The evidence for this is overwhelming and undeniable, yet some people here still seem to believe that nuclear is ‘cheap and safe’.
I truly don’t understand how it’s possible for rational humans to believe that.
The problem is that this is just a feeling. The bigger problem is that this feeling is still extremely widespread, completely contrary to the facts. For example...
> Nuclear energy has never been profitable anywhere in the world to date
This is completely false. Nuclear energy is profitable pretty much everywhere it is used. Almost obscenely profitable, if you are allowed to run the plants.
I ran the numbers for Hinkley Point C. At the rate they negotiated (14,8 Cents/kWh...or was it pence?) the profits are almost obscene.
A modern EPR will generate 1040 TWh of electricity over its lifetime, assuming 80 years operation and 90% capacity factor. Assuming the EDF-negotiated price is 14,8 cents, that's a cool € 150 billion worth of electricity. But that's just one reactor, whereas HPC is two. So € 300 billion. Puts even the completely ridiculous cost overruns for those two reactors into perspective, doesn't it?
China built their two EPRs for a total of $7.5 billion, and with the EPR2, EDF is pretty certain to get construction times and costs.
Here's an explainer of the economics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY
The annual reports for one of the Swiss plants are online. They produce electricity for 3-5 cents. Profitably. In Switzerland. And they have expenses like...oh...a new administrative building in one year. Switzerland is not cheap.
> has entirely disproportionate downsides
What are those "entirely disproportionate downsides", in your opinion? If you subtract the effects of radiophobia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia
> The evidence for this is overwhelming and undeniable,
Yes, the evidence for nuclear is overwhelming und undeniable, yet some people go right ahead and deny it.
> I truly don’t understand how it’s possible for rational humans to believe that.
Agreed. I truly don't understand how it’s possible for rational humans to believe that nuclear is unsafe and uneconomic.
Not if you consider the full costs. Every official source you find only shows the costs that the operators have to pay, but the operators never pay the full cost. No nuclear power plant that I have found documentation for anywhere is operated without immense national subsidies.
You mention Hinkley point and say that they will generate 150 billion euros in income over 80 years. Let's assume that's about right and look further.
It is currently estimated to cost over 40 billion to build. Now we're at 110 billion. The storage facility will likely be Sellafield, which has a yearly budget of around 2.5 billion per year, times 80 years is 200 billion. Now we're at negative 90 billion.
Negative 90 billion already while the plants are actually operational. But the waste has to be managed for longer than that. For centuries after the plants have been closed, in fact. So we're at negative what, 300, 400 billion over the lifetime of costs.
This is also without considering any cost of operations. We assume here that 1000 people operating the plant work for free, never need any equipment, the plant never need maintenance, and the calculation still has a debt of several hundred billion.
Now you might say wait, that makes no sense, then EDF (the operator) would be unprofitable and go bankrupt!
Yes, and they did, a few years ago.
France covered the bill of over 50 billion euros in debt and also the upcoming 20 or so more billions in repair and maintenance. EDF was unprofitable even when they neglected required repairs and maintenance.
Again, nuclear is not profitable. Now, since the costs are mostly covered by governments and future generations, short-sighted investors and quarterly earnings-focused companies will of course go along with the pretense that it is.
Amazon is buying the subsidized unrealistic purchase price because that's what's going to be relevant to them. When the operator goes bankrupt because the costs turn out to be way more than they calculated with, it's not Amazon's problem. It's the US taxpayer's problem.
> Not if you consider the full costs.
Yes, in fact it is one of the few (maybe only?) electricity source that accounts for full costs. Fossil fuels deposit their waste in the atmosphere, renewables are heavily subsidized and their environmental damage generally isn't included either.
> No nuclear power plant that I have found documentation for anywhere is operated without immense national subsidies.
Citation needed.
> You mention Hinkley point and say that they will generate 150 billion euros in income over 80 years.
Incorrect. That is one reactor of HPC. Both together would be € 300 billion if they continue to get the agreed price, which I don't think they will.
