3 ms·

> Germany's "cheap" renewables-based electricity is the 2nd most expensive in the EU. France's "expensive" nuclear electricity is around half that price, slight

> Germany's "cheap" renewables-based electricity is the 2nd most expensive in the EU. France's "expensive" nuclear electricity is around half that price, slightly below the EU average price. The difference is mostly taxes. In Germany's case, it's taxes they charge for every unit of electricity. In France's case it's general taxation that they've been using to support the nuclear industry. And that's for renewables mostly built at the start of the price decline and nuclear mostly built at the start of the price increases. When you have to limit your argument to cherry picked countries and cherry picked timeframes and cherry picked metrics, it's a sign it a very poor argument.

mpweiher 3y ago
> The difference is mostly taxes. That turns out not to be the case. > In Germany's case, it's taxes they charge for every unit of electricity. That also turns out not to be the case. > In France's case it's general general taxation that they've been using to support the nuclear industry. That also turns out not to be the case. As I wrote before, in France cheap and reliable nuclear is used to subsidize other parts of the economy, not the other way around. > And that's for renewables mostly built at the start of the price decline and nuclear mostly built at the start of the price increases. What's that supposed to mean? > When you have to limit your argument to cherry picked countries and cherry picked timeframes and cherry picked metrics, it's a sign it a very poor argument. LOL. What other two countries, one of which went all-in on nuclear, and the other that went all-out on nuclear are you going to pick to compare? Preferably sizable industrial countries that are otherwise roughly comparable. Also, what other metrics other than: price, time to completion, and CO2 emissions would you prefer?

mpweiher 3y ago

> The difference is mostly taxes. That turns out not to be the case. > In Germany's case, it's taxes they charge for every unit of electricity. That also turns out not to be the case. > In France's case it's general general taxation that they've been using to support the nuclear industry. That also turns out not to be the case. As I wrote before, in France cheap and reliable nuclear is used to subsidize other parts of the economy, not the other way around. > And that's for renewables mostly built at the start of the price decline and nuclear mostly built at the start of the price increases. What's that supposed to mean? > When you have to limit your argument to cherry picked countries and cherry picked timeframes and cherry picked metrics, it's a sign it a very poor argument. LOL. What other two countries, one of which went all-in on nuclear, and the other that went all-out on nuclear are you going to pick to compare? Preferably sizable industrial countries that are otherwise roughly comparable. Also, what other metrics other than: price, time to completion, and CO2 emissions would you prefer?