3 ms·

There are three kind of power plants being built in Europe right now. Wind, gas and solar. Even in countries like Sweden the building plans and permits being gi

by belorn 3y ago

There are three kind of power plants being built in Europe right now. Wind, gas and solar. Even in countries like Sweden the building plans and permits being given out right now is wind, gas and solar. Battery storage, nuclear and reverse hydro might be built in the future. They are all potential technology that cost too much compared to wind, gas and solar. A rather large contextual note is that wind, gas and solar get practically all the government subsidies, so there is a uphill fight if investors wanted to invest into some of the "future stuff". Wind get most subsidies, solar next, natural gas (and oil) third. Many gas and oil plants in Europe is actually government funded through out, as they operate as reserve energy. They get subsidies just to exist, and then get subsidies when they balance the grid, and last they can get subsidies again since prices during high demand and low supply can become more than the market is willing to bear.

ViewTrick1002 3y ago
Nuclear energy gets a enormous subsidy by the government taking about 90-99% of the risk insurance. This is for the US but equivalent laws exist in all countries. For example in Sweden it is capped to about $1.5B which is laughable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nucle...
- belorn 3y ago
  In Europe the subsidies for nuclear is marginal and significant less per watt produced than wind, solar and gas. Talking about insurance in isolation is practically meaningless. Hydropower do not cover risk insurance of flooding, nor does fossil fuel pay insurance against pollution and global warming. The government or private citizens takes that risk, covering 100% of the costs. Wind and solar do not cover risk of forest fires or damages to endangered species. Wind farms on the ocean do not cover risks to changes in currents, and only need to cover a limited survey in term assessing risk to the environment. In a perfect world all energy production would cover all social and environmental risks of their commercial operation. Intermittent energy sources would then have to pay insurance on the cost of blackouts, as well as the full bill of the reserve energy plan that the government currently pays for. Paying all those through taxes only hide the true cost of energy production away from the consumer.
  - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
    > In Europe the subsidies for nuclear is marginal and significant less per watt produced than wind, solar and gas. Gas pays carbon taxes through the ETS system, although not equivalent to the cost of climate change. Existing renewables get some subsidies, new built barely anything. > Wind and solar do not cover risk of forest fires or damages to endangered species. Wind farms on the ocean do not cover risks to changes in currents, and only need to cover a limited survey in term assessing risk to the environment. That sounds like coping. Trying to build a false equivalency to paint the huge nuclear subsidy gets as insignificant. On one side we have clear examples like Fukushima costing at least ~$150B to clean up compared to for example the $1.5B insurance limit in Sweden. A 99% subsidy on insurance cost. On the other we have vague references and scaremongering. > Intermittent energy sources would then have to pay insurance on the cost of blackouts, as well as the full bill of the reserve energy plan that the government currently pays for. Paying all those through taxes only hide the true cost of energy production away from the consumer. How much should the French nuclear industry pay for having half their fleet off-line right as we went through a huge energy crisis in Europe? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr...
    - belorn 3y ago
      > That sounds like coping That sounds snarky and name calling. > Existing renewables get some subsidies, new built barely anything. Europe has a yearly report on subsidies available online for anyone to read. (https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-10/annex_to_the_state_of_the_energy_union_report_on_energy_subsidies_in_the_eu.pdf https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-10/annex_to_th...). It clearly marked. Out of the 179 billions euro, more than 40% was assigned to renewables. The reserve energy plan is not part of the report since its considered operational cost in term of keeping the grid stable. The report on reserve energy however do consider renewables and the increased variability as a cause for new investment and more funding, paid by increased taxes. > On one side we have clear examples like Fukushima costing at least ~$150B to clean up Fukushima happened 2011. Oroville Dam failour happened 2016, and caused a larger number of evacuation and loss of life. So far the US government (thus citizen tax money) has been forced to pay more money money to fix the Oroville Dam than Japanese government has paid fixing Fukushima. The land destroyed by the flood will likely never fully recover nor the owners repaid for the damage. Going back to Europe, Sweden had some of the worst flooding this year, especially downstream of hydropower plants. In 2021, European floods saw many floods downstream of hydrpower plants, with massive amount of damage and loss of life. The Ukraine was also hit with one of the deadliest attack on their hydropower infrastructure, a attack defined as a major war crime. > How much should the French nuclear industry pay for having half their fleet off-line right as we went through a huge energy crisis in Europe? If all power producers was obligated to maintain the grid then the French nuclear industry should pay the same as everyone else when they can't fulfill that obligation. Grid stability is not the governments job, nor the citizens responsibility to pay for.

