4 ms·

> 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 p

> 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 The goal of a reduction of the nuclear share to below 50% was also repealed.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.
- mpweiher 1y ago
  > [renewables massively increased electricity prices, not decreased them as claimed] > We all have to consider the total cost on the long term. Yes, we do. When you consider long term, it gets even worse for intermittent renewables. Nuclear, on the other hand is a license to print money when you consider the long term. > I analyzed it for France. With all due respects to your "analysis", the French auditors came to a different conclusion. > Nope [to having little effect on CO₂ emissions] The graph you linked to proves my point: the reduction is laughable. France's specific CO₂ emissions are less than 1/10th of Germany's per kWh. Have been for decades, at a fraction of the cost. > France ("Flamanville-3" reactor) and the US (Vogtle, VS Summer) did so, and it failed. Again, the opposite is true. Those projects did not "fail". They all produce reliable power, which intermittent renewables cannot do, at better prices than intermittent renewables. Of course, compared to other nuclear projects, they were massive failures, but not when compared to intermittent renewables. The standards are just so different. And your reasoning is also wrong: those projects "failed" (relative to other nuclear projects) precisely because far too little was being built. They are all First of a Kind (FOAK) builds, and built in countries that built little to no new nuclear in the last 20-40 years. FOAK builds are slow and expensive (and slow is extra expensive, as most of the cost is financing, i.e. interest payments). NOAK builds tend to go much quicker and be a lot cheaper. As an example, China builds much faster and cheaper. People incorrectly claim this is because they skimp on safety, labor, tech etc. Not true. Their first AP-1000 took 9 years, almost as long as Vogtles, especially when you take into account the COVID years. They are now building their version in 5 years. Essentially the same reactor, certainly the same country. Half the time. FOAK vs. NOAK is the ticket. > .. therefore if a potentially dangerous defect is discovered you will have to shut them down all. France's primary problem was lack of maintenance due to the de-emphasis of nuclear during the Mitterand years and deferred maintenance during COVID. And you don't build just one kind. Build 2-3 kinds and 10-20 of each. Oh, and don't build them too quick. These things last for 100 years, so to achieve steady state you can't build out your entire fleet in 10-20 years, because then you industry has nothing to build for the next 80-90 years and withers. > Even the official report about it states explicitly that this building project was a failure. No it didn't. Relative to the standards of nuclear power plants it was horrific. But even under fairly negative assumptions for the price of electricity it will have "modest" profitability. Which, once again, is better than the best intermittent renewables projects. And FV3 is not "the nuclear industry". It is that particular project. > There are claimed intentions to build at least 2 new reactors since 2022, nothing else. That is false. The current plan is to build 6 EPR2 and later on to build 8 more. Sites have been selected for the first 6, and engineering contracts for the first 2 have been awarded to the tune of several billion €. If that's "nothing", then can I have just a bit of that "nothing" from you? Can send you my bank details.
uecker 1y ago
Come, please do not repeat all this nonsense from the tabloids. First, you need to specify what prices you talk about. If you talk about household prices, then yes those increased. This, btw, was also intentional. The system was designed in this way to encourage energy conservation. It certainly got too far, but this is largely a political issue. In France prices were kept low artificially (which did not help the nuclear industry!). So these prices do tell you exactly nothing about the merits of the technology, and more about politics. That reliance on Russian gas was increased is complete BS. Only a very small amount of gas which is imported is used for electricity production (10% or so) and it is certainly not true that this (relatively small) amount increased. In 2024, 80 TWh of electricity were produced from gas. In 2010 it was 90 TWh. In that time frame, renewables increased from 105 TWh to 285 TWh. 1. CO2 emissions went down with roll-out of renewables exactly as expected2) Coal use for electricity production went down from 263 TWh in 2010 to 107 TWh in 2024. In fact, CO2 emission went down faster than planned which is the reason Germany still managed to meet climate targets despite other sectors (heating and transportation) not meeting their targets. That Co2 emissions for electricity production are still higher compared to some others is that there is still a lot of coal in the system (and electricity from that was already exported a lot until recently). But once coal is pushed out completely then this will be gone. The only real conclusion here is that the energy transition was started to late and is not fast enough. The past, nobody can change, but it would certainly be much slower when building nuclear plants now. France wants to double down on nuclear for political reasons and my prediction is that they will fail because they can not afford it. They have huge fiscal problems and they did not invest enough to renew their nuclear fleet in the past, sold electricity too cheap (so could not build up reserves), and would now have to invest a lot, but their nuclear industry is in a horrible state and their state dept is out of control already. 1.https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/STRERZ-Abgabe-2025-06.pdf https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/STR... 2.https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/co2-emissionen-pro-kilowattstunde-strom-2024 https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/co2-emissionen-pro-kil...
- uecker 1y ago
  The "Russian gas" argument is so grotesque also because Germany quickly stopped important gas from Russia after the start of the attack on Ukraine, but neither Europe nor the US has stopped importing nuclear fuel from Russia.