> The storage facility will likely be Sellafield, which has a yearly budget of around 2.5 billion per year, times 80 years is 200 billion
Not only do you only take the output of just one reactor when there are two, you require that one reactor to finance all of Sellafield, a facility that serves the entire country.
The UK has more than one reactor.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74eb21e5274...
> Yes, and [EDF] did [go bankrupt], a few years ago.
No they did not. The French state, which never owned less than 84% of EDF, bough the remaining 16% stake to simplify the planned nuclear expansion.
> EDF was unprofitable even when they neglected required repairs and maintenance.
The opposite was true. EDF was and continues to be immensely profitable over the last few decades, despite being milked dry by the state, for example having to suffer such idiocies as having to sell 25% of their electricity at 4 cents/kWh to competitors and then often having to buy it back at market rates (ARENH). In 2022 those market rates were up to € 1/kWh, so they had to buy back their own electricity at 25x the price that they were required to sell it for. And the French government increased the ARENH quotas in that year.
These kinds of insane accounting shenanigans, all on the back of reliable and highly profitable nuclear plants, were the primary reason that EDF had a € 10 billion loss in 2022, their first in over a decade, IIRC.
> Again, nuclear is not profitable.
Only if you can't add up the numbers. See above.
And see, again:
>No they did not.
Yes they did. That the government bailed them out instead of actually letting the bankruptcy take place makes no difference.
However you slice it, the bottom line is that the price of nuclear electricity in France has not included the 10 billion that France paid to take ownership, does not include the 50 billion of debt that they took over, and not the 20 billion of neglected maintenance.
This is a well documented 80 billion euros that should have been paid by EDF and should have been visible on the electricity bills of nuclear power customers in France. But it wasn't.
There are other examples too, like the german Asse II mine, rancho seco in the US, the government nuclear fund in sweden, all either entirely paid for by taxpayers or underfunded meaning they will eventually have to be paid for by taxpayers.
>LOL. Not only do you only take the output of just one reactor when there are two,
Yes I did, because none of the other 9 reactors pay for Sellafield either. If the rules change today so that new nuclear plants have to pay for their own waste, then HPC would have to pay for all of Sellafield.
Also, HPC will probably be the last remaining plant for at least 40 years (if it is operational for 80), so it will have to finance Sellafield alone then.
And what about the remaining centuries after that? Who pays then?
You may think that's unfair, but it is of course even more unfair that they don't pay for it and instead kick the costs to future taxpayers.
Right?
Who pays for Rancho Seco, who pays for Yucca Mountain, who pays for Asse II, who pays for AVR? Not the nuclear operators.
How can you even remotely believe that nuclear pays for it's full costs when there are so many examples like this?
This is not true.
> 10 billion that France paid to take ownership,
Wrong. Until 2004 France owned 100% of EDF. They sold just 16%. And then took it back. It was always a state-owned enterprise.
> 50 billion of debt that they took over
The state did not "take over" €50 billion in debt. That is still held by EDF (and if you count the debt of state-owned companies as government debt, then it was always government debt, because, see above, the French state always owned vastly more than 50% of EDF. 100% until 2004, to be precise).
And that debt is not operational debt. As I stated before, EDF has been extremely profitable, and paying both taxes as well as dividends to its owner(s), mostly the French state.
Taking on the loans is how they financed construction of the nuclear power plants, which were not financed by the tax payer, but on the capital markets. With the loans EDF took on, they built infrastructure, in this case nuclear power plants. And with the (quite significant) profits from operating those plants, they pay back the loans.
This is what is known as "investment". Most companies do it.
> If the rules change today so that new nuclear plants have to pay for their own waste, then HPC would have to pay for all of Sellafield.
if (false) → conclude anything you like.
And of course you still only counted the income of a single reactor at HPC. [Picard voice:] There. are. two. reactors.
> Also, HPC will probably be the last remaining plant
False. UK is planning a 4x expansion of nuclear capacity.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-expansion-of-nucl...
They have started digging at Sizewell C.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24593672.sizewell-c-construction...
> who pays for Yucca Mountain
"Lacking an operating repository, the federal government initially paid utility companies somewhere between $300 and $500 million per year in compensation for failing to comply with the contract it signed to take the spent nuclear fuel by 1998"
It looks like the utilities paid the federal government for the repository, but are not getting the services they paid for.