by belorn 3y ago

ViewTrick1002 3y ago

Nuclear energy gets a enormous subsidy by the government taking about 90-99% of the risk insurance. This is for the US but equivalent laws exist in all countries. For example in Sweden it is capped to about $1.5B which is laughable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nucle...

belorn 3y ago
In Europe the subsidies for nuclear is marginal and significant less per watt produced than wind, solar and gas. Talking about insurance in isolation is practically meaningless. Hydropower do not cover risk insurance of flooding, nor does fossil fuel pay insurance against pollution and global warming. The government or private citizens takes that risk, covering 100% of the costs. Wind and solar do not cover risk of forest fires or damages to endangered species. Wind farms on the ocean do not cover risks to changes in currents, and only need to cover a limited survey in term assessing risk to the environment. In a perfect world all energy production would cover all social and environmental risks of their commercial operation. Intermittent energy sources would then have to pay insurance on the cost of blackouts, as well as the full bill of the reserve energy plan that the government currently pays for. Paying all those through taxes only hide the true cost of energy production away from the consumer.
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  > In Europe the subsidies for nuclear is marginal and significant less per watt produced than wind, solar and gas. Gas pays carbon taxes through the ETS system, although not equivalent to the cost of climate change. Existing renewables get some subsidies, new built barely anything. > Wind and solar do not cover risk of forest fires or damages to endangered species. Wind farms on the ocean do not cover risks to changes in currents, and only need to cover a limited survey in term assessing risk to the environment. That sounds like coping. Trying to build a false equivalency to paint the huge nuclear subsidy gets as insignificant. On one side we have clear examples like Fukushima costing at least ~$150B to clean up compared to for example the $1.5B insurance limit in Sweden. A 99% subsidy on insurance cost. On the other we have vague references and scaremongering. > Intermittent energy sources would then have to pay insurance on the cost of blackouts, as well as the full bill of the reserve energy plan that the government currently pays for. Paying all those through taxes only hide the true cost of energy production away from the consumer. How much should the French nuclear industry pay for having half their fleet off-line right as we went through a huge energy crisis in Europe? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr...
  - belorn 3y ago
    > That sounds like coping That sounds snarky and name calling. > Existing renewables get some subsidies, new built barely anything. Europe has a yearly report on subsidies available online for anyone to read. (https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-10/annex_to_the_state_of_the_energy_union_report_on_energy_subsidies_in_the_eu.pdf https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-10/annex_to_th...). It clearly marked. Out of the 179 billions euro, more than 40% was assigned to renewables. The reserve energy plan is not part of the report since its considered operational cost in term of keeping the grid stable. The report on reserve energy however do consider renewables and the increased variability as a cause for new investment and more funding, paid by increased taxes. > On one side we have clear examples like Fukushima costing at least ~$150B to clean up Fukushima happened 2011. Oroville Dam failour happened 2016, and caused a larger number of evacuation and loss of life. So far the US government (thus citizen tax money) has been forced to pay more money money to fix the Oroville Dam than Japanese government has paid fixing Fukushima. The land destroyed by the flood will likely never fully recover nor the owners repaid for the damage. Going back to Europe, Sweden had some of the worst flooding this year, especially downstream of hydropower plants. In 2021, European floods saw many floods downstream of hydrpower plants, with massive amount of damage and loss of life. The Ukraine was also hit with one of the deadliest attack on their hydropower infrastructure, a attack defined as a major war crime. > How much should the French nuclear industry pay for having half their fleet off-line right as we went through a huge energy crisis in Europe? If all power producers was obligated to maintain the grid then the French nuclear industry should pay the same as everyone else when they can't fulfill that obligation. Grid stability is not the governments job, nor the citizens responsibility to pay for.