- cross-posted to:
- europe@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
Berlin’s concerns in part stemmed from concerns that French industry would gain a competitive edge thanks to its 56-strong fleet of reactors, while German industry still struggles with the impact of high gas prices following the cut-off from cheap Russian fuel.
How about we force the French to finally build proper links to Spain so that their nuclear plants have to compete with Iberian renewables.
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 doubt the point will be to build traditional old style reactors. I assume they’d be for Gen 4.
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?
The point is that no sane company touches nuclear with a ten-mile pole unless heavily subsidised, because it’s economically very challenging (if not impossible) to get it to run at a profit. It’s essentially a big money sink that also produces power.
Whereas alternatives, like renewables, cost a lot less and have a much more immediate return. It’s why companies do like to invest in those.
Nuclear as an option is badly outclassed economically.
The point is that no sane company touches nuclear with a ten-mile pole unless heavily subsidised, because it’s economically very challenging (if not impossible) to get it to run at a profit. It’s essentially a big money sink that also produces power.
Whereas alternatives, like renewables, cost a lot less and have a much more immediate return. It’s why companies do like to invest in those.
Nuclear as an option is badly outclassed economically.
I understand that. What I don’t understand is why economic considerations are on the table at all. My technical understanding is that the electric grid under current consumption habits simply cannot function without large-scale on-demand providers like coal, gas or nuclear plants. Wouldn’t that imply that if one wanted to come off of coal and gas quickly, nuclear has no alternatives? Is there an option D?
No, this is not the case. The alternative for on-demand is batteries, not nuclear. Building sufficient battery capacity is often already cheaper than nuclear and by the time a nuclear reactor is finished building it’s guaranteed to be much cheaper. Nuclear is also terrible at being on-demand: it’s extremely expensive to shut off and restart, and pretty slow at it too. That means that it has to compete with cheap renewable energy at peak hours, which it easily loses. So you’d either have to subsidize it to keep it open, or force people to buy nuclear power which makes power more expensive (see France which has to subsidize the reactors, requires people to buy that power and as a result is constantly having to subsidize the people’s electricity bills too, covering a part of it. It costs the French government billions every year).
Nuclear also doesn’t help to get you off coal and gas quickly. It’s extremely slow to adopt.
Economic considerations are important. If you get can 1MW of clean power for X money, or 2MW instead, which is best to use? Less money spent per green MW means more green MWs in total.
For the environment, it’s likely best (eg lowest total emissions) to invest in renewables and storage, and to fill up the gaps during this adoption with gas. Gas is not great but it’s much better than coal, it’s great at on-demand scaling and it’s pretty cheap. This frees up enough money to keep investing in renewables which accelerates adoption.
I appreciate your time but I feel like I’m possibly thinking and talking about a completely different optimization problem than you (and please correct me if that’s an incorrect reading). I’m trying to solve for: “What’s the quickest path to reducing total carbon emissions to near 0?”
I see it as a given that it’s reasonable to max out every bit of production capacity into increasing battery storage and into carpeting every last residential roof and former rapeseed-field with solar panels. So the only question left to me is: How can the time until the last combustion-based power plant is shut down be minimized?No, this is not the case. The alternative for on-demand is batteries, not nuclear. Building sufficient battery capacity is often already cheaper than nuclear and by the time a nuclear reactor is finished building it’s guaranteed to be much cheaper. Nuclear is also terrible at being on-demand: it’s extremely expensive to shut off and restart, and pretty slow at it too. That means that it has to compete with cheap renewable energy at peak hours, which it easily loses. So you’d either have to subsidize it to keep it open, or force people to buy nuclear power which makes power more expensive (see France which has to subsidize the reactors, requires people to buy that power and as a result is constantly having to subsidize the people’s electricity bills too, covering a part of it. It costs the French government billions every year).
Nuclear also doesn’t help to get you off coal and gas quickly. It’s extremely slow to adopt.
For the environment, it’s likely best (eg lowest total emissions) to invest in renewables and storage, and to fill up the gaps during this adoption with gas. Gas is not great but it’s much better than coal, it’s great at on-demand scaling and it’s pretty cheap. This frees up enough money to keep investing in renewables which accelerates adoption.
What are the time scales for the calculation here? How long does it take to manufacture enough battery capacity? How long does it take to reactivate Germany’s existing nuclear power infrastructure? I mean if the former takes 40 years and the latter 4, then I assume we’d still get to kick fossil fuels to the curb earlier at the low low cost of… some money.
Economic considerations are important. If you get can 1MW of clean power for X money, or 2MW instead, which is best to use? Less money spent per green MW means more green MWs in total.
I don’t see how it is quite that simple. Isn’t it rather something in the realms of either A) 1MW of clean power and 1MW of combustion-based power for X money. B) 2MW of clean power and 1MW of combustion-based power for 2X money. C) 2MW of clean power, 0.5MW of combustion-based power, 0.5MW of nuclear power for 4X money
I’d strongly prefer something like option C.
Despite their cost-intensive operation, steam engines prevailed over water and wind power (cottages, hammers, mills) during the industrial revolution because they made it possible to exploit workers more continuously and to “decouple” from nature. Against this background, this manoeuvre can also be interpreted as class warfare from above. We need a new system. #Solarpunk #Ecosocialism
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.What “political issues” do you mean? Requirements to safety and environmental standards? Sure, nuclear energy could be way cheaper if those pesky politicians would just allow to forgo safety standards and to dump nuclear waste into landfills, but that cannot seriously be what you’re suggesting.
No I mean the NIMBYism that people present when debating the location of long term storage. What I mean is that the method to create these is not the issue, but rather the public opposition.
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.
Idk for germany but nuclear power is super profitable in france
it’s fucking not
It is , way cheaper than gas coal or intermitant energies.
But it could be, if just dump the waste in the Nord Sea like in the 60s… /s
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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?
Do you mean how much it costs to make in a nuclear plant, or how much the consumer pays on the electricity bill?
I am mainly interested in the consumer price.
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.
Lindner: haha nein.
Thank God.
