3 ms·

> 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

> 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...

Kon5ole 2y ago
> Yes they did [EDF "bankruptcy"] >This is not true. Yes it is. It was reported in just about every language on earth, look at any newspaper you wish. Here's one. https://www.neimagazine.com/news/france-to-renationalise-edf-9838179/?cf-view https://www.neimagazine.com/news/france-to-renationalise-edf... The reasons given for the renationalization were "EDF's problems are above all under-capitalisation and under-remuneration." Which means "they are not profitable". >Until 2004 France owned 100% of EDF. They sold just 16%. And then took it back. That changes nothing of what I said - they "Took it back" by paying 10 billion euros of taxpayer money. >The state did not "take over" €50 billion in debt. You might argue that the taxpayers were always on the hook for this debt. It was only documented and formalized when France bought the whole thing. Ltting EDF go bellyup and not paying was never on the table, that's the hook of nuclear power. But that's semantics. 50 billion of debt will be paid by the taxpayers sooner or later. You have failed to refute my claim of 80 billion in hidden costs and are instead arguing sidepoints and semantics. The unemotional thing to do would be to say "Ah yes, of course we need to account for at least those 80 billion, that's true". I thought you said you were the rational one with evidence and the opponents were all emotional. 80 billion is not emotions, it's evidence, and you're trying hard to pretend it doesn't exist. Why is that? >It looks like the utilities paid the federal government for the repository, but are not getting the services they paid for. But they didn't pay for it. They may have paid 750 million per year but that's not anywhere close to enough. Remember Sellafield? This is another example of how the operators pretend to be profitable - they pay nowhere near enough to cover the costs, but they have negotiated a deal that makes that a taxpayer problem. In their books they just write "waste management, paid in full" and the rest of the payment is covered by taxpayers. A hidden expense. This is again a fact that you seem unwilling to accept. Why?
- mpweiher 2y ago
  > It was reported You should read your sources. It confirms what I wrote and contradicts what you wrote. > they "Took it back" No. Not if "it" was "EDF". Because "it" was a minority 16 percent stake. > 50 billion of debt will be paid by the taxpayers sooner or later. No it won't. Which part of "profitable" and "investment" do you not understand? > You have failed to refute my claim of 80 billion in hidden costs There was nothing there to refute. You are free to make up random stuff, I will continue to ignore your made up stuff, as even the claims for which you provide sources turn out to be untrue, contradicted by the very sources you bring. > But they didn't pay for it. But they did. So much, in fact, that the federal government now has to pay them for breach of contract. Sellafield is not Yucca mountain, and is much more than just a storage facility. "Sellafield, formerly known as Windscale, is a large multi-function nuclear site close to ... " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield > they pay nowhere near enough to cover the costs, They paid more than the costs. Look it up.

Kon5ole 2y ago

> Yes they did [EDF "bankruptcy"] >This is not true. Yes it is. It was reported in just about every language on earth, look at any newspaper you wish. Here's one. https://www.neimagazine.com/news/france-to-renationalise-edf-9838179/?cf-view https://www.neimagazine.com/news/france-to-renationalise-edf... The reasons given for the renationalization were "EDF's problems are above all under-capitalisation and under-remuneration." Which means "they are not profitable". >Until 2004 France owned 100% of EDF. They sold just 16%. And then took it back. That changes nothing of what I said - they "Took it back" by paying 10 billion euros of taxpayer money. >The state did not "take over" €50 billion in debt. You might argue that the taxpayers were always on the hook for this debt. It was only documented and formalized when France bought the whole thing. Ltting EDF go bellyup and not paying was never on the table, that's the hook of nuclear power. But that's semantics. 50 billion of debt will be paid by the taxpayers sooner or later. You have failed to refute my claim of 80 billion in hidden costs and are instead arguing sidepoints and semantics. The unemotional thing to do would be to say "Ah yes, of course we need to account for at least those 80 billion, that's true". I thought you said you were the rational one with evidence and the opponents were all emotional. 80 billion is not emotions, it's evidence, and you're trying hard to pretend it doesn't exist. Why is that? >It looks like the utilities paid the federal government for the repository, but are not getting the services they paid for. But they didn't pay for it. They may have paid 750 million per year but that's not anywhere close to enough. Remember Sellafield? This is another example of how the operators pretend to be profitable - they pay nowhere near enough to cover the costs, but they have negotiated a deal that makes that a taxpayer problem. In their books they just write "waste management, paid in full" and the rest of the payment is covered by taxpayers. A hidden expense. This is again a fact that you seem unwilling to accept. Why?

mpweiher 2y ago
> It was reported You should read your sources. It confirms what I wrote and contradicts what you wrote. > they "Took it back" No. Not if "it" was "EDF". Because "it" was a minority 16 percent stake. > 50 billion of debt will be paid by the taxpayers sooner or later. No it won't. Which part of "profitable" and "investment" do you not understand? > You have failed to refute my claim of 80 billion in hidden costs There was nothing there to refute. You are free to make up random stuff, I will continue to ignore your made up stuff, as even the claims for which you provide sources turn out to be untrue, contradicted by the very sources you bring. > But they didn't pay for it. But they did. So much, in fact, that the federal government now has to pay them for breach of contract. Sellafield is not Yucca mountain, and is much more than just a storage facility. "Sellafield, formerly known as Windscale, is a large multi-function nuclear site close to ... " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield > they pay nowhere near enough to cover the costs, They paid more than the costs. Look it up.