4 ms·

>This is completely false. Nuclear energy is profitable pretty much everywhere it is used. Not if you consider the full costs. Every official source you find o

>This is completely false. Nuclear energy is profitable pretty much everywhere it is used. Not if you consider the full costs. Every official source you find only shows the costs that the operators have to pay, but the operators never pay the full cost. No nuclear power plant that I have found documentation for anywhere is operated without immense national subsidies. You mention Hinkley point and say that they will generate 150 billion euros in income over 80 years. Let's assume that's about right and look further. It is currently estimated to cost over 40 billion to build. Now we're at 110 billion. The storage facility will likely be Sellafield, which has a yearly budget of around 2.5 billion per year, times 80 years is 200 billion. Now we're at negative 90 billion. Negative 90 billion already while the plants are actually operational. But the waste has to be managed for longer than that. For centuries after the plants have been closed, in fact. So we're at negative what, 300, 400 billion over the lifetime of costs. This is also without considering any cost of operations. We assume here that 1000 people operating the plant work for free, never need any equipment, the plant never need maintenance, and the calculation still has a debt of several hundred billion. Now you might say wait, that makes no sense, then EDF (the operator) would be unprofitable and go bankrupt! Yes, and they did, a few years ago. France covered the bill of over 50 billion euros in debt and also the upcoming 20 or so more billions in repair and maintenance. EDF was unprofitable even when they neglected required repairs and maintenance. Again, nuclear is not profitable. Now, since the costs are mostly covered by governments and future generations, short-sighted investors and quarterly earnings-focused companies will of course go along with the pretense that it is. Amazon is buying the subsidized unrealistic purchase price because that's what's going to be relevant to them. When the operator goes bankrupt because the costs turn out to be way more than they calculated with, it's not Amazon's problem. It's the US taxpayer's problem.

