• felykiosa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • Lachs@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • Lumiluz@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        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.

      • felykiosa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        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 .

        • GenosseFlosse@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Well for starters you have to take out billions in credits over at least 20-30 years and pay interest on it, until the plant is built and you can start selling power and make any money from it.

        • Saleh@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • felykiosa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            20 hours ago

            Unused and protected land , we habe the biggest natural reserve in europe. Also I never said that intermittent energy was a thing to ban just that you could do both. Would love to quote my sources but unfortunately its ib french . a lot of it is summarized by Jean marc jancovici a french engineer who s job is to make reports on the state and solution for the energy grid in France.

    • Don_alForno@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      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).

      • GenosseFlosse@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Do you mean how much it costs to make in a nuclear plant, or how much the consumer pays on the electricity bill?

          • GenosseFlosse@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            12 hours ago

            This doesn’t make the electricity cheaper for you. It just means a lower number is printed on your power bill, and a higher number on your sales-, income or other tax bill that the government then gives to the power plant owner.