people just pushed it, demanded it, forced politicians to have national labs finance it. When it became almost viable it was subsidized in million large and tiny ways all around the world. When there was negative news about solar and wind the Germans would just double down with their strategy. And yet, a few nuclear reactors are to expensive to build, shut down the whole industry forever. Lets never try to improve or use reactor technology developed after 1960.