2 ms·

Why? Because you can only amortize something if you can afford it. You are labeling a lot of things as one-off items, but the reality is that the EDF is already

Why? Because you can only amortize something if you can afford it. You are labeling a lot of things as one-off items, but the reality is that the EDF is already heavy in debt that it will take a long time to even pay that off, and eventually there will be a straw that breaks the camel's back. And the price of new plants is such that it's a very heavy straw. Is it really my opinion, or are the things I mentioned actually facts? There was no renewables industry before the Energiewende, Germany implemented a transparent way to fund its creation and the whole thing blew up worldwide. As a consequence of that, a whole lot of co2 emissions in the world were not only removed but prevented entirely. I don't know why anyone would call this a failure. The North-South issue is discussed frequently, maybe not so much in the mainstream (although I honestly wouldn't know), but e.g. I see it mentioned in social media among people reporting on or dealing with energy. One of the proposals that made sense to me is that Germany should no longer have a single market and a single price, but several regions. This would force states that are blocking development like Bavaria to finally put up or shut up, e.g. either build more or pay more. Regardless of that it's clear there needs to be more grid buildout, it's really not the case this is not discussed. That you ask me why this issue wasn't solved initially is I guess not an unexpected viewpoint considering the differences in the way France and Germany work. France is more centrally planned whereas the states hold a lot of say on regulations in Germany. For the sake of this discussion it's not important which way is better, but it just is like this and it makes no sense to solve problems in a way they're otherwise never solved. Also in the end the same questions could be raised for nuclear plants: why were any built before e.g. there was a plan to store nuclear waste? We are over 60 years into their commercial use and only a handful of countries even have a plan on what to do with it. A lot of money was spent on temporary storages worldwide, it would've been a lot cheaper to first solve the problem completely. So I'd dare say it's anyway not possible to solve problems completely before you actually did anything, so renewables shouldn't be kept to a non-existing standard.

pyrale 3y ago
> Why? Because you can only amortize something if you can afford it. Money can always be borrowed for a profitable investment. > Regardless of that it's clear there needs to be more grid buildout, it's really not the case this is not discussed. Yeah, that was my point. It's been known forever, and is only being tackled now. With proper planning, it would have been online for a while now. France is way lower in terms of renewables use, but we're already pumping investment in our TSO in order to open our options for future electric production and interconnections. > Also in the end the same questions could be raised for nuclear plants: why were any built before e.g. there was a plan to store nuclear waste? Work to determine how to store waste has started 30 years ago. That's the reason we have a solution on the way now. That's a good example of long-term planning. > renewables shouldn't be kept to a non-existing standard. My point isn't even about renewables, Germany is rich enough to live through that expense. My point is that a little planning would probably have resulted in funding split more evenly between the different issues. The problem Germany currently has is that by offering subventions without much plannings, most of the effort went in problems that could be solved easily, and optimized to extract subsidies. A French approach would have been to nationalize and merge the 4 TSOs. That would be unlikely for Germany. But a more balanced German attempt could have been to earmark a significant share of the subsidies to grid innovations and investments, whether it's batteries, new lines, interconnections, automated stability mechanisms, etc...
- locallost 3y ago
  Sure it can be borrowed, but only if there's a realistic chance of it being paid back. If you are struggling now with "paid off" plants, try managing your debt when you have the same costs as today, plus debt for new plants. I think the math is pretty simple - you need to earn more to pay it off. Otherwise it would be a bit like saying "I just bought three new houses, but I don't need to earn more to pay it off". It won't work. Renewables exist realistically for 20 years now, with a big expansion in the last 10. Nuclear exists for 60 years now, and still has no real long term storage solution, spending dozens or probably hundreds of billion worldwide on temporary storage. In the first case you say "wait until you figure everything out", in the second "the research is ongoing". I understand both approaches, as long as it's consistent, so either "plan and solve everything ahead", or "solve issues along the way". Whatever issues and cost grid connections cause, it's nowhere near the costs of nuclear waste, which will cost the taxpayers in Germany over 100 billion until it's solved. https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-deal-with-energy-companies/a-36089376 https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-d...
  - pyrale 3y ago
    > Nuclear exists for 60 years now, and still has no real long term storage solution I can't do much in terms of discussion if you're not willing to accept the existing designs for subterranean storage as a long term solution. > If you are struggling now with "paid off" plants Besides the scare quotes, the previous plants were, indeed, paid off. That is the proof that they worked as an investment. But, as with storage, you seem to be uninterested in how the company works, what the unit costs are, or where the debt comes from. It seems pointless to keep discussing the matter, as you're unwilling to listen. > In the first case you say "wait until you figure everything out", in the second "the research is ongoing". I have explained my position in the previous message. It's ok if you don't want to acknowledge it, but please don't put words in my mouth. Also, storage research has been completed for about a decade now.
    - locallost 3y ago
      What is important is that not a single country had a solution when they started their programs. That is the point. You said it's been researched for 30 years now. But why is that ok when you insist that renewables should've figured out details like grid improvements before doing anything? Why is it ok to waste billions on temporary storage solutions for decades if it's not ok to invest in renewables before you improve the grid first. Both things can be viewed as wasteful, but you only have a problem with the second. It's nit-picky in the case of renewables and inconsistent. It's what you said, I am not putting anything in your mouth. They are paid off, but if you are struggling with debt with those, you will not be able to finance anything new. Look at residents of South Carolina: their cancelled nuclear plant cost 9 billion, and they are now paying for non-existing electricity on their bills because the company needs to pay it off [1]. It's simple. Relevant quote: "Thanks to a state law passed in 2007, residents in South Carolina are footing the bill for a massive failed nuclear reactor program that cost a total of $9 billion. Analysts say that corporate mismanagement and poor oversight means residents and their families will be paying for that failed energy program — which never produced a watt of energy — for the next 20 years or more." [1] https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/ https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new...