Ahh yes, they did:
"The companies held up their end, feeding about $750 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund each year. But the department did not manage to set up any facility to receive the waste, forcing energy companies to store it themselves on-site."
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/how-the-department-of-energy...
Same in Germany: the utilities paid into the fund for the disposal, but the politicians blocked it.
Speaking of politicians blocking and Yucca Mountain:
"The Government Accountability Office stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
Yes it is. It was reported in just about every language on earth, look at any newspaper you wish. Here's one. https://www.neimagazine.com/news/france-to-renationalise-edf...
The reasons given for the renationalization were "EDF's problems are above all under-capitalisation and under-remuneration."
Which means "they are not profitable".
>Until 2004 France owned 100% of EDF. They sold just 16%. And then took it back.
That changes nothing of what I said - they "Took it back" by paying 10 billion euros of taxpayer money.
>The state did not "take over" €50 billion in debt.
You might argue that the taxpayers were always on the hook for this debt. It was only documented and formalized when France bought the whole thing. Ltting EDF go bellyup and not paying was never on the table, that's the hook of nuclear power.
But that's semantics. 50 billion of debt will be paid by the taxpayers sooner or later.
You have failed to refute my claim of 80 billion in hidden costs and are instead arguing sidepoints and semantics. The unemotional thing to do would be to say "Ah yes, of course we need to account for at least those 80 billion, that's true".
I thought you said you were the rational one with evidence and the opponents were all emotional. 80 billion is not emotions, it's evidence, and you're trying hard to pretend it doesn't exist.
Why is that?
>It looks like the utilities paid the federal government for the repository, but are not getting the services they paid for.
But they didn't pay for it. They may have paid 750 million per year but that's not anywhere close to enough. Remember Sellafield?
This is another example of how the operators pretend to be profitable - they pay nowhere near enough to cover the costs, but they have negotiated a deal that makes that a taxpayer problem. In their books they just write "waste management, paid in full" and the rest of the payment is covered by taxpayers. A hidden expense.
This is again a fact that you seem unwilling to accept. Why?
You should read your sources. It confirms what I wrote and contradicts what you wrote.
> they "Took it back"
No. Not if "it" was "EDF". Because "it" was a minority 16 percent stake.
> 50 billion of debt will be paid by the taxpayers sooner or later.
No it won't. Which part of "profitable" and "investment" do you not understand?
> You have failed to refute my claim of 80 billion in hidden costs
There was nothing there to refute. You are free to make up random stuff, I will continue to ignore your made up stuff, as even the claims for which you provide sources turn out to be untrue, contradicted by the very sources you bring.
> But they didn't pay for it.
But they did. So much, in fact, that the federal government now has to pay them for breach of contract. Sellafield is not Yucca mountain, and is much more than just a storage facility.
"Sellafield, formerly known as Windscale, is a large multi-function nuclear site close to ... "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield
> they pay nowhere near enough to cover the costs,
They paid more than the costs. Look it up.
>No it won't. Which part of "profitable" and "investment" do you not understand?
A company that drowns in debt and needs government bailouts is not profitable by any definition of the word.
Investments generate profits after you have paid for them, so nuclear is clearly not an investment - it costs more money every year. EDF could pretend to be profitable in the beginning but now the facts have caught up. The true cost of nuclear is undeniable in the long run.
That's why France now has increased the price of nuclear power by over 60%: https://www.clearygottlieb.com/news-and-insights/publication...
Turns out EDF was selling nuclear power below production cost all these years, they just pretended that the production costs were low by neglecting maintenance and borrowing money.
As I said - not profitable.
They're not "drowning" in debt, they're not being bailed out and they are most definitely profitable.
> [nuclear] costs more money every year
You might want to actually look at the EDF financial reports...
> That's why France now has increased the price of nuclear power by over 60%
Also not true. France has increased the "price" of the ARENH program, which allows companies access to 25% of EDFs cheap nuclear capacity at low prices.
