Moldoteck

So you are in a phase where coal is safer than nuclear? Sorry but that's bullshit. German early nuclear phaseout did already cause due to pollution half of total nr of estimated deaths from Chernobyl per UN assuming LNT is true at low doses. It's you that are ignoring facts and spread literally fossils fuel propaganda to justify your antinuclear position

4-6ct/kwh is dirt cheap. It's so cheap that even curtailing renewables to let it run more instead of using gas peakers is cheaper

And it's far from being higher than avg market prices today in Switzerland, where did you get this nonsense?

The price includes their profit margin. Even if they sell at lower, they'll still make profit, just less.

The claim about swiss taxpayers is bullshit, please stop spreading it, there's no proof to this whatsoever. Swiss nuclear plants operation is not subsidized.

Edf was not bailed out. It was renationalized (albeit state was always majority owner) to push for construction of epr2. EDF debt to EBITDA is healthy. It made profit pretty much every single year despite arenh, except 2022. EDF could definitely operate their npp more profitable but that's another story.

But even if we assume that 9bn transaction was a subsidy, do you realize it's merely half of what Germany is spending for EEG alone EACH YEAR?

"If nobody is able to refill the water in spent fuel pools at any nuclear plant, they will catch fire. Assuming a radial spread of the fallout it will be near guaranteed lethal for at least 50 miles, probably lethal for some 500 miles, and you "won't want to live there" for even further than that. And this will remain the case for millennia to decades, depending on weather and distance."

Please refrain from spread utter bullshit again. Not only you don't comprehend under what conditions used fuel catches fire or that if by some absurd reason nobody can cool the spent fuel to avoid boiling, something much more terrible happened, but catching fire/melting doesn't mean it'll be a fallout. It's clear you are antinuclear person and enjoy fossils. You don't need to invent bullshit to firm your position.

Land is not uninhabitable. Heck, even in freaking Chernobyl animals are thriving. Try saying the same about german coal mines

German gco2/kwh are dropping but it could have been so much better with nuclear similar to France

So you see that avg opex price is cheap, thanks for acknowledging. That was the statement, not that in new plants power is more expensive because they need to repay loan (which is balooned due to delays)

We need firm power. This isn't outdated. That's also why Germany approved subsidies for new gas plants, which were recommended even by Fraunhofer ISE

Basically either you build a mix like france/nordics and get very low emissions or you are stuck with vre+bess+gas combo like Germany.

Or, if you are convinced VRE are enough, provide an estimation/simulation for German grid based on existing data of last decade (capacity factors/demand)- how much vre+bess is needed to ditch firm fossils fully

The context is that all german reactors that aren't experimental or soviet are decommissioned on operators money without state financing.

The example of isar is particularly interesting - isar 2 is one of the latest that started decommissioning but is in much more advanced state vs others. Each operator does it as they wish. If you wait a bit more, rad levels drop so it's easier to decommission with less specialized equipment

Opex is low. Storage is figured out. See onkalo or hundreds of others for forever toxic chemicals

As example Canada and Australia

It's really a conspiracy. Ore is available in plenty of countries. Enrichment is done locally by orano+urenco amd fuel elements made by framatome

It would also not make sense considering china is the largest builder and they also sell most of vre

It's cheap to operate. See https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte...

The statement about getting 70% from Russia is total bullshit

What non zero chance of millions of casualties? Chernobyl, a shit design that weren't allowed in the west even then is estimated to kill about 4k in total. In Fukushima the number is zero or 1 deaths from radiation due to low dose. And that's old gen2 reactor striken by tsunami and earthquake

I've seen what antinuclear europe does to remove the weakness of renewables - subsidies for new gas peakers in Germany

There are many more deposits to explore, like Sweden. And we can start doing purex+mox recycling to extend operation further

It can happen like in Sweden with proper guarantees

Valcoe paper is written by the founder of antinuclear movement in Denmark(which led at ti becoming one of the highest coal burners), has wild assumptions about hydrogen getting basically free for firming

Australia's weather is different from what we got in Europe. And let's not pretend many of aemos estimations are already obsolete due to increased costs of transmission and hydro storage that are huilt.

Dk still has worse emissions vs france/sweden, just like SA

If you don't like nuclear, you'll have gas peakers, like Germany

Because both are needed if you don't like gas. Fossils take even more billions so it's ok

Nuclear requires the least amount of mining and materials vs alternatives https://ourworldindata.org/low-carbon-technologies-need-far-... So in both cases the argument makes little sense

You als can't be cut if you stockpile uranium for a decade or 2

Hungary and Romania made a mistake by not diverting earlier more river flow. France net exported every single day of summer

Check out data this summer and tell me how many hours or minuts did France NET import power in all 3 months?

France net exported power this summer every single day and hour.

France net imported in 2022 less vs Germany net imported in 2024 in business as usual situation

Edf also announced yo add cooling towers to bypass old environmental laws, especially for Golfech

It was nationalized to force it build new reactors despite demand not growing enough

The 138€ is under pessimistic assumptions. Min profitability limit on the other hand is 9ct/kwh. But nobody denies fla3 was a failure.

You didn't understand the electric cap in France. It's a cap on profits. If edf sells at certain thresholds above 70€ due to market, the state will take extra profit. It's sort of like double CFDs for renewables except edf has no minimum compensation

Again bullshit. Nuclear requires least mining vs any alternative https://ourworldindata.org/low-carbon-technologies-need-far-...

And in situ mining is one of the best environmentally

Many is how? Why are people spreading such bullshit? Only a subset of plants, mainly VVER are dependent on Russia, albeit that'll change too.

Russia is ore importer itself and Orano+Urenco have enough capacity to satisfy most of Europe, both expanding.

Decentralized is not guaranteed. You mostly deploy ren in productive areas, see northern offshore, or that most of Ukraine's ren were in the South. Guess what happened to that. France has a decentralized grid too- many plants scattered around the country, each with multiple units

That's a bullshit Statement. Nuclear in Germany was phased out because of ideology, not economics.

It was cheapest firm power in german merit order. Instead the guy that was later hired at gasprom had other plans, together with greens. As result coal is still used. New gas plants approved this summer

No they didn't. Data was available to jot do rushed forced evacuation and for older people evacuation literally led to death. Even if Fukushima was as bad as Chernobyl (which would be a wild statement considering it has containment), those ppl would have died from age earlier vs cancer. It was absolutely idiotic decision in this regard.

Per UN no deaths are recorded nor will be recorded due to the low dose.

Evacuation wasn't necessary, govt enforced it deliberately. If ppl weren't evacuated in such a rush(or not at all), they would have been fine

The low dosage claim is shady considering we have parts of the world with higher natural background radiation and in some cases cancer rates are lower there

Still, even by wildest estimations nr is fairly low

Ironically, nuclear is similar to solar already with old gen2 plants https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

In Fukushima zero people died from radiation. If we regulated everything to a similar point (cars, planes, fossils), you'll start living like a monk. Fossils aren't just worse but orders of magnitude worse

Insuring is dirt cheap. You don't insure against any nonsense but against most probable one.

Nuclear gets cheaper if you have several units built in same place and if you increase CF with various methods, incl higher enriched fuel

Considering how much money is extracted from edf through dividends and in the past through arenh, it's the opposite - edf is subsidizing french state.

I'm sure edf would be happy to get 18bn/y in govt handouts like ren get in Germany through EEG

Now check how decommissioning is going with Isar reactors instead of soviet ones

Why people spread such bullshit statements? Take Germany which enacted EARLY phaseout, yet all it's reactors are decommissioned on operator money except experimental and soviet units