2 ms·

Lavish subsidies. Even then they had to nationalize EDF because it was going bankrupt after posting historically unprecedented losses. The problem is that stuf

by pydry 2y ago

Lavish subsidies. Even then they had to nationalize EDF because it was going bankrupt after posting historically unprecedented losses. The problem is that stuff like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor) and this: https://reneweconomy.com.au/french-nuclear-giant-scraps-smr-plans-due-to-soaring-costs-will-start-over/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/french-nuclear-giant-scraps-smr-... keeps happening. The last paragraph explains how, in spite of these losses, how to keep the power cheap: >The federal Coalition has argued that nuclear might be expensive to build, but will deliver cheaper power to consumers. It has not explained how, but it has said that its reactors would be government owned, suggesting that – like France and Ontario – the costs would be borne by taxpayers and the supply of power to customers would be heavily subsidised.

panick21_ 2y ago
Totally wrong. In totality nuclear was an utterly and completely amazing deal. The whole built up of the COMPLETE green grid cost the tax payer very little as the whole buildup went on the balance sheet of the EDF. And then it was paid down over years and years. During all this time France had very low stable energy cost. And this is while the French state in the last 2 decades abused the system as if it was a magical giving tree. Forcing them to sell energy very cheaply. Forcing them to sell cheap reliable energy in bulk to fossil fuel companies (subsidizing them) and then buying it back at much higher prices when it became clear they sold to much. Forcing them to invest in solar and dispatch at cost (destroying base load nuclear economics). Then the French government in its complete delusion essentially decided that they would be cool like coal producing Germany and announced a fantasy 'transition to renewables' that had literally 0.0% chance of actually happening. They basically delayed all maintenance because the reactors would be replaced soon anyway (yeah right). And this does not even take into account the gigantic amount of money France wont have to spend to do a green transition now. Comparably other countries had higher energy prices for 40 years, and have yet to transition a green grid. AND as a final coup de grace France had much lower medical cost because they didn't have decades of breathing coal (except the coal coming from Germany of course). Talk about externalizes. By any calculation, French nuclear program has been a complete and utter success. Even with extreme conservative calculation on reactor cost Germany. Starting in 2000, Germany would have had a way cheaper transition to green energy had they much mass built nuclear like France did. If you actually apply proper economics of scale (as observed during the French mass build) the cost would be a tiny fraction what Germany has spent and will continue to spend between buildup of wind/solar/battery, the high energy prices and the massive home and industrial energy subsidizes. > ASTRID_(reactor) Investing in future reactors is not a bad idea. In fact, Superphénix was already built and working, most of the bugs were fixed and it was ready for more broad rollout. But instead of building many more, short sighted politicians (who seem to share your ideology) killed the project. One of the main problems with the French nuclear industry in general, and the high cost now is that after the first generation, the next generation went anti-nuclear. They stopped building more plants, stopped innovating and start treating what the previous generation had built up as a 'problem that had to be overcome' rather then an incredibly resource. This lead to a situation where most of the experts retired and France lost a huge amount of knowledge. Only now they realize that transitioning away to magical solar/wind isn't nearly as easy as they had thought.
- pydry 2y ago
  This is categorically false. France has always thrown massive amounts of subsidies at its nuclear program since day 1. It was quite up front from the very beginning that it wasn't about the environment, public health or saving money - it was about energy independence. It was a good move for the environment in 1973 when solar panels were expensive but that isn't why they did it. Germany's renewables transition is a massive success. It didn't require writing off titanic, gargantuan levels of wasted capital investment like France did with stuff like ASTRID. Their energy transition has had VASTLY lower capex than France's. It would make sense for France to follow in their footsteps as their nuclear plants start to age out, but it seems like they'd rather waste epic amounts of taxpayer cash on building new plants which still aren't enough to keep up with demand while they play accounting games to try and shift the losses around (the same kind of games which led Finland to sue EDF over its cost overruns).
  - panick21_ 2y ago
    > environment, public health or saving money - it was about energy independence. What matters in the real world is what actually happened, not why people say that it happened. Energy independence is a good enough reason too. The only issue is that they didn't go all the way and produce fuel with nuclear energy. > Germany's renewables transition is a massive success. It didn't require writing off titanic, gargantuan levels of wasted capital investment like France did with stuff like ASTRID. Their energy transition has had VASTLY lower capex than France's. Germany also invests lots in capital, and lots in subsidizes both for home production and for the other producers that are impacted. Additionally high energy prices for both home and commercial producers and despite those high prices German announced a massive subsidization program for energy since the Ukraine war. Germany needs to also convert lots of home heating to electricity as well, they also need capacity for electric cars plus their hydrogen for industry. And do that reliability even when wind conditions are bad. And they are not even nearly done with the transition yet, while France is basically done for 30-40 years and would be totally done if the people who had took over actually continued on the same trendline. ASTRID is an optional project as I said they had that type of reactor before and it was killed by anti nuclear people. Factually speaking, Germany could have transitioned to 100% nuclear powered in about 20-30 for a few % of extra debt to GDP. This would have yield well priced reliable energy for LITERALLY 100 years. It would have also massively improved their public health. Their energy independence. Their carbon output. Their energy security. Just because France didn't do it for all those reasons, doesn't mean Germany couldn't have. Whenever I talk to anti nuclear people I look at a map, currently France 22 gCO₂eq/kWh, Germany 260 gCO₂eq/kWh. Just always good to think about, how right now Germany is blowing coal dust all over sleeping people. But its ok, they are exporting some of those health risk into nations that are actually green like, Switzerland, Sweden, France, you know, nation that actually have nuclear running their grid at night. So Germany is not even paying for all the damage they do. But I'm sure happy you and your brilliant policies are saving them from spending 'capital'. And btw, carbon saved earlier is more valuable. Calling Germany a success when this year they got 50% of their electricity from carbon emitting sources and will continue to blow carbon into the air for more then a decade is frankly ridiculous. Had they switched to nuclear, every single coal plant would be turned off by now. > It would make sense for France to follow in their footsteps as their nuclear plants start to age out They age out when anti-nuclear people want them to age out. Switzerland, who btw is also using far less carbon then Germany is running one of the oldest nuclear plants in the world and its running fine and will continue to do so for quite a while. Many reactors of that type are rated for 80 years of operation and some are even starting to think about rating for 100 years. And as for new plants. All over Europe people are announcing nuclear plants again. Seems many of the people who are in decision making power and look at the numbers are reconsidering it despite the 40 years of neglect of nuclear. Finland just finished a plant and now whenever I look at the electricity map, their power is mostly nice and green. Despite the delays and the extra cost, they will now have green power for about 100 years.

