2 ms·

> And solar and batteries are cheaper than nuclear on a levelized per kWh basis So I would expect to see countries with higher share of solar generation and le

> And solar and batteries are cheaper than nuclear on a levelized per kWh basis So I would expect to see countries with higher share of solar generation and less nuclear would have lower wholesale electricity prices than ones with less solar and more nuclear? This data isn't easy to find for a layperson like myself, but I'd be surprised if such a correlation existed. > If I were a French taxpayer who just paid €10B to nationalize EDF EDF was state-owned to begin with, and was only partially privatized in 2004 with the French state still retaining 80%+ ownership. The recent re-nationalization was only an acquisition by the state of the remainder. The French taxpayer was paying for it all along.

Kon5ole 4y ago
You will not see lower prices because the true costs of nuclear are hidden in centuries to come and not included in the costs shown today. Nobody presents the actual cost of nuclear because nobody knows. Estimating costs even decades in the future is impossible, let alone centuries. EDF had 50 bn euros in debt and also needs to spend unknown bns more to fix aging plants. This means that nuclear power in France has operated with an average of at least 1 billion euros in losses per year for as long as it has existed. The costs per kWh for French nuclear power have never been correct, since they have obviously not covered the actual costs. You are correct in that the taxpayers pay for nuclear, and this is on top of and in addition to what they directly pay for the electricity. What they pay for the actual electricity is way too little to cover the costs of nuclear. The rest of the costs are hidden in general taxes. Everybody pays for nuclear in France, and they will pay for as long as they live and as long as their children live and so on for generations. The same is true for coal and oil etc of course. We have no idea how much it actually cost humanity to release fossil carbon into the atmosphere, but it's pretty clear by now that it was much more expensive in reality than what we paid when it happened.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
In a free market, price is set by the marginal cost, which in 2022 is almost always power from natural gas generators. Any difference between marginal and actual cost results in profits for the producer rather than price reduction for the consumer.
- prottog 4y ago
  > In a free market Utilities are one of the least free markets ;-) especially in France, where EDF had a legal monopoly on generation for decades. > results in profits for the producer Not necessarily a bad thing; it allows for further investments in capacity and signals new capital to come in and compete. Provided, of course, that it could be a free(ish) market.
pydry 4y ago
>So I would expect to see countries with higher share of solar generation and less nuclear would have lower wholesale electricity prices than ones with less solar and more nuclear? Not necessarily. Subsidies and taxes and debt throw everything out of whack as does every other form of power. You have to analyze on a more granular level than that to see the true picture. Additionally, solar has only been the cheapest form of energy for about 6-7 years and it usually takes 10-15 years to transition away from existing energy to a new form. In France specifically the plants were mostly built in the 70s and 80s at great expense and are paid off now but nearing EOL. Maintenance has also been neglected saving additional costs. Meanwhile Germany has incurred most of the capital costs on its renewable generation capacity in the last 15 years. It's like living in a neglected, crumbling old mansion with a paid off mortgage and claiming that it's cheaper than living in an average 2 bedroom semi because your outgoings are lower... for now. >EDF was state-owned to begin with Because unless you firehose the private sector with subsidies it'll never build an NPP.
- prottog 4y ago
  > Because unless you firehose the private sector with subsidies it'll never build an NPP Similarly, unless you hammer the private sector with mandates it'll never build solar panels atop parking lots? Besides, EDF was at one point the single largest producer of electricity in the world, and France does quite well for a developed country with high living standards in terms of per capita CO2 emissions, on the back of its nuclear program. It seems at least the firehose got them results with nuclear. I'm all in favor of abundant energy for human consumption, especially if it comes from low-externality source, but I do question how much the needle is going to move by mandating solar panels on parking lots, which carries with it its own externalities.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > Similarly, unless you hammer the private sector with mandates it'll never build solar panels atop parking lots? Things can be expensive until lots of people do them and then become cheap. > I'm all in favor of abundant energy for human consumption, especially if it comes from low-externality source, but I do question how much the needle is going to move by mandating solar panels on parking lots, which carries with it its own externalities. France has about 38 million cars. If there are 19 million car parks that qualify at 40m^2 each or 1.4kW, that's 26GW (so about the level you want solar at in your mix with the rest from wind/nuclear/hydro imports/etc
Someone 4y ago
> So I would expect to see countries with higher share of solar generation and less nuclear would have lower wholesale electricity prices than ones with less solar and more nuclear? The costs for existing tech partly are sunk costs. Electricity will get produced as long as the price paid is above marginal costs. The market for electricity also is international. There’s no need for an electricity producer in a country to sell its electricity inside that country. In Europe, there’s a single grid stretching from Portugal to Turkey, from Denmark to Algeria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continental_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continenta...), with additional DC links to the UK, Scandinavia and the baltics. And yes, there will be losses for long-distance connections, so electricity will be mostly consumed ‘near’ to where it’s produced, but any effect of different mixes of electricity sources will be diminished.

