4 ms·

We pay that and more because both Germany and Sweden decided that nuclear power is a bad idea. You would pay even more if we weren't selling, which in a sense w

by hurril 3y ago

We pay that and more because both Germany and Sweden decided that nuclear power is a bad idea. You would pay even more if we weren't selling, which in a sense would be more fair because then you would bear the consequences of your own actions. Downvote me all you want, dear germans.

Klinky 3y ago
They would pay more if there were fewer market options, but there aren't, so not sure your point.
- hurril 3y ago
  -Who would pay more for what?- Re-read. That isn't why in the slightest. It isn't about the number of alternatives, it's entirely to do with the cost of producing electricity for the different alternatives. When there's plenty of wind, then wind power is obviously cheap. Sometimes running into the negative, as in: we get paid to use it. This causes _everyone_ to lose money. When there's no wind in large areas, industry power draw (which is most of it by a wide margin), means that something else has to produce the missing energy. If too little electrical energy is produced, the entire grid breaks down, so there's a scuttle to either disconnect sub-nets or add more production. The production that is added is more expensive. This sets the market price.
oezi 3y ago
Nuclear is a bad idea, period. There are less than 20 new reactors in planning in the entire western world and their cost and timeline overruns show that nuclear is a losing ticket. The quicker we transition to renewable + battery, the better. I am sorry that Germans (or should we say Putin's war?) caused higher prices for Swedes, but all studies I have seen show great benefits of the European unified grid for consumer prices.
- hurril 3y ago
  Nuclear is the least bad idea and electricity prices have nothing to do with Putin's war. But sure, you are right that nuclear is very expensive but it doesn't have to be that way; plus: there are a lot of countries changing their minds here at this point. I am not against renewables, I am for keeping our senses. An example of something that just isn't sensible: Fueling my electric car with energy derived from coal, stored in batteries basically built by satan. (Read about the mines.) For decades, we stopped developing nuclear power because of confused environmental groups. (And against: I am not a coal thumper and definitely a green person!) Electricity prices have basically increased five-fold at least, here. And it gets worse every years. When the wind stops, we run coal, oil and gas plants here that are extremely expensive and also destroy the environment. Instead of nuclear that we use to have.
  - uecker 3y ago
    Nuclear economics doesn't work. China just pulled out from Hinkley Point C. EDF made record losses and sits on an ancient fleet and is being renationalized. Westinghouse went bankrupt over two projects. NuScales project just got canceled because - surprise - cost was too high. Really, nuclear looks good on paper but simply is as a technology far too complex and costly.
    - hurril 3y ago
      It is very hard, yes. A lot of things in the regulations probably have to change because the technology works in reality, as opposed to wind and solar, which only works intermittently. We see news like these when there's a lot of wind power, but nothing when we use coal, oil and gas in its stead. Why is that? Ask yourself that question. Opting for even more wind implies the need for backup coal power. Also: a lot of wind economics is pure bs in the sense that they calculate lifetimes that are completely bogus as well as the fact that they, themselves, are not recyclable in the slightest. This is a bubbly/ boomy economy.
      - uecker 3y ago
        I do not have to ask myself the question: I follow energy policy closely and also look at actual data. Of course, we need a solution for time when there is no wind or solar. But this - very obviously - will not be nuclear. Nuclear is far too expensive and everybody who only blames this on regularization only is delusional. The solution will be demand shaping, storage, and gas peakers and this will be driven and optimized by market forces. Also: What is bullshit are estimates for nuclear cost: Projects are started with clearly "optimistic" ideas about cost and end up being completely over budget and it never works without the tax or rate payer footing the bill. Wind, on the other hand is now a huge industry which would not have the growth rates it has even the economics wouldn't work.

by hurril 3y ago

Klinky 3y ago

They would pay more if there were fewer market options, but there aren't, so not sure your point.

hurril 3y ago
-Who would pay more for what?- Re-read. That isn't why in the slightest. It isn't about the number of alternatives, it's entirely to do with the cost of producing electricity for the different alternatives. When there's plenty of wind, then wind power is obviously cheap. Sometimes running into the negative, as in: we get paid to use it. This causes _everyone_ to lose money. When there's no wind in large areas, industry power draw (which is most of it by a wide margin), means that something else has to produce the missing energy. If too little electrical energy is produced, the entire grid breaks down, so there's a scuttle to either disconnect sub-nets or add more production. The production that is added is more expensive. This sets the market price.

oezi 3y ago

Nuclear is a bad idea, period. There are less than 20 new reactors in planning in the entire western world and their cost and timeline overruns show that nuclear is a losing ticket. The quicker we transition to renewable + battery, the better. I am sorry that Germans (or should we say Putin's war?) caused higher prices for Swedes, but all studies I have seen show great benefits of the European unified grid for consumer prices.

hurril 3y ago
Nuclear is the least bad idea and electricity prices have nothing to do with Putin's war. But sure, you are right that nuclear is very expensive but it doesn't have to be that way; plus: there are a lot of countries changing their minds here at this point. I am not against renewables, I am for keeping our senses. An example of something that just isn't sensible: Fueling my electric car with energy derived from coal, stored in batteries basically built by satan. (Read about the mines.) For decades, we stopped developing nuclear power because of confused environmental groups. (And against: I am not a coal thumper and definitely a green person!) Electricity prices have basically increased five-fold at least, here. And it gets worse every years. When the wind stops, we run coal, oil and gas plants here that are extremely expensive and also destroy the environment. Instead of nuclear that we use to have.
- uecker 3y ago
  Nuclear economics doesn't work. China just pulled out from Hinkley Point C. EDF made record losses and sits on an ancient fleet and is being renationalized. Westinghouse went bankrupt over two projects. NuScales project just got canceled because - surprise - cost was too high. Really, nuclear looks good on paper but simply is as a technology far too complex and costly.
  - hurril 3y ago
    It is very hard, yes. A lot of things in the regulations probably have to change because the technology works in reality, as opposed to wind and solar, which only works intermittently. We see news like these when there's a lot of wind power, but nothing when we use coal, oil and gas in its stead. Why is that? Ask yourself that question. Opting for even more wind implies the need for backup coal power. Also: a lot of wind economics is pure bs in the sense that they calculate lifetimes that are completely bogus as well as the fact that they, themselves, are not recyclable in the slightest. This is a bubbly/ boomy economy.
    - uecker 3y ago
      I do not have to ask myself the question: I follow energy policy closely and also look at actual data. Of course, we need a solution for time when there is no wind or solar. But this - very obviously - will not be nuclear. Nuclear is far too expensive and everybody who only blames this on regularization only is delusional. The solution will be demand shaping, storage, and gas peakers and this will be driven and optimized by market forces. Also: What is bullshit are estimates for nuclear cost: Projects are started with clearly "optimistic" ideas about cost and end up being completely over budget and it never works without the tax or rate payer footing the bill. Wind, on the other hand is now a huge industry which would not have the growth rates it has even the economics wouldn't work.