5 ms·

> I ran the numbers for Hinkley Point C. At the rate they negotiated (14,8 Cents/kWh...or was it pence?) the profits are almost obscene. Yeah, nuclear power ca

> I ran the numbers for Hinkley Point C. At the rate they negotiated (14,8 Cents/kWh...or was it pence?) the profits are almost obscene. Yeah, nuclear power can be profitable when it is enormously subsidized. The CFD for Hinkley Point C proves that nuclear power does not have a business case in 2024. Then add on top that the French government is asking for more subsidies on Hinkley Point C since it might not be enough! https://www.ft.com/content/c1e3bd19-763b-4ea1-b188-d2872cc36bb8 https://www.ft.com/content/c1e3bd19-763b-4ea1-b188-d2872cc36... The reality of this is evidenced by Sizewell C. Even with complete political unity for nearly 20 years they haven't managed to come up with a working business case outside of essentially a cost plus contract. Building nuclear power as a cost plus contract, there you have true insanity. https://www.ft.com/content/2a5d9462-b921-4577-82c1-4eb508775624 https://www.ft.com/content/2a5d9462-b921-4577-82c1-4eb508775... But that is the reality of nuclear power today. It is vastly undercut by renewables and expensive to the point that even with near political unity the cost can't be defended when public scrutiny is applied down the line.

mpweiher 2y ago
> Yeah, nuclear power can be profitable when it is enormously subsidized. No, it is pretty much always profitable. When you negotiate rates that are similar to what renewables get, the profits get obscene. One person I showed these numbers to, who had previously also made the claims about nuclear never being profitable, changed his tune quite quickly. The profits at those rates are so obscene that he claimed it must be corruption. > The CFD for Hinkley Point C proves that nuclear power does not have a business case in 2024. No it doesn't. HPC's primary purpose is to rebuild the UK's nuclear industry. In addition to providing incredible amounts of reliably electricity. > ... for more subsidies ... Don't have access to the article, but the headline speaks of a loan guarantee. Which is less than what renewables get. > The reality of this is evidenced by Sizewell C. Which they are building. Evidence that there is no business case? In fact UK plans to quadruple nuclear power. Because there is no business case. Riiiight. > Building nuclear power as a cost plus contract, there you have true insanity. Evidence of the "cost plus" contract? > It is vastly undercut by renewables Only when the renewables are massively subsidized. And they don't deliver the same product: reliable, dispatchable electricity.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  > When you negotiate rates that are similar to what renewables get, the profits get obscene. I don't understand what you are smoking. The entire investment cost for renewables are similar in price for the electricity from a paid off nuclear plant. Excluding decommissioning, insurance and waste storage costs for the nuclear plant. Take Sweden, the lowest electricity costs in Europe and no subsidies for new built renewables on the books. Keeps building the equivalent to an EPR in wind power every 2 years. You truly must be a cult member to think nuclear power makes financial sense when the UK government is adding a ~ £7B subsidy to Sizewell C before the final investment decision to get the project started, because they can't find investors! > Evidence of the "cost plus" contract? Just Google the Regulated Asset Base. EDF is too weak to take any risk from Sizewell C on their books, thus it becomes a cost plus contract as the government takes the entire risk, because it has been wholly incapable of finding any investors. > In fact UK plans to quadruple nuclear power. Because there is no business case. Riiiight. You mean like they've been doing since the mid 2000s. I would suggest you dare click any of these links: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wylfa_Newydd_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wylfa_Newydd_nuclear_power_sta... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldbury_nuclear_power_station#Oldbury_B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldbury_nuclear_power_station#... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradwell_B_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradwell_B_nuclear_power_stati... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorside_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorside_nuclear_power_station > Only when the renewables are massively subsidized. > And they don't deliver the same product: reliable, dispatchable electricity. The Swedish case points differently. They do deliver reliable electricity, maybe have a read? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192... Nuclear power needs to come down in cost by 85% to be competitive with the renewable system. Both systems ensure a reliable grid. You truly sound like a cult member ignoring all facts contrary to your own made up beliefs.
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    > I don't understand what you are smoking. Reality. You just keep producing lots of verbiage and simply no evidence for your claims. Intermittent renewables are subsidized everywhere. Nuclear power is not. Electricity prices in countries with nuclear power are generally lower than electricity prices where intermittent renewables are used. Hydro is a different matter, that is reliable. Sweden has both hydro and renewables and is planning on adding 10 nuclear plants. Norway has hydro, doesn't need nuclear, though they are looking at SMRs for some remote communities. Iceland has plenty of hydro and geothermal they don't need nuclear. Alas, hydro is something you have or don't have. You can't build it out if you don't have the geography for it. The countries with the lucky geography use it to their advantage, though both Sweden and Finnland happily add nuclear to their hydro. The just-published report from the US DOE shows that nuclear + renewables solutions are cheaper than renewables alone. which is why the US wants to add around 200 GW of nuclear capacity to their grid, tripling capacity. https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/LIFTOFF_DOE_AdvNuclear-vX7.pdf https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/LIFTOF...

