4 ms·

It doesn't make much sense to say the company is making a profit, but it's only losing money because of maintenance and it will not be able to replace its curre

It doesn't make much sense to say the company is making a profit, but it's only losing money because of maintenance and it will not be able to replace its current plants because it's undercapitalized. All those things are a part of running a business. The cost of electricity is not fuel plus operations, it's the funding for a plant, the maintenance, and once that's paid off the depreciation of the asset which will eventually need to be replaced. I don't understand why this is so difficult. Also for the EDF being forced to buy Areva, I mean, you need to pick a side. Either you are a real business and you don't need to do that, or you are a state owned political tool. If it's a real business, will it go to a bank or issue bonds for hundreds of billions it will take to eventually replace the current plants? If not, then that investment in Areva will be very cheap when the time comes for the state to fund the new plants. Macron is talking about new ones for at least four years.

pyrale 3y ago
> it's only losing money because of maintenance The "grand carénage" isn't maintenance, it's an investment to extend the lifetime by 10 years. Operations and maintenance are factored in electricity prices and aren't the reason these plants were shut down in 2022. > I don't understand why this is so difficult. [...] I mean, you need to pick a side. It feels like you're misinterpreting my position. My point is that 1) production costs are low and well reflected in consumer prices and 2) the business is viable. It is completely unrelated to whether EDF is a private company or a state-owned company, whether the leadership and shareholders and are making sound decisions or whether the money made from current operations will be reinvested into new production facilities.
- locallost 3y ago
  Whatever it is, it costs EDF money, and therefore it needs to be a part of the price. Also we were at this point previously so I can only repeat what I'd already said: almost a quarter of the total plants were out last year for unplanned maintenance, meaning they had cracks in the pipes and couldn't even run. This year started in a similar way: more unexpected problems, this will again cost money. I also posted a link to the president of the EDF at the time the plants were built. His quote: "the plants were designed to run for just over 30 years". So where are the replacements. And if they were starting to get built, who will pay for it? EDF is 65 billion in debt, Flamanville 3 cost 15 billion and is unfinished etc. etc. Does not sound viable to me. Can they go somewhere and borrow hundreds of billions for new plants? Here is an article from 2012, where it was already back then clear change is needed: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-france-nuclear-watchdog-idUKBRE8AL0TA20121122 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-france-nuclear-watchdog-i... . But it never happened. My guess is there was no money for it. I am not a free market zealot, but you cannot compare the final price to the one in Germany. The electricity market there contains hundreds of companies that all need to be profitable, or at least not lose money, or they will simply be removed from the market. The only exception I can think of are the four electricity distributors which have regional monopolies for obvious reasons. Even the made up number of 500 billion for renewables, even if true, would not mean it cost anybody anything other than what they paid for electricity - the renewables surcharge was always a part of the bill until it was removed. Every model has flaws, but at least here you always know what the true price is, and Scholz or Merkel or whoever doesn't go around making plans on how they will build nuclear plants, which Macron does all the time.
  - pyrale 3y ago
    > I am not a free market zealot, but you cannot compare the final price to the one in Germany. Well, I don't disagree with this. You were the one claiming that electricity is cheaper in Germany, and trying to find a way to compare the two. Germany's prices are taxed for future investments, while France's prices are calculed to amortize past investments. That's a significant accounting difference. However, when you measure electricity costs, you have to understand which production systems create it. France's current power (and therefore prices) comes from nuclear system built in the 70's to 90's, which happened to be extremely cheap and reliable, and that is why we have cheap energy 40 years later. I can't claim that the next generation of nuclear plants (or anything else, it's not obvious that France will have nuclear plants in 30 years at the current pace) will be as cheap, so we may have to pay more in the future. > Whatever it is, it costs EDF money, and therefore it needs to be a part of the price. I have no doubt these investments will be amortized in the next 10 years, and factored in French power bills. > The electricity market there contains hundreds of companies that all need to be profitable, or at least not lose money, or they will simply be removed from the market. No offense, but as a French person interested in the electricity industry, the German model isn't a great example. With the money poured in the Energiewende (and, I mean, good for them, they have enough money to waste it), the results are almost criminal. France doesn't have that money, so we can't afford quixotic, inefficient policies. > Here is an article from 2012, where it was already back then clear change is needed My guess is that after Hollande's election, no one wanted to build new nuclear (which they probably should have considering France's low interest rates) but no one had a good plan for an alternative energy source. Honestly, there's nothing good to say about France's electricity policy between 2007 and 2020. > Scholz or Merkel or whoever doesn't go around making plans on how they will build nuclear plants, which Macron does all the time. Well, yes. That's Macron. Be happy you only hear about his international policy lies.
    - locallost 3y ago
      No, I was replying to a person saying how Germany has expensive electricity (because Luddites, I guess opposing nuclear). It's not the case because it's an apples to oranges comparison, and I used France as a counter example for nuclear. There's a lot of misinformation on the cost of the "Energiewende", I routinely see the same people throwing around numbers of 300 billion, 400 billion, 500 billion etc. 500 is the most common one, but it's baseless. I believe it was an estimate on what it might be in 2025 or something, but it has no relation to reality. In the end, whatever the correct amount may be, the result is not only not criminal, it is amazing. A whole new industry was kickstarted, that resulted in deployment of terawatts of renewables capacity worldwide to date. It almost singlehandedly killed deployment of new fossil fuel plants in many countries of the world and is now starting to retire existing fossil fuel plants. And it's still growing exponentially, we will realistically see 1TW per year deployment very soon. The IEA makes estimates on future deployment and it's a joke at this point because every year their updated estimates for 2030 are shattered. I cannot imagine a more successful policy if your goal is to decarbonize the world. My point about Macron is not that his policies are wrong or that he is dishonest, I actually don't have a real problem with french nuclear, old or new. The point was that he is involved at all, and that's because the EDF cannot proceed without the government, it cannot really fund them on its own (hence, their prices are not real). You say they should've built new ones 10 years ago, but that's exactly my point. If they'd done that when they should've, the price now would not be 20c per kWh today, but a lot more than that. Now the price is "low" but at the cost of the infrastructure running on fumes.

