> In Europe the subsidies for nuclear is marginal and significant less per watt produced than wind, solar and gas.
Gas pays carbon taxes through the ETS system, although not equivalent to the cost of climate change. Existing renewables get some subsidies, new built barely anything.
> Wind and solar do not cover risk of forest fires or damages to endangered species. Wind farms on the ocean do not cover risks to changes in currents, and only need to cover a limited survey in term assessing risk to the environment.
That sounds like coping. Trying to build a false equivalency to paint the huge nuclear subsidy gets as insignificant. On one side we have clear examples like Fukushima costing at least ~$150B to clean up compared to for example the $1.5B insurance limit in Sweden. A 99% subsidy on insurance cost. On the other we have vague references and scaremongering.
> Intermittent energy sources would then have to pay insurance on the cost of blackouts, as well as the full bill of the reserve energy plan that the government currently pays for. Paying all those through taxes only hide the true cost of energy production away from the consumer.
How much should the French nuclear industry pay for having half their fleet off-line right as we went through a huge energy crisis in Europe?
The reserve energy plan is not part of the report since its considered operational cost in term of keeping the grid stable. The report on reserve energy however do consider renewables and the increased variability as a cause for new investment and more funding, paid by increased taxes.
> On one side we have clear examples like Fukushima costing at least ~$150B to clean up
Fukushima happened 2011. Oroville Dam failour happened 2016, and caused a larger number of evacuation and loss of life.
So far the US government (thus citizen tax money) has been forced to pay more money money to fix the Oroville Dam than Japanese government has paid fixing Fukushima. The land destroyed by the flood will likely never fully recover nor the owners repaid for the damage.
Going back to Europe, Sweden had some of the worst flooding this year, especially downstream of hydropower plants. In 2021, European floods saw many floods downstream of hydrpower plants, with massive amount of damage and loss of life. The Ukraine was also hit with one of the deadliest attack on their hydropower infrastructure, a attack defined as a major war crime.
> How much should the French nuclear industry pay for having half their fleet off-line right as we went through a huge energy crisis in Europe?
If all power producers was obligated to maintain the grid then the French nuclear industry should pay the same as everyone else when they can't fulfill that obligation. Grid stability is not the governments job, nor the citizens responsibility to pay for.
> It clearly marked. Out of the 179 billions euro, more than 40% was assigned to renewables.
It would be nonsensical to remove the subsidies contracted a decade ago for what was higher risk investments at that time? Flipping it around, lets cancel the CFD giving Hinkley Point C $165/MWh for 35 years after completion and let them free on the market. EDF will cancel the construction overnight and eat the loss.
I would also suggest you read your own report. Since it clearly states that renewable subsidies are down year on year. They are being phased out and new ones do not match what existed 2015-2019.
But I know that it doesn't match your conviction of "hurt durr renewable subsidies!!".
> The reserve energy plan is not part of the report since its considered operational cost in term of keeping the grid stable. The report on reserve energy however do consider renewables and the increased variability as a cause for new investment and more funding, paid by increased taxes.
The "reserve energy" is a market opportunity to arbitrage it which means any solution to it will both reduce any potential nuclear plants profitability, and solve it for the general consumer. But I understand, coming from a static nuclear view of the world transformation is chaotic and hard to comprehend.
It is happening though, through pure economics. Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, which in turn are cheaper than nuclear. The world is racing towards a new equilibrium built on renewables, it will be extremely interesting to see where we end up in 20-30 years.
What is certain though, is that nuclear will have a miniscule impact on that future. It is luxury power for niche applications. Perfect for submarines and barely even aircraft carriers.
> Oroville Dam failour happened 2016, and caused a larger number of evacuation and loss of life. So far the US government (thus citizen tax money) has been forced to pay more money money to fix the Oroville Dam than Japanese government has paid fixing Fukushima. The land destroyed by the flood will likely never fully recover nor the owners repaid for the damage.
Please cite some numbers? Or are facts optional when trying to frame nuclear positively?
All I can find is:
- 0 deaths.
- $1.1B in damages, which is 0.7% of the current estimate for Fukushima.
Or do you mean the floodings, which were even worse, which the Oroville dam was built to contain? You know, hydropower also prevents flooding which means it prevents deaths by existing.
> The flood in late 1955 and early 1956 was historic. It caused widespread damage in Northern and Central California, resulted in 64 deaths and more than $200 million in property damage. To prevent further flooding, the state passed a $25 million appropriations act, including money for a dam. The dam was to be located on California’s Feather River, just above the town of Oroville, about 70 miles north of Sacramento.
> Going back to Europe, Sweden had some of the worst flooding this year, especially downstream of hydropower plants. In 2021, European floods saw many floods downstream of hydrpower plants, with massive amount of damage and loss of life. The Ukraine was also hit with one of the deadliest attack on their hydropower infrastructure, a attack defined as a major war crime.
Please cite numbers. This is all vague handwaving. The nuclear numbers in Fukushima are certain, $150B versus insurance for $1.5B. Society, through taxes, picks up $148.5B.
Gas pays carbon taxes through the ETS system, although not equivalent to the cost of climate change. Existing renewables get some subsidies, new built barely anything.
> Wind and solar do not cover risk of forest fires or damages to endangered species. Wind farms on the ocean do not cover risks to changes in currents, and only need to cover a limited survey in term assessing risk to the environment.
That sounds like coping. Trying to build a false equivalency to paint the huge nuclear subsidy gets as insignificant. On one side we have clear examples like Fukushima costing at least ~$150B to clean up compared to for example the $1.5B insurance limit in Sweden. A 99% subsidy on insurance cost. On the other we have vague references and scaremongering.
> Intermittent energy sources would then have to pay insurance on the cost of blackouts, as well as the full bill of the reserve energy plan that the government currently pays for. Paying all those through taxes only hide the true cost of energy production away from the consumer.
How much should the French nuclear industry pay for having half their fleet off-line right as we went through a huge energy crisis in Europe?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr...