[ViewTrick1002]

You've now bought 20 years for the countries with an existing fleet.

Having governments finance the plants does not reduce the cost, it is a subsidy transferring the risk to the government with the taxpayers being on the hook instead of the banks.

The cost stemming from the project risk will not be realized until the construction goes over budget or fails, at which time the difference between the market rate and the government rate is realized by the tax payers.

What all this means is that the project's risk and cost is constant. You only transfer who pays for it. The public or the owner.

With Hinkley Point C looking to cost even more than €160/MWh over 35 years strike price they got that territory is being entered with bitter negotiations at the highest political level.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/16/edf-hinkley-...

[KptMarchewa]

> You've now bought 20 years for the countries with an existing fleet.

40, most were build for 40.

>Having governments finance the plants does not reduce the cost, it is a subsidy transferring the risk to the government with the taxpayers being on the hook instead of the banks.

There's no "transferring the risk", energy safety is as much responsibility of the government as everyone else. Taxpayers are on the hook for everything government does, it makes as much sense as buying police cars from a budget.

If the power plant fails, everyone loses due to lack of power. The magical idea that some kind of failure of power plant does not affect every citizen, but only shareholders is just not true.

>With Hinkley Point C looking to cost even more than €160/MWh over 35 years that territory is being entered with bitter negotiations at the highest political level.

Which comes from financing.

[ViewTrick1002]

Now you are changing the subject. You are inventing the term energy safety to try to have my eyes glaze over by having something in your view of the world only nuclear can solve.

This is not true, the alternative to nuclear power is being built today without subsidies or government involvement.

There is a transferring of the risk. For the alternative the government is not on the hook. I.e. there is no unrealized cost.

We can put it into concrete terms:

Who pays when something like Nukegate [1] or Hanhikivi [2] happens if the government finances the plant?

The taxpayers.

Who pays when Ørsted realizes that the contracts signed during ZIRP [3] no longer make business sense to pursue?

Ørsted.

If Ørsted were to go bankrupt due to the project, like Areva and Olkiluoto 3, who pays?

The banks.

The difference between the market rate and the government rate is who pays when the project goes belly up. Trying to fudge the numbers like you are doing is only a ploy to politically sell a project which does not economically make sense.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant

[3]: https://us.orsted.com/news-archive/2023/10/orsted-ceases-dev...

[KptMarchewa]

Why would you consider this _a business_ in a first place?

I'll distill all those questions into one: who pays to make sure that despite all potential and real failures the venture is profitable? Taxpayers. That's why those rates are so high, you're paying upfront for that possibility. Getting all the downsides and zero upsides.

It's like getting extended warranty on a toaster or any item you can easily buy ten of. The expected value is strictly negative.

Dealing with insurance is not something government should be doing anytime; it's way too big for that.

[ViewTrick1002]

We do not have infinite resources?

You want to splurge tax payer money on a dead-end technology when the alternative delivers today.