pyrale 3y ago

> it's only losing money because of maintenance The "grand carénage" isn't maintenance, it's an investment to extend the lifetime by 10 years. Operations and maintenance are factored in electricity prices and aren't the reason these plants were shut down in 2022. > I don't understand why this is so difficult. [...] I mean, you need to pick a side. It feels like you're misinterpreting my position. My point is that 1) production costs are low and well reflected in consumer prices and 2) the business is viable. It is completely unrelated to whether EDF is a private company or a state-owned company, whether the leadership and shareholders and are making sound decisions or whether the money made from current operations will be reinvested into new production facilities.

locallost 3y ago
Whatever it is, it costs EDF money, and therefore it needs to be a part of the price. Also we were at this point previously so I can only repeat what I'd already said: almost a quarter of the total plants were out last year for unplanned maintenance, meaning they had cracks in the pipes and couldn't even run. This year started in a similar way: more unexpected problems, this will again cost money. I also posted a link to the president of the EDF at the time the plants were built. His quote: "the plants were designed to run for just over 30 years". So where are the replacements. And if they were starting to get built, who will pay for it? EDF is 65 billion in debt, Flamanville 3 cost 15 billion and is unfinished etc. etc. Does not sound viable to me. Can they go somewhere and borrow hundreds of billions for new plants? Here is an article from 2012, where it was already back then clear change is needed: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-france-nuclear-watchdog-idUKBRE8AL0TA20121122 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-france-nuclear-watchdog-i... . But it never happened. My guess is there was no money for it. I am not a free market zealot, but you cannot compare the final price to the one in Germany. The electricity market there contains hundreds of companies that all need to be profitable, or at least not lose money, or they will simply be removed from the market. The only exception I can think of are the four electricity distributors which have regional monopolies for obvious reasons. Even the made up number of 500 billion for renewables, even if true, would not mean it cost anybody anything other than what they paid for electricity - the renewables surcharge was always a part of the bill until it was removed. Every model has flaws, but at least here you always know what the true price is, and Scholz or Merkel or whoever doesn't go around making plans on how they will build nuclear plants, which Macron does all the time.
- pyrale 3y ago
  > I am not a free market zealot, but you cannot compare the final price to the one in Germany. Well, I don't disagree with this. You were the one claiming that electricity is cheaper in Germany, and trying to find a way to compare the two. Germany's prices are taxed for future investments, while France's prices are calculed to amortize past investments. That's a significant accounting difference. However, when you measure electricity costs, you have to understand which production systems create it. France's current power (and therefore prices) comes from nuclear system built in the 70's to 90's, which happened to be extremely cheap and reliable, and that is why we have cheap energy 40 years later. I can't claim that the next generation of nuclear plants (or anything else, it's not obvious that France will have nuclear plants in 30 years at the current pace) will be as cheap, so we may have to pay more in the future. > Whatever it is, it costs EDF money, and therefore it needs to be a part of the price. I have no doubt these investments will be amortized in the next 10 years, and factored in French power bills. > The electricity market there contains hundreds of companies that all need to be profitable, or at least not lose money, or they will simply be removed from the market. No offense, but as a French person interested in the electricity industry, the German model isn't a great example. With the money poured in the Energiewende (and, I mean, good for them, they have enough money to waste it), the results are almost criminal. France doesn't have that money, so we can't afford quixotic, inefficient policies. > Here is an article from 2012, where it was already back then clear change is needed My guess is that after Hollande's election, no one wanted to build new nuclear (which they probably should have considering France's low interest rates) but no one had a good plan for an alternative energy source. Honestly, there's nothing good to say about France's electricity policy between 2007 and 2020. > Scholz or Merkel or whoever doesn't go around making plans on how they will build nuclear plants, which Macron does all the time. Well, yes. That's Macron. Be happy you only hear about his international policy lies.
  - locallost 3y ago
    No, I was replying to a person saying how Germany has expensive electricity (because Luddites, I guess opposing nuclear). It's not the case because it's an apples to oranges comparison, and I used France as a counter example for nuclear. There's a lot of misinformation on the cost of the "Energiewende", I routinely see the same people throwing around numbers of 300 billion, 400 billion, 500 billion etc. 500 is the most common one, but it's baseless. I believe it was an estimate on what it might be in 2025 or something, but it has no relation to reality. In the end, whatever the correct amount may be, the result is not only not criminal, it is amazing. A whole new industry was kickstarted, that resulted in deployment of terawatts of renewables capacity worldwide to date. It almost singlehandedly killed deployment of new fossil fuel plants in many countries of the world and is now starting to retire existing fossil fuel plants. And it's still growing exponentially, we will realistically see 1TW per year deployment very soon. The IEA makes estimates on future deployment and it's a joke at this point because every year their updated estimates for 2030 are shattered. I cannot imagine a more successful policy if your goal is to decarbonize the world. My point about Macron is not that his policies are wrong or that he is dishonest, I actually don't have a real problem with french nuclear, old or new. The point was that he is involved at all, and that's because the EDF cannot proceed without the government, it cannot really fund them on its own (hence, their prices are not real). You say they should've built new ones 10 years ago, but that's exactly my point. If they'd done that when they should've, the price now would not be 20c per kWh today, but a lot more than that. Now the price is "low" but at the cost of the infrastructure running on fumes.