[adev_]

> No, it's correct, the total costs of the 2022 bailout was almost 10bn, and that was to get control over a company that had over 50bn in debt.

Bailout of 2022 alone was around 22bn€, which was added on top of it the historical debt.

Revenue of EDF in 2025 is over 100bn€ to put things into perspective.

> Furthermore it was discovered that the plants had neglected maintenance that had to be undertaken rightaway, that had nothing to do with the TRV.

That is also wrong. The immediate maintenance in 2022 was related to "corrosion sous contrainte" which has nothing to do with carelessness. It was mainly the French nuclear regulator (ASN) over-reacting to some non-critical cracks find in some pipes. They have themselves said afterward that the immediate actions were not necessary. The actions were overreactive (from EDF side) and the calendar was very unfortunate.

> So even if the mentioned 5 bn export now was pure profit - which is isn't -

Indeed. Profits in 2025 were currently over 8bn€, so well over 5bn€.

5bn€ just concern the profit made by the exports.

This is not hard to understand: Making a profit by selling valuable nuclear energy during evening peak consumption while buying cheap intermittent solar during low consumption time is an easy game.

People generally do not understand that Nuclear is a CAPEX game, not an OPEX one.

> And they will have to sell their power on markets that will increasingly often have free electricity from solar and wind. How do you pay 1000 educated plant operators when electricity prices are negative?

By selling nuclear electricity at 180€/MWh every night when the sun do not shine.

(This is the average price, every evening peak this month)

Meaning-while, the profitability of solar operators will sink to the ground due to the overcapacity causing negative price during the day as soon as the sun shine. Many of them will die if not state subsidized with public money.

> nuclear power isn't the kind of thing you can try and then walk away from when it turns out to be a bad idea

It is currently the best low-carbon energy around. And will continue to be for the next 2 decades.

The current Co2/kwh emission of France is 27g/kwh.

The comparison with country like Germany (397g/kwh) or state like California (190g/kwh) that spend >100Bn$ on renewable speak for itself.

I can safely bet that in 15y from now, the French grid will still be greener than the German one.

[natmaka]

> making a profit by selling valuable nuclear energy

EDF adjusted economic debt at the beginning of 2026: €81.7 billion After decades of massive help (nationalisations building it, monopoly, gift-loans, debt cancellation...

> the profitability of solar operators will sink to the ground due to the overcapacity causing negative price

Wait for storage (V2G...) and hydrogen to kick in.

> France > Germany

France's transition to nuclear power began in 1963 and is now complete.

In other countries (Germany...), transitions to renewables began with the advent of their industrial versions, around 2005. The current context makes these transitions more challenging, and they are still underway.

Therefore, any comparison of their results, for example, greenhouse gas emissions, must be based not on snapshots (which currently favor France since its transition is complete), but on their progress: speed, costs, impacts, etc.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electric...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-generation-fr...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-based-carbon-...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...

[adev_]

> decades of massive help (nationalisations building it, monopoly, gift-loans, debt cancellation...

I start seriously question your intellectual honesty here.

- For the last 2 decades, EDF was privatised and give back to the state an average of 2bn€ per year in dividende [1]. That is currently EDF giving to the state, not the opposite.

- The monopoly situation in France was ended in 2007. The loi NOME in 2010 even offred to the competitor of EDF an access to nuclear energy at fixed low price [2].

Worth to note that when the Energy crisis spiked in 2022, the same 'competitors' sent back their customers to EDF because they massively increased their price and did not want to follow the TRV.

> hydrogen to kick in.

Nobody sane of mind and reasonable take hydrogen and Power2Gas seriously in the energy sector: The law of physics simply play against it.

The general efficient is low (practically around 50%), the electrolizers strongly hate the spike style usage pattern necessary for a coupling with intermittent energy, and no installations of the required scale has even been tried.

The only reason this is still on the table is because it gives the gaz industry a reason to drain public subsidies and some hope to stay relevant.

> France's transition to nuclear power began in 1963 and is now complete.

Thats also wrong.

The Messner plan started in 1974 and France was other 55% of electricity production provided by Nuclear in 1985. It finishes with over 50 reactors in 15 years to cover up more than 70% of the electricity generated [3]

The cost of the plan Messmer was estimated at 100bn€ in 2012 money.

Germany started their energiewende in 2005 and 20 years later and 400Bn€ burned, they still do have a CO2/kwh intensity 4x higher than France in the 80s.

The results are so bad that Germany started to subsidies its own industry to protect them against electricity price increase [4]

Again, the results speak for themselves.

[1]: https://www.senat.fr/rap/r16-335/r16-3354.html

[2]: https://www.cre.fr/electricite/marche-de-gros-de-lelectricit...

[3]: https://www.sirenergies.com/en/article/history-of-nuclear-po...

[4]: https://perspectives.se.com/blog-stream/germany-industrial-e...

