4 ms·

It's an all-government show now. EDF had earlier this year 64.5 Billion Euro debt. It sells electricity to the consumer, operates the grid, operates the power p

by _19qg 3y ago

It's an all-government show now. EDF had earlier this year 64.5 Billion Euro debt. It sells electricity to the consumer, operates the grid, operates the power plants, build the power plants. Their mismanagement is amplified by the lack of competition. It hides the large losses of the electricity sector. Now they also pay for the "favor" to construct a nuclear power plant in the UK, where they carry the rising losses, which the Chinese now are refusing to pay. They would need to increase the electricity price to be profitable, but that's impossible, just in case the politicians want to be reelected -> debt goes to the taxpayer. I wonder how the finance all this debt? French debt is now at > 3000 billion Euro. 115 % debt/gdp. It's a mostly state owned monopoly on electricity. It's not a market-oriented energy landscape at all. Energy socialism. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/opinion/frances-nuclear-power-sector-is-not-delivering/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/opinion/... > declared and enacted government policy Delivery is the problem. See the main tasks of a) keeping the aging and outdated reactors online, b) building new plants, c) developing new types of plants, d) innovating and e) financing the whole show with government money. They are so desperate, such that EDF is still cooperating with Rosatom/Russia...

mpweiher 3y ago
I love it how you don’t even bat an eyelid when one of your outlandish claims turns out to be made up out of thin air…and just move on to the next one. A wonderful Gish Gallop..
- lispm 3y ago
  I love how you go on, having exposed that you even don't know the difference between a powerplant and a reactor. All the while you claim others to be 'comically incorrect'. You should really tone down and don't say that anti-nuclear people are clueless, while you are yourself demonstrating a lot of ignorance.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    Good grief. In common usage, the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, particularly in Germany where plants often consist of a single reactor. But yeah, that bit of terminological sloppiness is a total game changer...about what exactly? Pretty much all your claims are, in fact, comically incorrect: 1. nuclear is too expensive. It is not. It is clearly and obviously cheaper than renewables. See France v. Germany electricity prices. Taking the most expensive outlier in cost and claiming that to be the norm is comically incorrect. Well, if you assume an honest mistake, which admittedly is difficult with that level of wrong. So OK: not comically incorrect, just plain old dishonest. 2. nuclear is unsafe It is not. It is either among the safest or the safest form of energy production we have. 3. nuclear takes too long It does not. Average time to build is 7.5 years, consistently. France converted their electricity production to nuclear in 20 years, Germany hasn't managed half of that in 20 years with renewables. Again, focusing on a few outliers that take a very long time and claiming that to be the norm is comically incorrect. Or just dishonest see above. 4. nuclear is on the way out There is a massive expansion going on. It was on the way out a few years back, but the catastrophe that is the German Energiewende made non-ideologically captured countries realize they need reliable grid-level supply. Russian gas backup isn't it. But you obviously know better than those countries as to what they are actually doing. Again, either comically incorrect or dishonest. 5. nuclear waste storage is unsolved Do tell the countries that have built long-term storage that they haven't. And tell the facilities that are doing the intermediate storage just fine that it isn't working. This one I wouldn't classify as just plain old incorrect, not comically so, as it is somewhat tricky to navigate through all the misinformation and find out what's going on.
    - lispm 3y ago
      > particularly in Germany where plants often consist of a single reactor We were arguing about nuclear power in Japan. In 2011 Fukushima had one of the largest plants in the world, with six reactors. Many powerplants in Japan had more than one reactor. But you did not know that? You also never seemed to have heard of the events at the other reactors, like the four ones in Daini. Your list reads like that one of a fanboy, it has very little to do with reality.
      - 3y ago

by _19qg 3y ago

mpweiher 3y ago

I love it how you don’t even bat an eyelid when one of your outlandish claims turns out to be made up out of thin air…and just move on to the next one. A wonderful Gish Gallop..

lispm 3y ago
I love how you go on, having exposed that you even don't know the difference between a powerplant and a reactor. All the while you claim others to be 'comically incorrect'. You should really tone down and don't say that anti-nuclear people are clueless, while you are yourself demonstrating a lot of ignorance.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  Good grief. In common usage, the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, particularly in Germany where plants often consist of a single reactor. But yeah, that bit of terminological sloppiness is a total game changer...about what exactly? Pretty much all your claims are, in fact, comically incorrect: 1. nuclear is too expensive. It is not. It is clearly and obviously cheaper than renewables. See France v. Germany electricity prices. Taking the most expensive outlier in cost and claiming that to be the norm is comically incorrect. Well, if you assume an honest mistake, which admittedly is difficult with that level of wrong. So OK: not comically incorrect, just plain old dishonest. 2. nuclear is unsafe It is not. It is either among the safest or the safest form of energy production we have. 3. nuclear takes too long It does not. Average time to build is 7.5 years, consistently. France converted their electricity production to nuclear in 20 years, Germany hasn't managed half of that in 20 years with renewables. Again, focusing on a few outliers that take a very long time and claiming that to be the norm is comically incorrect. Or just dishonest see above. 4. nuclear is on the way out There is a massive expansion going on. It was on the way out a few years back, but the catastrophe that is the German Energiewende made non-ideologically captured countries realize they need reliable grid-level supply. Russian gas backup isn't it. But you obviously know better than those countries as to what they are actually doing. Again, either comically incorrect or dishonest. 5. nuclear waste storage is unsolved Do tell the countries that have built long-term storage that they haven't. And tell the facilities that are doing the intermediate storage just fine that it isn't working. This one I wouldn't classify as just plain old incorrect, not comically so, as it is somewhat tricky to navigate through all the misinformation and find out what's going on.
  - lispm 3y ago
    > particularly in Germany where plants often consist of a single reactor We were arguing about nuclear power in Japan. In 2011 Fukushima had one of the largest plants in the world, with six reactors. Many powerplants in Japan had more than one reactor. But you did not know that? You also never seemed to have heard of the events at the other reactors, like the four ones in Daini. Your list reads like that one of a fanboy, it has very little to do with reality.
    - 3y ago