7 ms·

The money Germany "wasted" on renewables brought down prices a lot, triggering massive investments, which was the plan. My prediction is that even France will

by uecker 1y ago

The money Germany "wasted" on renewables brought down prices a lot, triggering massive investments, which was the plan. My prediction is that even France will scale down nuclear power for fiscal reasons alone - they would need to build new reactors now as a long-term replacement - but it does not look too good.

ViewTrick1002 1y ago
France keeps talking about the EPR2 program but the government just collapsed because they are underwater in debt and can't agree on any cuts or increases in taxation. At this moment to go on a massive spending spree for a dead-end nuclear project is not a very sane policy.
- seec 1y ago
  Investing in the futur when you have a hard time creating more value than you consume is exactly what you need to do. Reducing investment is precisely the way to reinforce the downward feedback loop. If they want to keep taxing the common man, they need them to create more value otherwise to are just taking larger and larger share of vanishing small value. France does have money; it's just all concentrated in the boomer generation who is fighting hard to keep control. A large share of the debt is generated to keep this gerontocracy confortable at the expense of the youth and future.
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    Which means you need a return on the investment for it to work. Creating self sustaining industries that don’t need subsidies. Tossing an absolutely mindbogglingly large subsidy to the 70 year old nuclear industry which never has delivered competitive products is not a good use of money. It is like saying we create value by going around breaking windows and paying people to fix it. France’s problem is that if they don’t fix the spending issue on their own the bond market will do it for them. Maintaining the debt will be a larger and larger portion of the budget until the only option is solving the issue. Cutting spending will lower GDP and push up debt as a percent of GDP. But it wasn’t real income when the debt you took on did not lead to productive outcomes. Just polishing a pig.
    - mpweiher 1y ago
      Er...nuclear is already self sustaining and has a great ROI for the French (and pretty much everyone else). Even the most catastrophic nuclear construction project the French ever had, Flamanville 3, will have better ROI than intermittent renewable projects. What doesn't make sense is throwing more good money after 25 years of subsidies at intermittent renewables that have yet to show a positive ROI.
      - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
        I’m not sure where to begin. Please stop straight up lying? Nothing in this comment is correct. In France the battle is over how large the subsidies needs to be to even get started on the EPR2 program. Driven by EDF is too financially weak to take on more projects after the recent boondoggles and that new built nuclear power simply does not deliver electricity at a price the market accepts. That does not sound very self sustaining. Regarding Flamanville 3 you are likely citing the report with a discount rate lower than the inflation and a 40 year pay back time, while comparing to the first ever off shore wind farm in France. You know, a prototype as regards to working with French industry and bureaucracy. For anyone even having a slight economic understanding the writers of that report are shouting from the rooftops that investing in nuclear power is pure lunacy. But shrouded in a language allowing lobbyists and blindingly biased people to cite it. I also love how the fastest growing energy source in human history, for which subsidies are being phased out as we speak, haven’t shown a positive ROI. What do I now. All that private money going into renewables are calculated in making a loss.
        mpweiher 1y ago
        My comment is exactly correct. EDF gets subsidies from the state for their renewables projects. EDF pays nuclear profits to the state. And to the rest of French industry via the ARENH program. Facts. That private money going into renewables is great at getting guaranteed state subsidies. It's the best business model ever.
        ViewTrick1002 1y ago
mpweiher 1y ago
> The money Germany "wasted" on renewables brought down prices a lot, It massively increased the price of electricity in Germany. And the same holds true of pretty much every other location that tried it. And it did remarkably little for CO₂ emissions, massively increased our dependence on cheap Russian Gas thus emboldening Putin, cemented our fossil fuel dependence for reliable base load, entrenched our dependence on China. On the whole, "wasted" is putting it kindly. Yes, the prices of the generating equipment have come down from truly astronomical to only "not competitive without massive subsidies". Had we spend the same money on nuclear power plants, we would have long been done with the decarbonization of our electricity sector, and probably well into the electrification and ensuing decarbonization of the other sectors as well. Except we would have found it difficult to spend that much on nuclear power plants, because even at the price of the messed up EPR prototypes, the same money would have bought us over 50 reactors. At the price of the first three Konvois, around 100, adjusted for inflation and some increases. But when you build 50-100 reactors of the same kind (that's important: don't make every new one different like we used to do), the cost does go down. France is increasing its fission fleet again, after repealing a law that made such expansion illegal beyond the then existing generating capacity 63.2 GW. The goal of a reduction of the nuclear share to below 50% was also repealed. I do believe that the share of nuclear in France will decrease somewhat, because intermittent renewables can let the nuclear plants run at higher efficiencies by taking up some of the variability that is currently handled by the nuclear plants.
- natmaka 1y ago
  >> The money Germany "wasted" on renewables brought down prices a lot, > It massively increased the price of electricity in Germany. We all have to consider the total cost on the long term. I analyzed it for France. I wrote it in French, sorry, but AFAIK software does not distort it: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/accueil#h.g1ees0y2dbwi https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/accueil#h.... > And it did remarkably little for CO₂ emissions Nope: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity?tab=line&time=2011..latest&country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electric... > massively increased our dependence on cheap Russian Gas thus emboldening Putin True, sadly, however consider that nuclear didn't save France which is even more dependent (while less industrialized). French ahead: https://sites.google.com/view/avenirdunucleraire/transition-%C3%A9nerg%C3%A9tique#h.wd35a19z66yp https://sites.google.com/view/avenirdunucleraire/transition-... > Had we spend the same money on nuclear power plants France ("Flamanville-3" reactor) and the US (Vogtle, VS Summer) did so, and it failed. > Except we would have found it difficult to spend that much on nuclear power plants, because even at the price of the messed up EPR prototypes, the same money would have bought us over 50 reactors. Once more: source? The most serious allegations published state about official investments previsions until 2050, and not only for renewables (grid maintenance is a) > don't make every new one different like we used to do ... therefore if a potentially dangerous defect is discovered you will have to shut them down all. No more juice, yay! It nearly happened in France recently, and the shock was alleviated by the fact that the fleet is NOT made of identical reactors, and therefore a fair part could produce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis_since_late_2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis... > France is increasing its fission fleet again Not really. The last project (Flamanville-3) started in 2004, work on the field started in 2007, the reactor was to be delivered in 2012 for 3.3 billion € and only started a few months ago (it did not yet reach full power) for at least 23.7 billion €. https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-flamanville-la-cour-des-comptes-estime-le-cout-total-a-23-7-milliards-d-euros_6497010_3234.html https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-fl... Even the official report about it states explicitly that this building project was a failure. There are claimed intentions to build at least 2 new reactors since 2022, nothing else.