by pydry 2y ago

panick21_ 2y ago

Totally wrong. In totality nuclear was an utterly and completely amazing deal. The whole built up of the COMPLETE green grid cost the tax payer very little as the whole buildup went on the balance sheet of the EDF. And then it was paid down over years and years. During all this time France had very low stable energy cost. And this is while the French state in the last 2 decades abused the system as if it was a magical giving tree. Forcing them to sell energy very cheaply. Forcing them to sell cheap reliable energy in bulk to fossil fuel companies (subsidizing them) and then buying it back at much higher prices when it became clear they sold to much. Forcing them to invest in solar and dispatch at cost (destroying base load nuclear economics). Then the French government in its complete delusion essentially decided that they would be cool like coal producing Germany and announced a fantasy 'transition to renewables' that had literally 0.0% chance of actually happening. They basically delayed all maintenance because the reactors would be replaced soon anyway (yeah right). And this does not even take into account the gigantic amount of money France wont have to spend to do a green transition now. Comparably other countries had higher energy prices for 40 years, and have yet to transition a green grid. AND as a final coup de grace France had much lower medical cost because they didn't have decades of breathing coal (except the coal coming from Germany of course). Talk about externalizes. By any calculation, French nuclear program has been a complete and utter success. Even with extreme conservative calculation on reactor cost Germany. Starting in 2000, Germany would have had a way cheaper transition to green energy had they much mass built nuclear like France did. If you actually apply proper economics of scale (as observed during the French mass build) the cost would be a tiny fraction what Germany has spent and will continue to spend between buildup of wind/solar/battery, the high energy prices and the massive home and industrial energy subsidizes. > ASTRID_(reactor) Investing in future reactors is not a bad idea. In fact, Superphénix was already built and working, most of the bugs were fixed and it was ready for more broad rollout. But instead of building many more, short sighted politicians (who seem to share your ideology) killed the project. One of the main problems with the French nuclear industry in general, and the high cost now is that after the first generation, the next generation went anti-nuclear. They stopped building more plants, stopped innovating and start treating what the previous generation had built up as a 'problem that had to be overcome' rather then an incredibly resource. This lead to a situation where most of the experts retired and France lost a huge amount of knowledge. Only now they realize that transitioning away to magical solar/wind isn't nearly as easy as they had thought.