> Turns out EDF was selling nuclear power below production cost all these year
Turns out the ARENH program legally required EDF to sell 25% of its production at a very low fixed price. Even if it needed that electricity itself, which meant it often had to buy that same electricity it had produced back from those same competitors at a higher price. At the height of the energy crisis at a 25x higher price.
> As I said - not profitable.
Yes, you keep saying it, and it keeps being wrong.
2023, € 10 billion in profits.
https://www.edf.fr/sites/groupe/files/2024-02/annual-results...
I would like to be this "not profitable"
It most certainly does not. Maybe english is not your first language? Here is a story in spanish about how France gave EDF 2.1 billion euros in 2022.
https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/2022/02/18/companias/...
"We're not going to nationalize it" said the politician. Months later, they paid another 10 billion euros to do just that, here is the story in dutch:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/macron-biedt-10-miljard-v...
So in 2022, France gave EDF directly over 12 billion euros. Saying they had 9 billion in profits when they were given 12 buillion by the state is a bit odd.
Surely a cool free 12 billion on top of the "insane profits" they generate on their own can't be less than the money they were given?
A grandfather who spends money using his grandchildren's credit cards is not profitable. And that is basically what EDF is doing.
The sad fact is that France has dug itself into a hole. They have a huge industry around nuclear, which is at the end of any pretense of profitability with an enormous mountain of unpaid costs coming up in the centuries ahead. This will be a burden on France's economy - the credit cards have run out, now the grandchildren have to pay.
A handful of people operating Chernobyl have caused costs that passed 600 billion euros already in 2016, and will keep costing more money for the foreseeable future.
Nations have international agreements to cover liabilities from nuclear power stations, since no company and very few individual nations can cover the costs of severe accidents.
That's disproportionate.
In Fukushima it was all of them.
The 1975 Banqiao dam failure caused (best estimate) around 200000 deaths, evacuation of tens of millions and a several million houses destroyed. Was that a reason for the entire world to get out of hydro-power, because the "disproportionate downsides" are just too great?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
Or did we check that our dams are built to better standards? And possibly update those standards? The RBMK-1000 was a reactor that even at the time would never have been permitted to be built in the west. Not even close. It was inherently unstable, with the positive void coefficient, and had no containment.
And the kinds of shenanigans that were ordered at Chernobyl also are not permitted.
TMI was a meltdown. There was no effect outside the plant. And nuclear safety was improved significantly after TMI.
Fukushima will have no health effects in the Japanese population. All the adverse health effects and the vast majority of the financial damages are due to the unnecessary evacuation and the shutdown.
"Relocation was unjustified for 75% of the 335,000 people relocated after Chernobyl."
"Relocation was unjustified for the 160,000 people relocated after Fukushima."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095758201...
“By now, more Japanese have died from the closing of Japan's nuclear power plants following the 2011 Tohoku quake than from the tsunami and the earthquake combined, which was about 20,000 people.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/10/31/shutting-...
In terms of money, just 5 years of the reactor shutdown cost the Japanese more than $200 billion. That is the vast majority of the financial damage. Take that to 10 years and you are at $400 billion and that's assuming constant prices.
The "Atomausstieg" has cost Germany more than €500 billion. So what is disproportionate?
Nuclear energy is cheap, clean and safe.
No, 6000 cases of thyroid cancer from Chernobyl were not caused by the evacuation, it was caused by the fallout. And the topic you are trying to dodge is that nations all over europe had to spend money to screen for these cancers for decades after Chernobyl, they had to feed wildlife special food, sanitize large areas of land and so on. The EU even had to pay for a new sarcophagus, despite never haven gotten a single kwh from Chernobyl. And it hasn't stopped costing money yet.
Nothing else (at least in peacetime) that humans do can have such consequences from mistakes made by a few individuals.
We see the same hidden costs in Sellafield, where Norway - who exports power to the UK, they don't get any - are volunteering to pay for Sellafield since an accident at sellafield could have severe effects on food production near Oslo, the capital of Norway. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/05/sellafield-...
Notice how the 2.5 billion pounds of yearly hidden costs I told you about earlier here is described as a "shoestring budget". The hidden subsidies given to nuclear power is found everywhere if you just scratch the surface a little bit.