by uecker 1y ago

ViewTrick1002 1y ago

France keeps talking about the EPR2 program but the government just collapsed because they are underwater in debt and can't agree on any cuts or increases in taxation. At this moment to go on a massive spending spree for a dead-end nuclear project is not a very sane policy.

seec 1y ago
Investing in the futur when you have a hard time creating more value than you consume is exactly what you need to do. Reducing investment is precisely the way to reinforce the downward feedback loop. If they want to keep taxing the common man, they need them to create more value otherwise to are just taking larger and larger share of vanishing small value. France does have money; it's just all concentrated in the boomer generation who is fighting hard to keep control. A large share of the debt is generated to keep this gerontocracy confortable at the expense of the youth and future.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  Which means you need a return on the investment for it to work. Creating self sustaining industries that don’t need subsidies. Tossing an absolutely mindbogglingly large subsidy to the 70 year old nuclear industry which never has delivered competitive products is not a good use of money. It is like saying we create value by going around breaking windows and paying people to fix it. France’s problem is that if they don’t fix the spending issue on their own the bond market will do it for them. Maintaining the debt will be a larger and larger portion of the budget until the only option is solving the issue. Cutting spending will lower GDP and push up debt as a percent of GDP. But it wasn’t real income when the debt you took on did not lead to productive outcomes. Just polishing a pig.
  - mpweiher 1y ago
    Er...nuclear is already self sustaining and has a great ROI for the French (and pretty much everyone else). Even the most catastrophic nuclear construction project the French ever had, Flamanville 3, will have better ROI than intermittent renewable projects. What doesn't make sense is throwing more good money after 25 years of subsidies at intermittent renewables that have yet to show a positive ROI.
    - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
      I’m not sure where to begin. Please stop straight up lying? Nothing in this comment is correct. In France the battle is over how large the subsidies needs to be to even get started on the EPR2 program. Driven by EDF is too financially weak to take on more projects after the recent boondoggles and that new built nuclear power simply does not deliver electricity at a price the market accepts. That does not sound very self sustaining. Regarding Flamanville 3 you are likely citing the report with a discount rate lower than the inflation and a 40 year pay back time, while comparing to the first ever off shore wind farm in France. You know, a prototype as regards to working with French industry and bureaucracy. For anyone even having a slight economic understanding the writers of that report are shouting from the rooftops that investing in nuclear power is pure lunacy. But shrouded in a language allowing lobbyists and blindingly biased people to cite it. I also love how the fastest growing energy source in human history, for which subsidies are being phased out as we speak, haven’t shown a positive ROI. What do I now. All that private money going into renewables are calculated in making a loss.
      - mpweiher 1y ago
        My comment is exactly correct. EDF gets subsidies from the state for their renewables projects. EDF pays nuclear profits to the state. And to the rest of French industry via the ARENH program. Facts. That private money going into renewables is great at getting guaranteed state subsidies. It's the best business model ever.
        ViewTrick1002 1y ago

