[ViewTrick1002]

Which means you need a return on the investment for it to work. Creating self sustaining industries that don’t need subsidies.

Tossing an absolutely mindbogglingly large subsidy to the 70 year old nuclear industry which never has delivered competitive products is not a good use of money. It is like saying we create value by going around breaking windows and paying people to fix it.

France’s problem is that if they don’t fix the spending issue on their own the bond market will do it for them. Maintaining the debt will be a larger and larger portion of the budget until the only option is solving the issue.

Cutting spending will lower GDP and push up debt as a percent of GDP. But it wasn’t real income when the debt you took on did not lead to productive outcomes. Just polishing a pig.

[seec]

You views on economy and value are very simplistic. It's all based on the false notion that everything we do has to turn a profit. I mean it's the dominant exploitative ideology from the US so I'm not surprised, but this is complete nonsense.

Generating electricity for your country/citizen does not need to turn a profit whatsoever. It generates value in itself, by allowing people to have a more confortable life and enabling industries that can make use of the power.

If you contest that renewable makes even less sense. They only generate less externalities locally that is beneficial to the world equally while exporting a large part of the value creation (and the externalities associated, the major reason china dominate).

On top of that, nuclear was actually profitable and has already paid for itself nicely. Germany knows that very well, which is exactly why they have worked very hard on political sabotage since the 90s. There is a bunch of EU rulings where EDF is forced to sell its electricty at a set price only to be resold later at a higher price by private actors for a "competitive" market. Germany required that because the way it was going, with the opening of homogenized market in the EU, there was no way neighboring country could be price competitive with the cheap french electricity.

China is currently building 10 reactors per year and not only they successfully reducing the construction cost, they are also successfully reducing the build time.

It would serve you well you let go of your ideology just a bit and make some serious research.

[ViewTrick1002]

> You views on economy and value are very simplistic. It's all based on the false notion that everything we do has to turn a profit. I mean it's the dominant exploitative ideology from the US so I'm not surprised, but this is complete nonsense.

Just pay for it with your taxes. Ask the French how that went with a debt at 114% of GDP.

You know, any day now they will get finalizing the absolutely bonkers insanely large subsidy package for the EPR2 fleet.

The next government surely will! You know, after the current one collapsed due to out of control spending.

> Generating electricity for your country/citizen does not need to turn a profit whatsoever. It generates value in itself, by allowing people to have a more confortable life and enabling industries that can make use of the power.

Which means you are paying for it with your taxes. The costs doesn't dissappear simply because you can't accept how horrifyingly expensive new built nuclear power is and are trying to shift the narrative.

I love how deep into pure waste you need to go to justify endless handouts to the dead-end nuclear industry.

Or we can you know, just build renewables and storage. Which in 2025 was expected to make up 92% of all grid additions in the US.

But new built nuclear coming online in the mid 2040s! That is what is needed!

> On top of that, nuclear was actually profitable and has already paid for itself nicely. Germany knows that very well, which is exactly why they have worked very hard on political sabotage since the 90s.

Which is of course why the French nuclear program needed absolutely insane subsidies to get built.

Nuclear power has never been economical and for example in the US it was collapsing already before Three Mile Island happened. Just too expensive.

> China is currently building 10 reactors per year and not only they successfully reducing the construction cost, they are also successfully reducing the build time.

Please stop with the misinformation? Not sure why you need to lie while telling me to do "serious research".

Reactors finished in China:

2025: 0

2024: 3

2023: 1

2022: 2

2021: 3

2020: 2

[seec]

China has 32 reactors under construction. They have approved construction of 10 new ones.

The share of nuclear power in China has increased every single year in the past 10 years.

Since you are going to lie and deny basic facts, I am not going to argue with you, clearly a waste of time. You are so blinded by ideology it's frightening, but I don't expect much else from an anti-nuclear zealot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/ten-new-reactors... https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-reactor-database/summary/C...

[ViewTrick1002]

Why did you lie? Your direct quote is?

> China is currently building 10 reactors per year

They are very much not building 10 reactors per year. Like I just showed you. China finished 3 reactors in 2024 and zero soon 9 months into 2025.