In summary; precisely because it's not clean, it's also neither cheap nor safe.
Just read up on the actual science.
"The psycho-social impact of disasters and emergencies has been well documented. It has been reported to be the Chernobyl accident’s main public health impact that affected the largest number of people."
https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/publ...
"Relocation was unjustified for 75% of the 335,000 people relocated after Chernobyl."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095758201...
Yeah, nuclear power can be profitable when it is enormously subsidized.
The CFD for Hinkley Point C proves that nuclear power does not have a business case in 2024.
Then add on top that the French government is asking for more subsidies on Hinkley Point C since it might not be enough!
https://www.ft.com/content/c1e3bd19-763b-4ea1-b188-d2872cc36...
The reality of this is evidenced by Sizewell C. Even with complete political unity for nearly 20 years they haven't managed to come up with a working business case outside of essentially a cost plus contract.
Building nuclear power as a cost plus contract, there you have true insanity.
https://www.ft.com/content/2a5d9462-b921-4577-82c1-4eb508775...
But that is the reality of nuclear power today. It is vastly undercut by renewables and expensive to the point that even with near political unity the cost can't be defended when public scrutiny is applied down the line.
No, it is pretty much always profitable. When you negotiate rates that are similar to what renewables get, the profits get obscene. One person I showed these numbers to, who had previously also made the claims about nuclear never being profitable, changed his tune quite quickly. The profits at those rates are so obscene that he claimed it must be corruption.
> The CFD for Hinkley Point C proves that nuclear power does not have a business case in 2024.
No it doesn't. HPC's primary purpose is to rebuild the UK's nuclear industry. In addition to providing incredible amounts of reliably electricity.
> ... for more subsidies ...
Don't have access to the article, but the headline speaks of a loan guarantee. Which is less than what renewables get.
> The reality of this is evidenced by Sizewell C.
Which they are building. Evidence that there is no business case?
In fact UK plans to quadruple nuclear power. Because there is no business case. Riiiight.
> Building nuclear power as a cost plus contract, there you have true insanity.
Evidence of the "cost plus" contract?
> It is vastly undercut by renewables
Only when the renewables are massively subsidized.
And they don't deliver the same product: reliable, dispatchable electricity.
I don't understand what you are smoking. The entire investment cost for renewables are similar in price for the electricity from a paid off nuclear plant. Excluding decommissioning, insurance and waste storage costs for the nuclear plant.
Take Sweden, the lowest electricity costs in Europe and no subsidies for new built renewables on the books. Keeps building the equivalent to an EPR in wind power every 2 years.
You truly must be a cult member to think nuclear power makes financial sense when the UK government is adding a ~ £7B subsidy to Sizewell C before the final investment decision to get the project started, because they can't find investors!
> Evidence of the "cost plus" contract?
Just Google the Regulated Asset Base. EDF is too weak to take any risk from Sizewell C on their books, thus it becomes a cost plus contract as the government takes the entire risk, because it has been wholly incapable of finding any investors.
> In fact UK plans to quadruple nuclear power. Because there is no business case. Riiiight.
You mean like they've been doing since the mid 2000s.
I would suggest you dare click any of these links:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wylfa_Newydd_nuclear_power_sta...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldbury_nuclear_power_station#...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradwell_B_nuclear_power_stati...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorside_nuclear_power_station
> Only when the renewables are massively subsidized.
> And they don't deliver the same product: reliable, dispatchable electricity.
The Swedish case points differently. They do deliver reliable electricity, maybe have a read?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192...
Nuclear power needs to come down in cost by 85% to be competitive with the renewable system. Both systems ensure a reliable grid.
You truly sound like a cult member ignoring all facts contrary to your own made up beliefs.
Reality.
You just keep producing lots of verbiage and simply no evidence for your claims.
Intermittent renewables are subsidized everywhere. Nuclear power is not.
Electricity prices in countries with nuclear power are generally lower than electricity prices where intermittent renewables are used.