[natmaka]

> - For the last 2 decades, EDF was privatised and give back to the state an average of 2bn€ per year in dividende

Where in the referenced document do you read this?

According to the court of Audit ( https://ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/Rapport_th... ) EDF's equity was strengthened by regular capital contributions from the State until the end of the 1970s (page 31).

The return on state capital endowments, ranging from 3% to 6%, represents a low real return, significantly lower than the theoretical rates of 8% or 9% (excluding inflation) projected at the time by the General Planning Commission for public enterprises (page 33). Handouts!

The payment of meager dividends is sometimes cancelled or postponed (2015, 2016, 2017, 2019: https://www.latribune.fr/economie/france/edf-l-etat-va-renon... ), or partially made in the form of EDF shares ("in securities", for example between 2016 and 2022) therefore in monkey money because it does not replenish the public coffers at the time or later: EDF is very indebted and the bulk of its assets (nuclear power plants) are unsellable.

Then new handouts: https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/edf-va-etre-renfloue-a-hauteu... , kludges https://web.archive.org/web/20240805011254/https://www.lepar... and tricks https://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/nucleaire/quel-est...

> loi NOME in 2010 even offred to the competitor of EDF an access to nuclear energy at fixed low price

'Low'? Nope. It happened in 2012 and this price was set at €42/MWh

The total production cost of a MWh in 2010 was €22 (see the French Court of Auditors' report "The Costs of the Nuclear Power Sector," page 81). Since the existing generation fleet is considered fully depreciated, the €20 difference covers the extension of its operating life (Grand Carénage) and the renewal/expansion of the new nuclear power plants (EPR series).

According to EDF, the average spot price of a MWh in 2014 was €34.60 at base and €43.80 at peak ( https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/contrib/groupe-edf/es... , page 6).

In 2015, according to EDF itself, the wholesale market price was €38/MWh ( https://web.archive.org/web/20200926191300/https://www.edf.f... )

> Nobody sane of mind and reasonable take hydrogen and Power2Gas seriously in the energy sector

Projects and investments are aplenty: https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA_b540b580-43c5-4024-923d-df...

> The general efficient is low

Nope: hydrogen vehicles are easy to criticize because the mass and size of the tank are prohibitive, and compression significantly increases the cost.

This leads some to condemn all forms of hydrogen use. However, in the case of backup power, not having to store it in a small mobile tank or even transport it, and therefore being able to store it in a stationary industrial tank (where mass and volume are relatively unimportant), is not only possible but already being achieved (record: Air Liquide, and the competition is intensifying) and, incidentally, improves efficiency.

Efficiency:

- Electrolysis (PEM or alkaline): 0.75

- Storage: 0.95

- Conventional combined cycle turbine (gas + steam) with efficiency similar to that achieved with natural gas: 0.6

Overall: approximately 0.4 (just like a very recent nuclear reactor, and without any waste-producing fuel...)

> electrolizers strongly hate the spike style usage pattern necessary for a coupling with intermittent energy

See PEM.

> no installations of the required scale has even been tried

Indeed, however all components are ready.

> France's transition to nuclear power began in 1963 and is now complete.

> The Messner plan started in 1974

France's transition to nuclear power begain before this Plan. Details and sources: https://makarevitch.com/msmrenTheMessmerPlan

> It finishes with over 50 reactors in 15 years

Nope, it took from 1963 to 1999 (see above)

> The cost of the plan Messmer was estimated at 100bn€ in 2012 money.

This is the sole building cost. R&D is estimated at 55 billions (1945-2010) and the Court wrote that it is very difficult to assess, (page 35, footnote) "the scope of analysis does not cover research expenditures in the military field, nor those related to basic research.".

> Germany > energiewende > 400Bn€ burned

Nope: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47620957

> The results are so bad that Germany started to subsidies its own industry

Just like France massively subsidies its nuclear sector (among others) since the very beginning.

> results speak for themselves.

Indeed: since the 1980's France's industry fell down way more than Germany's , and taxes are in France way higher than in Germany. Such a win!

[Kon5ole]

>This is not hard to understand: Making a profit by selling valuable nuclear energy during evening peak consumption while buying cheap intermittent solar during low consumption time is an easy game.

It is also easy to understand that the nuclear plant costs money even as you are buying cheap solar, because you can't just shut them down. This is a problem already, and we already have solar plants that generate energy 24/7.

They are small, sure but many, and the number is increasing very fast.

There is also tech in the pipeline that will accelerate this. Very cheap batteries among them.

Technology is already being deployed that will have electricity trend towards being free or almost free, 24/7. Pretty soon value will not be generated by selling electricity, instead you will have to generate value from consuming almost free electricity.

When does a nuclear plant generate profits then? They will inevitably have to close, and unfortunately for France, nuclear plants cost money even after they have closed.

[locallost]

This is complete baloney and revisionist history. I followed that topic at the time pretty in depth. It took months and months and delay upon delay to get the plants back up and running. The spot prices in France at times in 2022 went over 1500 euros per MWh. If it was just "an overreaction" there would've been tremendous political pressure to just put the plants back online. The government and EDF are intertwined to the point any talk of new construction etc. always goes through Macron.