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.

mpweiher 1y ago
> [renewables massively increased electricity prices, not decreased them as claimed] > We all have to consider the total cost on the long term. Yes, we do. When you consider long term, it gets even worse for intermittent renewables. Nuclear, on the other hand is a license to print money when you consider the long term. > I analyzed it for France. With all due respects to your "analysis", the French auditors came to a different conclusion. > Nope [to having little effect on CO₂ emissions] The graph you linked to proves my point: the reduction is laughable. France's specific CO₂ emissions are less than 1/10th of Germany's per kWh. Have been for decades, at a fraction of the cost. > France ("Flamanville-3" reactor) and the US (Vogtle, VS Summer) did so, and it failed. Again, the opposite is true. Those projects did not "fail". They all produce reliable power, which intermittent renewables cannot do, at better prices than intermittent renewables. Of course, compared to other nuclear projects, they were massive failures, but not when compared to intermittent renewables. The standards are just so different. And your reasoning is also wrong: those projects "failed" (relative to other nuclear projects) precisely because far too little was being built. They are all First of a Kind (FOAK) builds, and built in countries that built little to no new nuclear in the last 20-40 years. FOAK builds are slow and expensive (and slow is extra expensive, as most of the cost is financing, i.e. interest payments). NOAK builds tend to go much quicker and be a lot cheaper. As an example, China builds much faster and cheaper. People incorrectly claim this is because they skimp on safety, labor, tech etc. Not true. Their first AP-1000 took 9 years, almost as long as Vogtles, especially when you take into account the COVID years. They are now building their version in 5 years. Essentially the same reactor, certainly the same country. Half the time. FOAK vs. NOAK is the ticket. > .. therefore if a potentially dangerous defect is discovered you will have to shut them down all. France's primary problem was lack of maintenance due to the de-emphasis of nuclear during the Mitterand years and deferred maintenance during COVID. And you don't build just one kind. Build 2-3 kinds and 10-20 of each. Oh, and don't build them too quick. These things last for 100 years, so to achieve steady state you can't build out your entire fleet in 10-20 years, because then you industry has nothing to build for the next 80-90 years and withers. > Even the official report about it states explicitly that this building project was a failure. No it didn't. Relative to the standards of nuclear power plants it was horrific. But even under fairly negative assumptions for the price of electricity it will have "modest" profitability. Which, once again, is better than the best intermittent renewables projects. And FV3 is not "the nuclear industry". It is that particular project. > There are claimed intentions to build at least 2 new reactors since 2022, nothing else. That is false. The current plan is to build 6 EPR2 and later on to build 8 more. Sites have been selected for the first 6, and engineering contracts for the first 2 have been awarded to the tune of several billion €. If that's "nothing", then can I have just a bit of that "nothing" from you? Can send you my bank details.

uecker 1y ago

Come, please do not repeat all this nonsense from the tabloids. First, you need to specify what prices you talk about. If you talk about household prices, then yes those increased. This, btw, was also intentional. The system was designed in this way to encourage energy conservation. It certainly got too far, but this is largely a political issue. In France prices were kept low artificially (which did not help the nuclear industry!). So these prices do tell you exactly nothing about the merits of the technology, and more about politics. That reliance on Russian gas was increased is complete BS. Only a very small amount of gas which is imported is used for electricity production (10% or so) and it is certainly not true that this (relatively small) amount increased. In 2024, 80 TWh of electricity were produced from gas. In 2010 it was 90 TWh. In that time frame, renewables increased from 105 TWh to 285 TWh. 1. CO2 emissions went down with roll-out of renewables exactly as expected2) Coal use for electricity production went down from 263 TWh in 2010 to 107 TWh in 2024. In fact, CO2 emission went down faster than planned which is the reason Germany still managed to meet climate targets despite other sectors (heating and transportation) not meeting their targets. That Co2 emissions for electricity production are still higher compared to some others is that there is still a lot of coal in the system (and electricity from that was already exported a lot until recently). But once coal is pushed out completely then this will be gone. The only real conclusion here is that the energy transition was started to late and is not fast enough. The past, nobody can change, but it would certainly be much slower when building nuclear plants now. France wants to double down on nuclear for political reasons and my prediction is that they will fail because they can not afford it. They have huge fiscal problems and they did not invest enough to renew their nuclear fleet in the past, sold electricity too cheap (so could not build up reserves), and would now have to invest a lot, but their nuclear industry is in a horrible state and their state dept is out of control already. 1.https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/STRERZ-Abgabe-2025-06.pdf https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/STR... 2.https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/co2-emissionen-pro-kilowattstunde-strom-2024 https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/co2-emissionen-pro-kil...

uecker 1y ago
The "Russian gas" argument is so grotesque also because Germany quickly stopped important gas from Russia after the start of the attack on Ukraine, but neither Europe nor the US has stopped importing nuclear fuel from Russia.