> When you negotiate rates that are similar to what renewables get, the profits get obscene.
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:
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.
> Intermittent renewables are subsidized everywhere. Nuclear power is not.
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.
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?
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.
> And then you go and point to Hinkley Point C with a ridiculously subsidized CFD as a "good example".
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.
> Thank you for confirming that investing in modern nuclear power leads to vastly higher power bills for the ratepayers.
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
Lovely. All you do is keep claiming stuff and sidestep all questions you don’t want to face without any reputable sources to back it up.
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.
Now you’re just rambling, attempting to shift the subject.
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.
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.