3 ms·

> the taxpayer (France is the worldwide champ when it comes to taxes) pays a hefty part of it. I agree French taxes are high, but Americans pay an estimated $

> the taxpayer (France is the worldwide champ when it comes to taxes) pays a hefty part of it. I agree French taxes are high, but Americans pay an estimated $20 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry, and that's just on the supply side. There are subsidies on the demand side as well for power and heating bills. Also, if there weren't nuclear power energy subsidies, would French prices be higher than their neighbors? That's the question. Domestic energy prices in France are 1/3 lower than the EU average, which is significant[0] [0] https://selectra.info/energie/electricite/prix/europe https://selectra.info/energie/electricite/prix/europe

audunw 2y ago
Frances energy costs are about as ideal as they could possibly get right now. They have significant maintenance and decommissioning costs ahead of them. Right now it feels like they’re basically building up a form of debt, where they’re just hoping the nuclear power plants won’t experience unforeseen issues due to their age. This has become problematic. They recently had to import energy from Germany for an extended period due to nuclear power plants being shut down. They’ve also had to temporarily shut some down due to heat. Thermal power plants, especially old ones, are increasingly disadvantaged in a warming climate. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd4a8 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd4a8 They also contribute directly to global warming (thermal forcing). Not a huge amount, but surprisingly significant. Shouldn’t shut them down as long as we’re using fossil fuels. But once those are cut the planet may be too warm for us to afford having thermal power plants. Every little bit counts when the climate is on the edge of total disaster
natmaka 2y ago
> Americans pay an estimated $20 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry We agree: this is inept. However we probably also agree on the goal (get rid of fossil fuels), therefore the question is about the approach: which proportion of nuclear and of renewable energy? 100% nuclear is impossible: not enough uranium, too expensive as it implies over-provisioning reactors which are financially potentially realistic only with a high load factor. 100% renewable is in balance: some think it can be done, other disagree. Nearly all experts (see IEA, IPCC, McKinsey, Bloomberg...) predict that renewable will, once fossil fuels will be nearly dealt with, produce approximately 70% of our electricity (gridpower). This has a heavy implication for nuclear as it will reduce its load factor => its TCO will skyrocket. > if there weren't nuclear power energy subsidies, would French prices be higher than their neighbors? That's the question. This is IMHO certain, see the Cour des comptes' report. EDF history ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_France#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_Franc... ) provides many hints: jumpstarted by nationalisations (gifts!), immediately obtaining a monopoly (gift!), benefiting from military and fundamental research budgets (gifts!), very favorable loans from the gov, gov acting as a guarantor for market-provided loans, gov periodically injecting money and often not even obtaining its dividends (or obtaining as stock, that is to say at null value as most of the assets are nuclear plants which cannot be sold, along with huge debts...), speaking of debts: abyssal debts (approx 55 billions €, mid-2024)... not really a resounding success. Moreover recent nuclear-reactor building projects are expensive failure (Finland, France, China, U.K.). In France the reactor was scheduled to be delivered in 2012 for approx 3,3 billions € and we are waiting for it in 2024 after dissipating around 20 billions €. > Domestic energy prices in France are 1/3 lower than the EU average, which is significant This is only about electricity (not "energy": in France fossil fuel are very expensive) and its end-user price is only 22% less than the UE average («prix de l'électricité en moyenne inférieurs de 22 % à ceux pratiqués dans l'UE»). About the Messmer Plan ("French nuclearization"): https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-plan https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  All good points, and I'm not arguing that we should go full nuclear. But I'm still of the opinion that 100% renewable is an almost impossible target to meet (at least with current technologies) and that if we want to meet climate change targets, nuclear needs to be part of the mix. Not saying it'll be cheap, but the consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels will be much more expensive.

audunw 2y ago

Frances energy costs are about as ideal as they could possibly get right now. They have significant maintenance and decommissioning costs ahead of them. Right now it feels like they’re basically building up a form of debt, where they’re just hoping the nuclear power plants won’t experience unforeseen issues due to their age. This has become problematic. They recently had to import energy from Germany for an extended period due to nuclear power plants being shut down. They’ve also had to temporarily shut some down due to heat. Thermal power plants, especially old ones, are increasingly disadvantaged in a warming climate. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd4a8 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd4a8 They also contribute directly to global warming (thermal forcing). Not a huge amount, but surprisingly significant. Shouldn’t shut them down as long as we’re using fossil fuels. But once those are cut the planet may be too warm for us to afford having thermal power plants. Every little bit counts when the climate is on the edge of total disaster

natmaka 2y ago

> Americans pay an estimated $20 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry We agree: this is inept. However we probably also agree on the goal (get rid of fossil fuels), therefore the question is about the approach: which proportion of nuclear and of renewable energy? 100% nuclear is impossible: not enough uranium, too expensive as it implies over-provisioning reactors which are financially potentially realistic only with a high load factor. 100% renewable is in balance: some think it can be done, other disagree. Nearly all experts (see IEA, IPCC, McKinsey, Bloomberg...) predict that renewable will, once fossil fuels will be nearly dealt with, produce approximately 70% of our electricity (gridpower). This has a heavy implication for nuclear as it will reduce its load factor => its TCO will skyrocket. > if there weren't nuclear power energy subsidies, would French prices be higher than their neighbors? That's the question. This is IMHO certain, see the Cour des comptes' report. EDF history ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_France#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_Franc... ) provides many hints: jumpstarted by nationalisations (gifts!), immediately obtaining a monopoly (gift!), benefiting from military and fundamental research budgets (gifts!), very favorable loans from the gov, gov acting as a guarantor for market-provided loans, gov periodically injecting money and often not even obtaining its dividends (or obtaining as stock, that is to say at null value as most of the assets are nuclear plants which cannot be sold, along with huge debts...), speaking of debts: abyssal debts (approx 55 billions €, mid-2024)... not really a resounding success. Moreover recent nuclear-reactor building projects are expensive failure (Finland, France, China, U.K.). In France the reactor was scheduled to be delivered in 2012 for approx 3,3 billions € and we are waiting for it in 2024 after dissipating around 20 billions €. > Domestic energy prices in France are 1/3 lower than the EU average, which is significant This is only about electricity (not "energy": in France fossil fuel are very expensive) and its end-user price is only 22% less than the UE average («prix de l'électricité en moyenne inférieurs de 22 % à ceux pratiqués dans l'UE»). About the Messmer Plan ("French nuclearization"): https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-plan https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...

insane_dreamer 2y ago
All good points, and I'm not arguing that we should go full nuclear. But I'm still of the opinion that 100% renewable is an almost impossible target to meet (at least with current technologies) and that if we want to meet climate change targets, nuclear needs to be part of the mix. Not saying it'll be cheap, but the consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels will be much more expensive.