pyrale 3y ago

> Why? Because you can only amortize something if you can afford it. Money can always be borrowed for a profitable investment. > Regardless of that it's clear there needs to be more grid buildout, it's really not the case this is not discussed. Yeah, that was my point. It's been known forever, and is only being tackled now. With proper planning, it would have been online for a while now. France is way lower in terms of renewables use, but we're already pumping investment in our TSO in order to open our options for future electric production and interconnections. > Also in the end the same questions could be raised for nuclear plants: why were any built before e.g. there was a plan to store nuclear waste? Work to determine how to store waste has started 30 years ago. That's the reason we have a solution on the way now. That's a good example of long-term planning. > renewables shouldn't be kept to a non-existing standard. My point isn't even about renewables, Germany is rich enough to live through that expense. My point is that a little planning would probably have resulted in funding split more evenly between the different issues. The problem Germany currently has is that by offering subventions without much plannings, most of the effort went in problems that could be solved easily, and optimized to extract subsidies. A French approach would have been to nationalize and merge the 4 TSOs. That would be unlikely for Germany. But a more balanced German attempt could have been to earmark a significant share of the subsidies to grid innovations and investments, whether it's batteries, new lines, interconnections, automated stability mechanisms, etc...

locallost 3y ago
Sure it can be borrowed, but only if there's a realistic chance of it being paid back. If you are struggling now with "paid off" plants, try managing your debt when you have the same costs as today, plus debt for new plants. I think the math is pretty simple - you need to earn more to pay it off. Otherwise it would be a bit like saying "I just bought three new houses, but I don't need to earn more to pay it off". It won't work. Renewables exist realistically for 20 years now, with a big expansion in the last 10. Nuclear exists for 60 years now, and still has no real long term storage solution, spending dozens or probably hundreds of billion worldwide on temporary storage. In the first case you say "wait until you figure everything out", in the second "the research is ongoing". I understand both approaches, as long as it's consistent, so either "plan and solve everything ahead", or "solve issues along the way". Whatever issues and cost grid connections cause, it's nowhere near the costs of nuclear waste, which will cost the taxpayers in Germany over 100 billion until it's solved. https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-deal-with-energy-companies/a-36089376 https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-d...
- pyrale 3y ago
  > Nuclear exists for 60 years now, and still has no real long term storage solution I can't do much in terms of discussion if you're not willing to accept the existing designs for subterranean storage as a long term solution. > If you are struggling now with "paid off" plants Besides the scare quotes, the previous plants were, indeed, paid off. That is the proof that they worked as an investment. But, as with storage, you seem to be uninterested in how the company works, what the unit costs are, or where the debt comes from. It seems pointless to keep discussing the matter, as you're unwilling to listen. > In the first case you say "wait until you figure everything out", in the second "the research is ongoing". I have explained my position in the previous message. It's ok if you don't want to acknowledge it, but please don't put words in my mouth. Also, storage research has been completed for about a decade now.
  - locallost 3y ago
    What is important is that not a single country had a solution when they started their programs. That is the point. You said it's been researched for 30 years now. But why is that ok when you insist that renewables should've figured out details like grid improvements before doing anything? Why is it ok to waste billions on temporary storage solutions for decades if it's not ok to invest in renewables before you improve the grid first. Both things can be viewed as wasteful, but you only have a problem with the second. It's nit-picky in the case of renewables and inconsistent. It's what you said, I am not putting anything in your mouth. They are paid off, but if you are struggling with debt with those, you will not be able to finance anything new. Look at residents of South Carolina: their cancelled nuclear plant cost 9 billion, and they are now paying for non-existing electricity on their bills because the company needs to pay it off [1]. It's simple. Relevant quote: "Thanks to a state law passed in 2007, residents in South Carolina are footing the bill for a massive failed nuclear reactor program that cost a total of $9 billion. Analysts say that corporate mismanagement and poor oversight means residents and their families will be paying for that failed energy program — which never produced a watt of energy — for the next 20 years or more." [1] https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/ https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new...