371–380 of 396 posts
I think realistically this is the only way in the turbulent times we live in. Even in the small and interconnected Europe, you have to be completely self sustainable when the need arises. We've seen more than enough broken pipes, power lines and the like in the last year alone to underline this need.
You do know that Europe still haven't been able to decouple from the Russian nuclear supply chain? The only way to be independent is to invest in renewables and storage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do know that Europe still haven't been able to decouple from the Russian nuclear supply chain? The only way to be independent is to invest in renewables and storage.
Why not both?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's the only inference you can draw from that, you're not paying attention. First, you need to compare actual output, not installed capacity. Once you take into account capacity factors, it's not looking so good any longer. Second, if it were true that nuclear is being "out-competed", then nobody in their right mind would expand their nuclear capacity. Yet almost everyone except a few crazies and countries that…
I see an enormous amount of talk without money being spent. It is easy to say you "Consider nuclear power" when facing an energy crisis. As soon as the bill hits the political discussions tend to turn. See for example the Polish example: > Poland plans to support this investment through: > - (i) an equity injection of approximately €14 billion covering 30% of the project's costs; > - (ii) State guarantees covering 10…
The first Polish plant is not a "single reactor". It is 3 reactors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the timeframe of the duration of the installation. (Total cost for the whole project + total costs for fuels & maintainance) / (kW generated * lifetime of the project)
Again, comparing apples to oranges. If 50 years we need to build a single nuclear plant while you have to build twice the solar capacity I doubt that solar come out cheaper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see an enormous amount of talk without money being spent. It is easy to say you "Consider nuclear power" when facing an energy crisis. As soon as the bill hits the political discussions tend to turn. See for example the Polish example: > Poland plans to support this investment through: > - (i) an equity injection of approximately €14 billion covering 30% of the project's costs; > - (ii) State guarantees covering 10…
If you don't see the money being spent, then you're not paying attention, particularly since you then (incorrectly) chastise the poles for ... er ... spending money The first Polish plant is not a "single reactor". It is 3 reactors.
The poles haven’t spent money, that is an application for the EU commission to review the subsidies.
Not a single final investment decision is taken.
Even the French are postponing the EPR2 program due to the horrific costs. Now it might begin in 2026, if they can politically agree to the mindbogglingly large subsidies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't see the money being spent, then you're not paying attention, particularly since you then (incorrectly) chastise the poles for ... er ... spending money The first Polish plant is not a "single reactor". It is 3 reactors.
It seems like you are dreaming up a fantasy not matched by reality. The poles haven’t spent money, that is an application for the EU commission to review the subsidies. Not a single final investment decision is taken. Even the French are postponing the EPR2 program due to the horrific costs. Now it might begin in 2026, if they can politically agree to the mindbogglingly large subsidies.
https://www.power-technology.com/news/poland-14-7bn-nuclear-...
Of course they haven't spent the money yet.
> Even the French are postponing the EPR2 program due to the horrific costs
Completely untrue.
And French nuclear is not subsidized. Unlike renewables.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like you are dreaming up a fantasy not matched by reality. The poles haven’t spent money, that is an application for the EU commission to review the subsidies. Not a single final investment decision is taken. Even the French are postponing the EPR2 program due to the horrific costs. Now it might begin in 2026, if they can politically agree to the mindbogglingly large subsidies.
"Poland approves $14.7bn for first nuclear power plant" https://www.power-technology.com/news/poland-14-7bn-nuclear-... Of course they haven't spent the money yet. > Even the French are postponing the EPR2 program due to the horrific costs Completely untrue. And French nuclear is not subsidized. Unlike renewables.
It is a program championed by the previous hard right authoritarian government with not as enthusiastic interest by the current polish government.
> And French nuclear is not subsidized. Unlike renewables.
Why do you keep making stuff up which is easily findable? Is accepting reality that hard?
The EPR2 program hinges on absolutely massive subsidies. The French auditing agency said that even assuming insanely low capital costs and profit margins it makes a large loss.
Taking real figures it just becomes stupid.
The French auditing agency recommended to postpone the EPR2 program due to the low value and incredibly high costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Poland approves $14.7bn for first nuclear power plant" https://www.power-technology.com/news/poland-14-7bn-nuclear-... Of course they haven't spent the money yet. > Even the French are postponing the EPR2 program due to the horrific costs Completely untrue. And French nuclear is not subsidized. Unlike renewables.
With no final investment decision taken. Like I said. It is a program championed by the previous hard right authoritarian government with not as enthusiastic interest by the current polish government. > And French nuclear is not subsidized. Unlike renewables. Why do you keep making stuff up which is easily findable? Is accepting reality that hard? The EPR2 program hinges on absolutely massive subsidies. The French au…
https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/2025-01/20250114...
What they said about EPR2 is that they were refused the information to even make an estimate of its profitability. Translation (using DocLingo) from page 25:
"In its 2020 report on the EPR sector, the Court recommended that EDF 'calculate the projected profitability of the Flamanville 3 reactor and the EPR2 and ensure its monitoring' (recommendation no. 6). EDF has deliberately and persistently refused to provide the Court with information on the projected profitability and production costs, which leads to considering this recommendation as not implemented. work.
Based on the information at its disposal, the Court's calculation predicts a poor profitability for Flamanville 3. For its part, the EPR2 program is still characterized by the absence of a finalized estimate and a financing plan."
Any claims of profitability of EPR/EPR2 should be taken with heavy skepticism, given that the official auditors have been stonewalled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Poland approves $14.7bn for first nuclear power plant" https://www.power-technology.com/news/poland-14-7bn-nuclear-... Of course they haven't spent the money yet. > Even the French are postponing the EPR2 program due to the horrific costs Completely untrue. And French nuclear is not subsidized. Unlike renewables.
With no final investment decision taken. Like I said. It is a program championed by the previous hard right authoritarian government with not as enthusiastic interest by the current polish government. > And French nuclear is not subsidized. Unlike renewables. Why do you keep making stuff up which is easily findable? Is accepting reality that hard? The EPR2 program hinges on absolutely massive subsidies. The French au…
The French auditors said that Flamannville 3, the solitary EPR prototype, will be "marginally" profitable. This is one of the most catastrophic builds in recent history. And it will still be more profitable than any of the intermittent renewable projects in Europe.
EDF does in fact, receive subsidies from the French government. For their renewables projects. Not for their nuclear projects. Which pay for all this nonsense.
Compared to the EPR, the EPR2 is vastly simplified, for better buildability. The complaint there was that they were moving too quickly for the auditors, as they didn't have all the documentation they would like to have.
Compare this with the absolutely devastating report of the Bundesrechnungshof, the German auditors, on the failed German Energiewende.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great: but how much spare capacity do they have? A lot of these are primarily serving domestic needs. Heck, >25% of the US's uranium comes from Russia: * https://www.visualcapitalist.com/where-the-u-s-gets-its-enri... Being able to use "plain" uranium greatly expands your supplier options.
Because it's cheap. Russia needs money to wage war so it sells stuff. Again, nobody is wholly dependent on Russia.
I doubt that the US is buying from Russia—you know, the country/government which it threw sanctions on in all sorts of ways—because "it's cheap".
Recently a ban on importation was started, and it included a couple of billion for more processing facilities in the US:
* https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/climat...
It's a supply chain issue that took some time to sort out:
* https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-nuclear-fuel-agreemen...