mpweiher 1y ago

> The money Germany "wasted" on renewables brought down prices a lot, It massively increased the price of electricity in Germany. And the same holds true of pretty much every other location that tried it. And it did remarkably little for CO₂ emissions, massively increased our dependence on cheap Russian Gas thus emboldening Putin, cemented our fossil fuel dependence for reliable base load, entrenched our dependence on China. On the whole, "wasted" is putting it kindly. Yes, the prices of the generating equipment have come down from truly astronomical to only "not competitive without massive subsidies". Had we spend the same money on nuclear power plants, we would have long been done with the decarbonization of our electricity sector, and probably well into the electrification and ensuing decarbonization of the other sectors as well. Except we would have found it difficult to spend that much on nuclear power plants, because even at the price of the messed up EPR prototypes, the same money would have bought us over 50 reactors. At the price of the first three Konvois, around 100, adjusted for inflation and some increases. But when you build 50-100 reactors of the same kind (that's important: don't make every new one different like we used to do), the cost does go down. France is increasing its fission fleet again, after repealing a law that made such expansion illegal beyond the then existing generating capacity 63.2 GW. The goal of a reduction of the nuclear share to below 50% was also repealed. I do believe that the share of nuclear in France will decrease somewhat, because intermittent renewables can let the nuclear plants run at higher efficiencies by taking up some of the variability that is currently handled by the nuclear plants.

natmaka 1y ago
>> The money Germany "wasted" on renewables brought down prices a lot, > It massively increased the price of electricity in Germany. We all have to consider the total cost on the long term. I analyzed it for France. I wrote it in French, sorry, but AFAIK software does not distort it: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/accueil#h.g1ees0y2dbwi https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/accueil#h.... > And it did remarkably little for CO₂ emissions Nope: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity?tab=line&time=2011..latest&country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electric... > massively increased our dependence on cheap Russian Gas thus emboldening Putin True, sadly, however consider that nuclear didn't save France which is even more dependent (while less industrialized). French ahead: https://sites.google.com/view/avenirdunucleraire/transition-%C3%A9nerg%C3%A9tique#h.wd35a19z66yp https://sites.google.com/view/avenirdunucleraire/transition-... > Had we spend the same money on nuclear power plants France ("Flamanville-3" reactor) and the US (Vogtle, VS Summer) did so, and it failed. > Except we would have found it difficult to spend that much on nuclear power plants, because even at the price of the messed up EPR prototypes, the same money would have bought us over 50 reactors. Once more: source? The most serious allegations published state about official investments previsions until 2050, and not only for renewables (grid maintenance is a) > don't make every new one different like we used to do ... therefore if a potentially dangerous defect is discovered you will have to shut them down all. No more juice, yay! It nearly happened in France recently, and the shock was alleviated by the fact that the fleet is NOT made of identical reactors, and therefore a fair part could produce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis_since_late_2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis... > France is increasing its fission fleet again Not really. The last project (Flamanville-3) started in 2004, work on the field started in 2007, the reactor was to be delivered in 2012 for 3.3 billion € and only started a few months ago (it did not yet reach full power) for at least 23.7 billion €. https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-flamanville-la-cour-des-comptes-estime-le-cout-total-a-23-7-milliards-d-euros_6497010_3234.html https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-fl... Even the official report about it states explicitly that this building project was a failure. There are claimed intentions to build at least 2 new reactors since 2022, nothing else.