Hydro is a different matter, that is reliable. Sweden has both hydro and renewables and is planning on adding 10 nuclear plants. Norway has hydro, doesn't need nuclear, though they are looking at SMRs for some remote communities. Iceland has plenty of hydro and geothermal they don't need nuclear.
Alas, hydro is something you have or don't have. You can't build it out if you don't have the geography for it. The countries with the lucky geography use it to their advantage, though both Sweden and Finnland happily add nuclear to their hydro.
The just-published report from the US DOE shows that nuclear + renewables solutions are cheaper than renewables alone. which is why the US wants to add around 200 GW of nuclear capacity to their grid, tripling capacity.
https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/LIFTOF...
And then you go and point to Hinkley Point C with a ridiculously subsidized CFD as a "good example".
Really, what are you smoking?
> Electricity prices in countries with nuclear power are generally lower than electricity prices where intermittent renewables are used.
You mean like the insane €70/MWh ARENH agreement for old paid off nuclear plants which is higher than German wholesale prices. Reality's bias against nuclear power keeps moving faster than even your talking points.
> Sweden has both hydro and renewables and is planning on adding 10 nuclear plants.
Yes with massive massive subsidies. The opposition has promised to block it on cost grounds when they get into power next time.
> The just-published report from the US DOE shows that nuclear + renewables solutions are cheaper than renewables alone. which is why the US wants to add around 200 GW of nuclear capacity to their grid, tripling capacity.
> https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/LIFTOF...
That entire report is an exercise in selectively choosing data to misrepresent renewables and present nuclear power in the best possible light and wishful thinking.
To the degree that the prominent "renewables vs. nuclear" graph they keep repeating on the webpage and figure 6 in the report is straight up misleading.
This is the source:
What is different about different net-zero carbon electricity systems?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266627872...
Utilizing storage costs from 2018 and then of course making the comparison against the model not incorporating any hydrogen derived zero carbon fuel to solve seasonal problems.
Which is todays suggestion for solving the final 1-2% requiring seasonal storage in the late 2030s.
Something akin to todays peaker plants financed on capacity because they run too little to be economical on their own, but zero carbon. Can be hydrogen or biofuel derived. We will know in 10 years time.
Would they have chosen the ReBF model the difference between made up optimal nuclear power and 2018 renewables would be: $80-94/MWh compared to $82-102/MWh.
It is essentially: Nukebros writes reports for nukebros based on selectively chosen outdated data, they confirm their own bias. Simply an attempt to justify another massive round of government subsidies on nuclear power.
Lets end the discussion here. You clearly don't have any capability of critical thinking and keeps sprouting talking points without understanding what they mean in contrary to all real world evidence.
Where did I point to HPC as a "good example"? Nowhere, that's where.
It is the worst example, currently, of a nuclear construction project gone awry, and last I checked will be the most expensive pair of nuclear reactors in history, by a good margin.
And even that will be ridiculously profitable given the negotiated price, which is the same price that various UK off-shore wind projects are getting. Except that HPC power will be reliable. And there will be lots of it. And the plants will last for a very long time.
Just like Georgia Power had to increase their electricity prices to pay for the disastrous Vogtle-3/4 projects. To less than half the price of electricity in California, the US's intermittent renewables poster-boy.
Fun fact: the worst of nuclear power is better than the best of intermittent renewables.
> That entire report is an exercise in selectively choosing data to misrepresent renewables and present nuclear power in the best possible light and wishful thinking.
Aka: Reality™
But you are right, discussing actual reality with you is pointless.
Have a good one.
Nuclear power needs to come down in price by 85% to be competitive with renewable systems. That is the fact today.
Both systems need about equal amounts of dispatchable power to follow the load curve.
For nuclear power this comes from that overbuilding nuclear to solve peaking issues is even more horrifically expensive.
Thus the need for storage. Or pumped hydro which was first invented to manage coal and nuclear inflexibility.
Reality keeps moving faster than your nukebro talking points.
Hopefully you’ll wake up from this madness one day.
I didn't and it does not. French power bills are much lower than German ones. As are Swedish and Finnish ones. Georgia power bills (Vogtle-3/4) are half of California's (PV/wind-meister).