pydry 2y ago
This is categorically false. France has always thrown massive amounts of subsidies at its nuclear program since day 1. It was quite up front from the very beginning that it wasn't about the environment, public health or saving money - it was about energy independence. It was a good move for the environment in 1973 when solar panels were expensive but that isn't why they did it. Germany's renewables transition is a massive success. It didn't require writing off titanic, gargantuan levels of wasted capital investment like France did with stuff like ASTRID. Their energy transition has had VASTLY lower capex than France's. It would make sense for France to follow in their footsteps as their nuclear plants start to age out, but it seems like they'd rather waste epic amounts of taxpayer cash on building new plants which still aren't enough to keep up with demand while they play accounting games to try and shift the losses around (the same kind of games which led Finland to sue EDF over its cost overruns).
- panick21_ 2y ago
  > environment, public health or saving money - it was about energy independence. What matters in the real world is what actually happened, not why people say that it happened. Energy independence is a good enough reason too. The only issue is that they didn't go all the way and produce fuel with nuclear energy. > Germany's renewables transition is a massive success. It didn't require writing off titanic, gargantuan levels of wasted capital investment like France did with stuff like ASTRID. Their energy transition has had VASTLY lower capex than France's. Germany also invests lots in capital, and lots in subsidizes both for home production and for the other producers that are impacted. Additionally high energy prices for both home and commercial producers and despite those high prices German announced a massive subsidization program for energy since the Ukraine war. Germany needs to also convert lots of home heating to electricity as well, they also need capacity for electric cars plus their hydrogen for industry. And do that reliability even when wind conditions are bad. And they are not even nearly done with the transition yet, while France is basically done for 30-40 years and would be totally done if the people who had took over actually continued on the same trendline. ASTRID is an optional project as I said they had that type of reactor before and it was killed by anti nuclear people. Factually speaking, Germany could have transitioned to 100% nuclear powered in about 20-30 for a few % of extra debt to GDP. This would have yield well priced reliable energy for LITERALLY 100 years. It would have also massively improved their public health. Their energy independence. Their carbon output. Their energy security. Just because France didn't do it for all those reasons, doesn't mean Germany couldn't have. Whenever I talk to anti nuclear people I look at a map, currently France 22 gCO₂eq/kWh, Germany 260 gCO₂eq/kWh. Just always good to think about, how right now Germany is blowing coal dust all over sleeping people. But its ok, they are exporting some of those health risk into nations that are actually green like, Switzerland, Sweden, France, you know, nation that actually have nuclear running their grid at night. So Germany is not even paying for all the damage they do. But I'm sure happy you and your brilliant policies are saving them from spending 'capital'. And btw, carbon saved earlier is more valuable. Calling Germany a success when this year they got 50% of their electricity from carbon emitting sources and will continue to blow carbon into the air for more then a decade is frankly ridiculous. Had they switched to nuclear, every single coal plant would be turned off by now. > It would make sense for France to follow in their footsteps as their nuclear plants start to age out They age out when anti-nuclear people want them to age out. Switzerland, who btw is also using far less carbon then Germany is running one of the oldest nuclear plants in the world and its running fine and will continue to do so for quite a while. Many reactors of that type are rated for 80 years of operation and some are even starting to think about rating for 100 years. And as for new plants. All over Europe people are announcing nuclear plants again. Seems many of the people who are in decision making power and look at the numbers are reconsidering it despite the 40 years of neglect of nuclear. Finland just finished a plant and now whenever I look at the electricity map, their power is mostly nice and green. Despite the delays and the extra cost, they will now have green power for about 100 years.