We can also go to construction starts. You know the figure when money finally start changing hands and a reactor likely gets built, unless it becomes a Virgil C. Summer being a very expensive hole in the ground. [1]

- 2025: 4 reactors

- 2024: 6 reactors

- 2023: 5 reactors

- 2022: 5 reactors

- 2021: 6 reactors

- 2020: 5 reactors

Let's skip political announcements since those are dime a dozen nowadays. They are only done to placate voters like you who rage at the headlines and does not have the curiosity to look further.

> The share of nuclear power in China has increased every single year in the past 10 years.

Now you lie again. Nuclear power peaked at 4.77% in 2021 and is in 2024 down to 4.47%. [1]

Given your exit from this conversation you truly must be frightened by the truth about nuclear costs and the reality on the ground in China.

Do you have a stake in the nuclear industry?

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

[1]: https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?ent...

[seec]

I misremembered/misunderstood from an interview I watched on the subject a while ago. In any case, it's hardly a lie but an imprecision at most.

It seems they have hit a bump in the rollout but it could also related to data gathering / grid connection. Unless you know an expert in the field in China you are just speculating about things you clearly don't know (because you objectively can't).

Then you are nitpicking for a fraction of a percent, which is beyond retarded and is subject to data choice/error. I don't remenber where I found the original data (probably the wiki for nuclear in China) but here is another source contraticting your bullshit. https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/chin... Clearly nuclear gained almost 7% capacity, so you are just stupidly wrong.

No I don't have any stake in the nuclear industry, not that it matters or make any difference. I'm just more pragmatic and fully realise that renewable aren't sufficient in the short-medium term. Germany that has started rollout a long time ago still has more than 10 years to go to even be able to cover their current needs and that's before even talking about the storage needs. They also have very low penetration of electric residential heating (precisely because their high electricity cost) and will be extremely reliant on fossil fuel for the forseable future. Their economy has tanked in part because the rising costs of their fossil fuel inputs and they import quite a lot of electricity. Meanwhile France with it's "terrible" nuclear power is net exporter.

The funny thing is that I'm not saying we shouldn't do renewables, just that we also need to keep investing in nuclear, at the very least to insure minimal base load for the bad weather periods.

You are clearly a believer of the neo-liberal bullshit with it's absurd focus on costs that pretends everything needs to make a profit in monetary terms. It's just shortsighted nonsense that is largely irrelevant at the level of industrial planning for a country. By this measure we should also stop any military nuclear programm and all kinds of stuff that are not directly profitable like fundamental research. You do not realise that a basic need like reliable access to electricity being paid by taxes is a benefit to the society and potential industries it allows. At the same time you conveniently ignore the fact that Germany subsidize it's "green" energy way beyond what it cost France to build it's nuclear fleet. This is fully reflected in the difference in price of electricty between the two countries and that's after Germany went out of its way to sabotage the too competitive nuclear industry by political corruption (like for example the partnership with Siemens for the buildout of Flamanville which is one of the primary reason for it being so late/expensive).

You are just a troll, an ideologically driven political activist spouting random talking points without any coherent view of the complete problem. That is the reason I do not wish to pursue more argumentation, you clearly can't realise how crude your discourse is.

That being said, it doesn't even matter what some zealots like you believe, thankfully policy makers aren't taking advice from random shitposter and there is definitely a renewed interest and planning for nuclear power, basically everywhere. So you can cry about it but I don't even care about proving my point because it will be the de facto choice, since there aren't any other one as things stand at the moment.

[ViewTrick1002]

> I'm just more pragmatic and fully realise that renewable aren't sufficient in the short-medium term.

Which is why we should lock in the solution not delivering a single new kWh until the mid 2040s. Sounds reasonable?

You should also read some research on the topic before again coming with falsehoods. The scientific consensus is that renewable systems works.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910

> The funny thing is that I'm not saying we shouldn't do renewables, just that we also need to keep investing in nuclear, at the very least to insure minimal base load for the bad weather periods.

Which tells me you don't understand how the grid works. Why should someone with rooftop solar and a home battery buy your extremely expensive nuclear powered electricity when they are swimming in their own?

Well. They don't. Meaning capacity factors crater.

Should we calculate what running Flamanville 3 at a 40% equivalent capacity factor costs? We are now somewhere around 35 cents per kWh excluding transmission cost.