Before 2002 (the German Atomausstieg), electricity rates were steadily falling compared to purchasing power. After 2002, they have been steadily rising.
In Europe, electricity prices correlate in pretty much a straight line with the penetration of intermittent renewables in the country's electrical grid. The higher the percentage, the higher the prices.
> Nuclear power needs to come down in price by 85% to be competitive with renewable systems. That is the fact today.
That is about as counterfactual as you can be. Nuclear is cheaper than intermittent renewables on any metric you can find. And that's even before you notice that intermittent renewables don't actually provide power when you need it.
The world has left the renewbro dreams behind and is turning to nuclear:
- COP28: worldwide tripling of nuclear
- UK: quadrupling of nuclear
- US: tripling nuclear
- Japan + South Korea: were going to abandon nuclear, now expanding instead
- Poland: getting into nuclear, in a big way.
- Holland: 4 new reactors instead of the originally planned 2
- Sweden: were also going to reduce / discontinue, now want at least 10 new reactors
- France: had a law on the books that disallowed the expansion of nuclear capacity in absolute terms and mandated reduction to below 50%. This law was scrapped in March 2023 (>70% majority), now on track to build 14 EPR2 reactors
- China: were on track to triple capacity, now accelerating.
- India: on track to triple capacity by 2031
- Ukraine: building 4 new AP-1000
- Italy: got out of nuclear late 80s early 90s, now getting back into nuclear
- Microsoft, Google, Amazon: all investing heavily in nuclear
- Major banks just announced support for nuclear
- IPCC calls nuclear essential for tackling climate change
- So does the EU, the US government, etc.
- Czech repubic: just ordered a South Korean APR-1400
etc.
Then attempting to justify it by subsidy programs being launched. In one sentence it’s the cheapest in the next sentence truly enormous subsidy programs are needed to even get projects started. And that’s a win?!?
Like, please provide a source for this statement which is completely contrary to all reputable modern research on the subject:
> That is about as counterfactual as you can be. Nuclear is cheaper than intermittent renewables on any metric you can find. And that's even before you notice that intermittent renewables don't actually provide power when you need it.
You sound like a deranged cult member who has been caught out.
Hinkkley Point C "the cheapest"? Which sentence would that be? Please be specific.
Nuclear is the cheapest electrical power source:
https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-el...
Hinkley Point is the most expensive nuclear reactor project to date, as far as I know.
This is not hard.
I love how you managed to cherry pick the one study from the nuclear energy agency of OECD which through trickery and black magic manages put nuclear in the same magnitude as other options.
The general consensus from non-biased sources is that new built nuclear power costs $140 - 240/MWh ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) By far the most expensive option.
We can contrast that study with the Swedish proposed nuclear subsidies.
In contrast in Sweden the proposed financing is that the Swedish government takes the loan, a way stronger subsidy than simple credit guarantees, that the government pays for cost overruns and a CFD of $80/MWh.
The potential builders are still questioning if this subsidy is enough.
But typical cult member. Finding any information confirming your bias and then latching on to that as it would be the end of the world to let go.
Nuclear power definitely costs €80/MWh unsubsidized. In nuclear cult member fantasyland at least.
The insanity in display here is truly something to behold.
[1] https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/42b23c45-78bc-4482-...
[2]: https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/flam...
[3]: https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...
[4](https://www.powermag.com/blog/plant-vogtle-not-a-star-but-a-...)
[5]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...
The IEA is the International Energy Agency. It deals with energy in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency
You are thinking of the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Different agency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Ag...
What you describe as "consensus" is nothing of the sort. And of course you cite mostly opinion pieces. The one actual "study" that compares costs is ... drumroll... Lazard.
I was waiting for that one. If you actually read the study, you will find that they did not actually look at the cost of nuclear power. It even says so in the footnotes. They weren't interested in the cost of nuclear for that study, and so used the cost of Vogtle (the most expensive reactors to date) as a stand-in.
If you don't believe me, believe the vice-chairman of Lazard who is responsible for that study
“We do not, in this study, try to cost out new nuclear” (2:35)
“We think nuclear will be a big part of the future” (2:47)