[adev_]

> I followed that topic at the time pretty in depth

You apparently did not. because you are the revisionnist here.

CSC (corrosion sous contrainte) is a well documented topic with accessible reports from the ASN (the french nuclear agency) [1], the court des comptes (French accounting court) and EDF itself.

The source of the problem is a phenomena that affect mainly the N4 (1400MW) series of the French reactor. It has been detected in 2021, so before the 2022.

Some pipe in some specific part of the circuit (secondary circuit) presented some unexpected cracks under inspection in one specific reactor.

And EDF chose the stop all the potentially affected reactor and disassembly all the potentially affected pipe to scan them with X ray and triple check that the corrosion phenomena is not widespread.

Where they over-reacted, is that they also disassembled the different serie 900Mw reactor 'just in case', at the worst time.... meaning right before Vladmir Putin attacked Ukrain.

> If it was just "an overreaction" there would've been tremendous political pressure to just put the plants back online

Sure. They should have just emergency duck tape the pipe without following any safety protocol, in a nuclear installation, just to please some politicians and because Putin dreamed of cold war again #sarcasm.

You seem to have very little clue of about the nuclear industry internals and its associated safety processes.... It of course took time.

The only thing you are correct on is that, indeed, it took longer than expected and caused delays.

[1]: https://recherche-expertise.asnr.fr/avis-rapports-corrosion-... [2]: https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/documents/68958 [3]: https://www.ladrome.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/cli-csc.pd...

[locallost]

You said the problems were overblown, not me. I don't think they were overblown, so I am not sure you should be lecturing me on duct tape and nuclear plants. The EDF had scheduled a quarter of the fleet for maintenance and then at the peak of the crisis pulled another quarter offline unplanned. This simply wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been necessary, the government wouldn't have allowed it at the time. The problem was not known in 2021, but at the time when they were built. Here is an interview from 1979 (!) with the president of the EDF at the time Marcel Boiteux, who said that this will happen, but it's not a big deal because it will happen after the plants had reached their EOL in 30 years [1]. Additionally there was a government commission or something like that in the early 2010s that basically concluded "we can't afford to build new ones, let's kick the can down the road and try to fix what we have now". And then 10 years later the biggest energy crisis since the 70s comes along, the very reason they were built and you end up relying on the weather forecast and German coal plants. A few years pass again and some people are talking themselves again into this technology being anything except useless.

[1] https://www.ina.fr/ina-eclaire-actu/president-edf-risque-fis...

[adev_]

> with the president of the EDF at the time Marcel Boiteux, who said that this will happen, but it's not a big deal because it will happen after the plants had reached their EOL in 30 years.

That's not what he said. He said this is the scenario in case of full cycle up and down every day. Which is obviously not how a central is operated.

Consensus today is that nuclear powerplant can live for around 60-80y without issues if the maintenance is done properly. The US park is getting there.

> This simply wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been necessary, the government wouldn't have allowed it at the time.

The government has no word to say over an ASN decision, specially when Nuclear safety is at stake.

It is France we are talking about, not the USSR.

Again, it is commonly admitted today, after the facts, that it was over-reacting. Thats said: It is bad economically as it cost EDF few billions. But it is exactly what you want to see for safety: Better overreacting than having an incident.

> A few years pass again and some people are talking themselves again into this technology being anything except useless.

So. You are taking one single year failure as a representative example of a technology that has given cheap, abundant and low carbon electricity for the entire Europeean continent for 3 decades ?

Do you have not the impression of being of slightly bad faith here ?

[locallost]

You can pretend to be meticulous about it but the president of the EDF doesn't go on TV to speak to the general public to say 30 years if he meant something else. He would've said 80 years because it just sounds better. Sorry, it's pretty obvious that stress corrosion was a known issue, so there were no surprises.

It's France, not USSR. Is this why the EDF was involved in rescuing Areva from bankruptcy -- a sound business decision? Is this why the government is giving basically interest free loans to the EDF that will be repaid starting from maybe in 15 years? If you really believe that you are delusional. It's all just backroom wheeling and dealing. There is a good saying "don't get high on your own supply". The delusion of order in the western world will be its end, especially now considering it's crumbling before our eyes. Clinging to this idea is not healthy.

Abundant and low carbon, all nice things, but it's not why they were built. They were built for energy independence, and at this task it failed at the exact point in time when it was supposed to shine. Speaking of which, being built for one purpose doesn't necessarily make it useful for another purpose. It was built at a time when things like carbon emissions, climate change and overall sustainability were not a topic. Since sustainability is a topic today, it requires obviously different considerations. My only gripe with the German shutdown is that they didn't force the operators to pay for the decommissioning and waste disposal in full. That would've ended any debate about how realistic and useful this technology is because the companies would've been insolvent.