mpweiher 2y ago
>> Nuclear energy is profitable pretty much everywhere it is used > Not if you consider the full costs. Yes, in fact it is one of the few (maybe only?) electricity source that accounts for full costs. Fossil fuels deposit their waste in the atmosphere, renewables are heavily subsidized and their environmental damage generally isn't included either. > No nuclear power plant that I have found documentation for anywhere is operated without immense national subsidies. Citation needed. > You mention Hinkley point and say that they will generate 150 billion euros in income over 80 years. Incorrect. That is one reactor of HPC. Both together would be € 300 billion if they continue to get the agreed price, which I don't think they will. > The storage facility will likely be Sellafield, which has a yearly budget of around 2.5 billion per year, times 80 years is 200 billion Not only do you only take the output of just one reactor when there are two, you require that one reactor to finance all of Sellafield, a facility that serves the entire country. The UK has more than one reactor. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74eb21e5274a59fa715fc7/Table_of_past_and_present_UK_nuclear_reactors.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74eb21e5274... > Yes, and [EDF] did [go bankrupt], a few years ago. No they did not. The French state, which never owned less than 84% of EDF, bough the remaining 16% stake to simplify the planned nuclear expansion. > EDF was unprofitable even when they neglected required repairs and maintenance. The opposite was true. EDF was and continues to be immensely profitable over the last few decades, despite being milked dry by the state, for example having to suffer such idiocies as having to sell 25% of their electricity at 4 cents/kWh to competitors and then often having to buy it back at market rates (ARENH). In 2022 those market rates were up to € 1/kWh, so they had to buy back their own electricity at 25x the price that they were required to sell it for. And the French government increased the ARENH quotas in that year. These kinds of insane accounting shenanigans, all on the back of reliable and highly profitable nuclear plants, were the primary reason that EDF had a € 10 billion loss in 2022, their first in over a decade, IIRC. > Again, nuclear is not profitable. Only if you can't add up the numbers. See above. And see, again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY
- Kon5ole 2y ago
  >> Yes, and [EDF] did [go bankrupt], a few years ago. >No they did not. Yes they did. That the government bailed them out instead of actually letting the bankruptcy take place makes no difference. However you slice it, the bottom line is that the price of nuclear electricity in France has not included the 10 billion that France paid to take ownership, does not include the 50 billion of debt that they took over, and not the 20 billion of neglected maintenance. This is a well documented 80 billion euros that should have been paid by EDF and should have been visible on the electricity bills of nuclear power customers in France. But it wasn't. There are other examples too, like the german Asse II mine, rancho seco in the US, the government nuclear fund in sweden, all either entirely paid for by taxpayers or underfunded meaning they will eventually have to be paid for by taxpayers. >LOL. Not only do you only take the output of just one reactor when there are two, Yes I did, because none of the other 9 reactors pay for Sellafield either. If the rules change today so that new nuclear plants have to pay for their own waste, then HPC would have to pay for all of Sellafield. Also, HPC will probably be the last remaining plant for at least 40 years (if it is operational for 80), so it will have to finance Sellafield alone then. And what about the remaining centuries after that? Who pays then? You may think that's unfair, but it is of course even more unfair that they don't pay for it and instead kick the costs to future taxpayers. Right? Who pays for Rancho Seco, who pays for Yucca Mountain, who pays for Asse II, who pays for AVR? Not the nuclear operators. How can you even remotely believe that nuclear pays for it's full costs when there are so many examples like this?
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    > Yes they did [EDF "bankruptcy"] This is not true. > 10 billion that France paid to take ownership, Wrong. Until 2004 France owned 100% of EDF. They sold just 16%. And then took it back. It was always a state-owned enterprise. > 50 billion of debt that they took over The state did not "take over" €50 billion in debt. That is still held by EDF (and if you count the debt of state-owned companies as government debt, then it was always government debt, because, see above, the French state always owned vastly more than 50% of EDF. 100% until 2004, to be precise). And that debt is not operational debt. As I stated before, EDF has been extremely profitable, and paying both taxes as well as dividends to its owner(s), mostly the French state. Taking on the loans is how they financed construction of the nuclear power plants, which were not financed by the tax payer, but on the capital markets. With the loans EDF took on, they built infrastructure, in this case nuclear power plants. And with the (quite significant) profits from operating those plants, they pay back the loans. This is what is known as "investment". Most companies do it. > If the rules change today so that new nuclear plants have to pay for their own waste, then HPC would have to pay for all of Sellafield. if (false) → conclude anything you like. And of course you still only counted the income of a single reactor at HPC. [Picard voice:] There. are. two. reactors. > Also, HPC will probably be the last remaining plant False. UK is planning a 4x expansion of nuclear capacity. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-expansion-of-nuclear-power-for-70-years-to-create-jobs-reduce-bills-and-strengthen-britains-energy-security https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-expansion-of-nucl... They have started digging at Sizewell C. https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24593672.sizewell-c-construction-site-leiston-taking-shape/ https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24593672.sizewell-c-construction... > who pays for Yucca Mountain "Lacking an operating repository, the federal government initially paid utility companies somewhere between $300 and $500 million per year in compensation for failing to comply with the contract it signed to take the spent nuclear fuel by 1998" It looks like the utilities paid the federal government for the repository, but are not getting the services they paid for. Ahh yes, they did: "The companies held up their end, feeding about $750 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund each year. But the department did not manage to set up any facility to receive the waste, forcing energy companies to store it themselves on-site." https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/how-the-department-of-energy-became-a-major-taxpayer-liability.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/how-the-department-of-energy... Same in Germany: the utilities paid into the fund for the disposal, but the politicians blocked it. Speaking of politicians blocking and Yucca Mountain: "The Government Accountability Office stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...

mpweiher 2y ago

>> Nuclear energy is profitable pretty much everywhere it is used > Not if you consider the full costs. Yes, in fact it is one of the few (maybe only?) electricity source that accounts for full costs. Fossil fuels deposit their waste in the atmosphere, renewables are heavily subsidized and their environmental damage generally isn't included either. > No nuclear power plant that I have found documentation for anywhere is operated without immense national subsidies. Citation needed. > You mention Hinkley point and say that they will generate 150 billion euros in income over 80 years. Incorrect. That is one reactor of HPC. Both together would be € 300 billion if they continue to get the agreed price, which I don't think they will. > The storage facility will likely be Sellafield, which has a yearly budget of around 2.5 billion per year, times 80 years is 200 billion Not only do you only take the output of just one reactor when there are two, you require that one reactor to finance all of Sellafield, a facility that serves the entire country. The UK has more than one reactor. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74eb21e5274a59fa715fc7/Table_of_past_and_present_UK_nuclear_reactors.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74eb21e5274... > Yes, and [EDF] did [go bankrupt], a few years ago. No they did not. The French state, which never owned less than 84% of EDF, bough the remaining 16% stake to simplify the planned nuclear expansion. > EDF was unprofitable even when they neglected required repairs and maintenance. The opposite was true. EDF was and continues to be immensely profitable over the last few decades, despite being milked dry by the state, for example having to suffer such idiocies as having to sell 25% of their electricity at 4 cents/kWh to competitors and then often having to buy it back at market rates (ARENH). In 2022 those market rates were up to € 1/kWh, so they had to buy back their own electricity at 25x the price that they were required to sell it for. And the French government increased the ARENH quotas in that year. These kinds of insane accounting shenanigans, all on the back of reliable and highly profitable nuclear plants, were the primary reason that EDF had a € 10 billion loss in 2022, their first in over a decade, IIRC. > Again, nuclear is not profitable. Only if you can't add up the numbers. See above. And see, again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY

