And I assume the energy companies will be footing the bill from construction till deconstruction and long term storage, the later two as a trustee deposit, on their own without any state subsidies. Given that all the pro-nuclear folk always tout so many benefits to nuclear, this should be a non-issue and be very profitable.
And I assume the energy companies will be footing the bill from construction till deconstruction and long term storage, the later two as a trustee deposit, on their own without any state subsidies. Given that all the pro-nuclear folk always tout so many benefits to nuclear, this should be a non-issue and be very profitable.
I don’t really see profitability being a factor if there is already a universal understanding that reducing carbon emissions will always come at a cost anyway. Or am I misunderstanding your point?
Those are not unsolvable problems though, and they stem from political issues rather than the technical problems we still have with the scale of energy storage that we will need with 100% renewable.
And that is not to say that we shouldn’t use renewables, we should just also use nuclear.We mostly do not need too much storage today. For that we first need an overproduction of renewables at certain points to actually store and that is unforuntatly not the case today.
As for scale the key technoliges seem to be batteries for shorter storage and hydrogen for longer dunkelflaute. The first is pushed mainly by EV developement, which is going to push down the price for battery packs and built enough factories to have the scale necessary. Hydrogen as a product is needed for chemical and steel production anyway. So we need to built the infrastructure for that including some storage. But development cost will mainly be meet by that.
Idk for germany but nuclear power is super profitable in france. In fact its soo cheap that our producer of electricity is obligated by EU to sell a part of his production to other brand of electricity to equilibrate with other companies who produce electricity with gas.
Nuclear Power is heavily subsuidezed in France. Most in france related to nuclear are state institutions. Including the Energy Company EDF and the scientific institute CEA. It is often phrased as a state-in-state with a lot of undisclosed structures and money funds. They were created when France saw in the 60s that they need also a nuclear bomb and hence developed a state-close structure that until today in not giving out too much informations. The French citizens pay with their taxes for their nuclear power plants. Heavily. And they hide it behind a lot of structures. Who is paying for the construction? The Repair? The Decomission? - Right: French citizens. If if calculate all these cost into the bill, Nuclear energy is one of the most expensive energy forms there are.
Nah, fossil fuels are the most expensive energy there is, hands down.
Climate change isn’t cheap.
Paying a tax to help prevent that is much better than dealing with it. Solar and wind should get subsidies too. Treating climate change like it’s a capitalist rather than a socialist won’t solve it.
It is heavily subsidized by the french taxpayer, including price fixing for new plants to guarantee the profits.
You are being played.
Even with the deconstruction cost , the repair cost and the cost of the nuclear waste it still way more environmental friendly than gas/coal produced energy. Also you need way less place for the same production of energy than solar pannel or eolian. i dont think than we have been fooled on this subject .
You claimed it to be cheap. It is evidently not, the costs are just hidden.
France has large coastal areas for reliable offshore wind energy. These don’t compete with any uses and are much cheaper than nuclear power. The land use of solar power seems hardly to be an issue in France. I have been to southern France many times and there is a lot of unused land. Also you will need to combined solar power and agriculture soon enough as the direct sun is becoming too much for many crops to handle. In these areas solar power will allow for land use instead of competing with it. And again solar power is much much cheaper than nuclear power.
Your old reactors are producing “cheap” energy if we ignore indirect subsidies like state guarantees for project risks and replacing insurance for uninsurable power plants, costs of eventual decommissioning, waste storage etc. . But many of them are end of life. They are kept running because building new ones even to replace the existing capacity takes ages and is far too expensive to be profitable under the price regulation (i.e. Flamanville, which would require 12-17 cents/ kWh to be profitable while the regulated price is 7 cents which wind and solar can achieve natively. Similar problems with international EDF projects like Hinkley Point).
How much does electricity cost per kWh in France?
Lindner: haha nein.
Thank God.