Kon5ole 4y ago

You will not see lower prices because the true costs of nuclear are hidden in centuries to come and not included in the costs shown today. Nobody presents the actual cost of nuclear because nobody knows. Estimating costs even decades in the future is impossible, let alone centuries. EDF had 50 bn euros in debt and also needs to spend unknown bns more to fix aging plants. This means that nuclear power in France has operated with an average of at least 1 billion euros in losses per year for as long as it has existed. The costs per kWh for French nuclear power have never been correct, since they have obviously not covered the actual costs. You are correct in that the taxpayers pay for nuclear, and this is on top of and in addition to what they directly pay for the electricity. What they pay for the actual electricity is way too little to cover the costs of nuclear. The rest of the costs are hidden in general taxes. Everybody pays for nuclear in France, and they will pay for as long as they live and as long as their children live and so on for generations. The same is true for coal and oil etc of course. We have no idea how much it actually cost humanity to release fossil carbon into the atmosphere, but it's pretty clear by now that it was much more expensive in reality than what we paid when it happened.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

In a free market, price is set by the marginal cost, which in 2022 is almost always power from natural gas generators. Any difference between marginal and actual cost results in profits for the producer rather than price reduction for the consumer.

prottog 4y ago
> In a free market Utilities are one of the least free markets ;-) especially in France, where EDF had a legal monopoly on generation for decades. > results in profits for the producer Not necessarily a bad thing; it allows for further investments in capacity and signals new capital to come in and compete. Provided, of course, that it could be a free(ish) market.

pydry 4y ago

>So I would expect to see countries with higher share of solar generation and less nuclear would have lower wholesale electricity prices than ones with less solar and more nuclear? Not necessarily. Subsidies and taxes and debt throw everything out of whack as does every other form of power. You have to analyze on a more granular level than that to see the true picture. Additionally, solar has only been the cheapest form of energy for about 6-7 years and it usually takes 10-15 years to transition away from existing energy to a new form. In France specifically the plants were mostly built in the 70s and 80s at great expense and are paid off now but nearing EOL. Maintenance has also been neglected saving additional costs. Meanwhile Germany has incurred most of the capital costs on its renewable generation capacity in the last 15 years. It's like living in a neglected, crumbling old mansion with a paid off mortgage and claiming that it's cheaper than living in an average 2 bedroom semi because your outgoings are lower... for now. >EDF was state-owned to begin with Because unless you firehose the private sector with subsidies it'll never build an NPP.

prottog 4y ago
> Because unless you firehose the private sector with subsidies it'll never build an NPP Similarly, unless you hammer the private sector with mandates it'll never build solar panels atop parking lots? Besides, EDF was at one point the single largest producer of electricity in the world, and France does quite well for a developed country with high living standards in terms of per capita CO2 emissions, on the back of its nuclear program. It seems at least the firehose got them results with nuclear. I'm all in favor of abundant energy for human consumption, especially if it comes from low-externality source, but I do question how much the needle is going to move by mandating solar panels on parking lots, which carries with it its own externalities.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > Similarly, unless you hammer the private sector with mandates it'll never build solar panels atop parking lots? Things can be expensive until lots of people do them and then become cheap. > I'm all in favor of abundant energy for human consumption, especially if it comes from low-externality source, but I do question how much the needle is going to move by mandating solar panels on parking lots, which carries with it its own externalities. France has about 38 million cars. If there are 19 million car parks that qualify at 40m^2 each or 1.4kW, that's 26GW (so about the level you want solar at in your mix with the rest from wind/nuclear/hydro imports/etc

Someone 4y ago

> So I would expect to see countries with higher share of solar generation and less nuclear would have lower wholesale electricity prices than ones with less solar and more nuclear? The costs for existing tech partly are sunk costs. Electricity will get produced as long as the price paid is above marginal costs. The market for electricity also is international. There’s no need for an electricity producer in a country to sell its electricity inside that country. In Europe, there’s a single grid stretching from Portugal to Turkey, from Denmark to Algeria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continental_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continenta...), with additional DC links to the UK, Scandinavia and the baltics. And yes, there will be losses for long-distance connections, so electricity will be mostly consumed ‘near’ to where it’s produced, but any effect of different mixes of electricity sources will be diminished.