Kon5ole 2y ago
>> Yes, and [EDF] did [go bankrupt], a few years ago. >No they did not. Yes they did. That the government bailed them out instead of actually letting the bankruptcy take place makes no difference. However you slice it, the bottom line is that the price of nuclear electricity in France has not included the 10 billion that France paid to take ownership, does not include the 50 billion of debt that they took over, and not the 20 billion of neglected maintenance. This is a well documented 80 billion euros that should have been paid by EDF and should have been visible on the electricity bills of nuclear power customers in France. But it wasn't. There are other examples too, like the german Asse II mine, rancho seco in the US, the government nuclear fund in sweden, all either entirely paid for by taxpayers or underfunded meaning they will eventually have to be paid for by taxpayers. >LOL. Not only do you only take the output of just one reactor when there are two, Yes I did, because none of the other 9 reactors pay for Sellafield either. If the rules change today so that new nuclear plants have to pay for their own waste, then HPC would have to pay for all of Sellafield. Also, HPC will probably be the last remaining plant for at least 40 years (if it is operational for 80), so it will have to finance Sellafield alone then. And what about the remaining centuries after that? Who pays then? You may think that's unfair, but it is of course even more unfair that they don't pay for it and instead kick the costs to future taxpayers. Right? Who pays for Rancho Seco, who pays for Yucca Mountain, who pays for Asse II, who pays for AVR? Not the nuclear operators. How can you even remotely believe that nuclear pays for it's full costs when there are so many examples like this?
- mpweiher 2y ago
  > Yes they did [EDF "bankruptcy"] This is not true. > 10 billion that France paid to take ownership, Wrong. Until 2004 France owned 100% of EDF. They sold just 16%. And then took it back. It was always a state-owned enterprise. > 50 billion of debt that they took over The state did not "take over" €50 billion in debt. That is still held by EDF (and if you count the debt of state-owned companies as government debt, then it was always government debt, because, see above, the French state always owned vastly more than 50% of EDF. 100% until 2004, to be precise). And that debt is not operational debt. As I stated before, EDF has been extremely profitable, and paying both taxes as well as dividends to its owner(s), mostly the French state. Taking on the loans is how they financed construction of the nuclear power plants, which were not financed by the tax payer, but on the capital markets. With the loans EDF took on, they built infrastructure, in this case nuclear power plants. And with the (quite significant) profits from operating those plants, they pay back the loans. This is what is known as "investment". Most companies do it. > If the rules change today so that new nuclear plants have to pay for their own waste, then HPC would have to pay for all of Sellafield. if (false) → conclude anything you like. And of course you still only counted the income of a single reactor at HPC. [Picard voice:] There. are. two. reactors. > Also, HPC will probably be the last remaining plant False. UK is planning a 4x expansion of nuclear capacity. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-expansion-of-nuclear-power-for-70-years-to-create-jobs-reduce-bills-and-strengthen-britains-energy-security https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-expansion-of-nucl... They have started digging at Sizewell C. https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24593672.sizewell-c-construction-site-leiston-taking-shape/ https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24593672.sizewell-c-construction... > who pays for Yucca Mountain "Lacking an operating repository, the federal government initially paid utility companies somewhere between $300 and $500 million per year in compensation for failing to comply with the contract it signed to take the spent nuclear fuel by 1998" It looks like the utilities paid the federal government for the repository, but are not getting the services they paid for. Ahh yes, they did: "The companies held up their end, feeding about $750 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund each year. But the department did not manage to set up any facility to receive the waste, forcing energy companies to store it themselves on-site." https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/how-the-department-of-energy-became-a-major-taxpayer-liability.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/how-the-department-of-energy... Same in Germany: the utilities paid into the fund for the disposal, but the politicians blocked it. Speaking of politicians blocking and Yucca Mountain: "The Government Accountability Office stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...