| > 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. |
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...