Then three paragraphs of personal attacks to round it off because the nuclear logic does not compute.

[mpweiher]

Er...nuclear is already self sustaining and has a great ROI for the French (and pretty much everyone else).

Even the most catastrophic nuclear construction project the French ever had, Flamanville 3, will have better ROI than intermittent renewable projects.

What doesn't make sense is throwing more good money after 25 years of subsidies at intermittent renewables that have yet to show a positive ROI.

[ViewTrick1002]

I’m not sure where to begin. Please stop straight up lying? Nothing in this comment is correct.

In France the battle is over how large the subsidies needs to be to even get started on the EPR2 program. Driven by EDF is too financially weak to take on more projects after the recent boondoggles and that new built nuclear power simply does not deliver electricity at a price the market accepts.

That does not sound very self sustaining.

Regarding Flamanville 3 you are likely citing the report with a discount rate lower than the inflation and a 40 year pay back time, while comparing to the first ever off shore wind farm in France. You know, a prototype as regards to working with French industry and bureaucracy.

For anyone even having a slight economic understanding the writers of that report are shouting from the rooftops that investing in nuclear power is pure lunacy. But shrouded in a language allowing lobbyists and blindingly biased people to cite it.

I also love how the fastest growing energy source in human history, for which subsidies are being phased out as we speak, haven’t shown a positive ROI.

What do I now. All that private money going into renewables are calculated in making a loss.

[mpweiher]

My comment is exactly correct.

EDF gets subsidies from the state for their renewables projects.

EDF pays nuclear profits to the state. And to the rest of French industry via the ARENH program.

Facts.

That private money going into renewables is great at getting guaranteed state subsidies.

It's the best business model ever.

[seec]

I'm with you. They are very resistant to facts because of the blind spots their ideology put them in. On top of that they can only think in terms of profit, because greed is the normalized behavior imposed by the US exploitative mindset. They don't understand the difference between value and price/cost which puts them in a worldview where you can only do thing is they make money, which is crass and primitive.

I think there are also a lot of shiny new toy syndrome where they are unable to understand the limitations of the new technology because they are inherently believers, not unlike the religious freaks.

In any case if any of what they say was true, China wouldn't build a single nuclear reactor, it would not make sense. Yet this is not at all the case.

Renewables have to be built; they make a lot of sense for the low hanging fruit (even if it's just to spend less fuel on the good days). But arguing to rely only on them is just wishful thinking and just plain dumb.

Even if it becomes technologically feasible at an acceptable price, putting all eggs in the same basket is not a good strategy. No matter how big (overbuilding) you make the basket.

The good thing is that reality is catching up with the ideologues and they are losing a lot of political power along the way. The utter failure of German policy is a good lesson on arrogance and ideology.

[natmaka]

> It's the best business model ever

In France the Cour of Audit concluded that electricity produced by the EPR must be sold at 138€/MWh (2023 value) in order to obtain a tiny ROI (4%). This is a financial disaster. Proof page 29: https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/publications/la-filiere-epr-une-d...

Renewables, on the other hand... While many reactors were down in France (intermittency, anyone?) they did cope: https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-j...

Renewables: a modest gain... 7 billions €! Source: official Commission in charge in France, page 4 https://www.cre.fr/fileadmin/Documents/Deliberations/2024/24...

[mpweiher]

Once again: EDF receives subsidies for their renewables projects.

[natmaka]

I just sourced official reports, and for EDF I already answered (in French, sorry, if necessary a software translator does the job): https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/accueil#h....

[ViewTrick1002]

I love this. Just pretend that no new nuclear power needs to ever be built and it is economical based on the current economics of soon half a century old paid off plants.

Since the EPR2 program is in absolute shambles and the subsidy scheme hasn’t been finalized just pretend that it doesn’t exist!

They are only talking about CFDs, zero interest loans and credit guarantees! Those doesn’t cost money! Not until they start being paid out! Therefore does new built nuclear power does not need any subsidies. QED.

Or the French were talking about it. Until the government collapsed due to being underwater in debt with a spending problem they are unable to reign in.

We all know the one way to solve a spending problem is an unfathomably large handout to the dead-end nuclear industry!

Please. This is getting laughable. Facts be damned, just ignore reality and with a scalpel cherry pick a few disjointed facts.