mpweiher 2y ago

> Yeah, nuclear power can be profitable when it is enormously subsidized. No, it is pretty much always profitable. When you negotiate rates that are similar to what renewables get, the profits get obscene. One person I showed these numbers to, who had previously also made the claims about nuclear never being profitable, changed his tune quite quickly. The profits at those rates are so obscene that he claimed it must be corruption. > The CFD for Hinkley Point C proves that nuclear power does not have a business case in 2024. No it doesn't. HPC's primary purpose is to rebuild the UK's nuclear industry. In addition to providing incredible amounts of reliably electricity. > ... for more subsidies ... Don't have access to the article, but the headline speaks of a loan guarantee. Which is less than what renewables get. > The reality of this is evidenced by Sizewell C. Which they are building. Evidence that there is no business case? In fact UK plans to quadruple nuclear power. Because there is no business case. Riiiight. > Building nuclear power as a cost plus contract, there you have true insanity. Evidence of the "cost plus" contract? > It is vastly undercut by renewables Only when the renewables are massively subsidized. And they don't deliver the same product: reliable, dispatchable electricity.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
> When you negotiate rates that are similar to what renewables get, the profits get obscene. I don't understand what you are smoking. The entire investment cost for renewables are similar in price for the electricity from a paid off nuclear plant. Excluding decommissioning, insurance and waste storage costs for the nuclear plant. Take Sweden, the lowest electricity costs in Europe and no subsidies for new built renewables on the books. Keeps building the equivalent to an EPR in wind power every 2 years. You truly must be a cult member to think nuclear power makes financial sense when the UK government is adding a ~ £7B subsidy to Sizewell C before the final investment decision to get the project started, because they can't find investors! > Evidence of the "cost plus" contract? Just Google the Regulated Asset Base. EDF is too weak to take any risk from Sizewell C on their books, thus it becomes a cost plus contract as the government takes the entire risk, because it has been wholly incapable of finding any investors. > In fact UK plans to quadruple nuclear power. Because there is no business case. Riiiight. You mean like they've been doing since the mid 2000s. I would suggest you dare click any of these links: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wylfa_Newydd_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wylfa_Newydd_nuclear_power_sta... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldbury_nuclear_power_station#Oldbury_B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldbury_nuclear_power_station#... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradwell_B_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradwell_B_nuclear_power_stati... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorside_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorside_nuclear_power_station > Only when the renewables are massively subsidized. > And they don't deliver the same product: reliable, dispatchable electricity. The Swedish case points differently. They do deliver reliable electricity, maybe have a read? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192... Nuclear power needs to come down in cost by 85% to be competitive with the renewable system. Both systems ensure a reliable grid. You truly sound like a cult member ignoring all facts contrary to your own made up beliefs.
- mpweiher 2y ago
  > I don't understand what you are smoking. Reality. You just keep producing lots of verbiage and simply no evidence for your claims. Intermittent renewables are subsidized everywhere. Nuclear power is not. Electricity prices in countries with nuclear power are generally lower than electricity prices where intermittent renewables are used. Hydro is a different matter, that is reliable. Sweden has both hydro and renewables and is planning on adding 10 nuclear plants. Norway has hydro, doesn't need nuclear, though they are looking at SMRs for some remote communities. Iceland has plenty of hydro and geothermal they don't need nuclear. Alas, hydro is something you have or don't have. You can't build it out if you don't have the geography for it. The countries with the lucky geography use it to their advantage, though both Sweden and Finnland happily add nuclear to their hydro. The just-published report from the US DOE shows that nuclear + renewables solutions are cheaper than renewables alone. which is why the US wants to add around 200 GW of nuclear capacity to their grid, tripling capacity. https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/LIFTOFF_DOE_AdvNuclear-vX7.pdf https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/LIFTOF...