The difference being that when you’re 10 billion into a renewables project, you usually have SOME generation already, whereas your nuclear reactor isn’t doing shit until it’s fully completed.
I don’t mind nuclear, but the fact is that the reactors take decades to build, whereas renewables can be deployed far quicker. Going all-in on nuclear, and then twiddling your thumbs for 10-15 years while the reactors are built doesn’t sound like a great idea.
Erm, how many renewables projects are many years late? How many of them have taxpayers picking up the tab?
Renewables are cheap and quick to build, and turn a huge profit. Granted, that profit isn’t passed down to the energy consumer, but that’s an issue with the way electricity is sold to consumers. Most countries have a complete disconnect between the market for generators and the market for consumers, so the price of electricity on the consumer market will only go up even if the costs in the generation market go down.
On the generation market, nuclear electricity is more expensive than renewable electricity. Nuclear electricity is also heavily subsidised, while large scale renewables typically are not these days (because they’re profitable on their own).
And meanwhile France on average buys electricity from Germany because the German shit works (including the renewables) and the French nuclear plants are more often off than on.
Talk about reliable energy…
And there is always sun or wind somewhere.
France invested in nuclear hard at the right time. Things aren’t the same now. Germany fucked up and switched various things off (coal and nuclear) too eagerly, without encouraging enough development to replace it first.
Renewables typically aren’t subsidised these days. They’re profitable in their own right. You don’t even need to subise them, expanding capacity through the planning process will encourage their development - however subsidies could encourage even more.
I’m in the UK, and I’ve worked building wind farms for the last 8 years. The contracts are obviously quite nuanced and varied, and any business is going to do whatever it can to get grants and such to increase their revenue, but most of the ones I’m familiar with include payments by the wind farm to the local community.
England doesn’t just not subsidise them, they’ve actively banned new onshore wind farms for the last 6 years - the main development has been in Scotland. This ban came in with an end to subsidies, and as a result a lot of the smaller installs (eg 1-3 turbines) stopped being built, and the return on value investment to be at scale (10+ turbines ~3MW each or higher). The downside to this is that you have fewer community projects, in favour of larger, typically foreign owned power plants. There’s also a lot less venture capitalists building wind/solar farms and then selling them on immediately on completion (which is probably a good thing).
My favourite little wind farm was entirely community owned in Wales, just 2 turbines. They have school kids visit up there and they modified this exercise bike with a dynamo to power things like a light bulb, fan, USB charger and inverter for AC, so all the kids can see how hard they have to peddle to make the electricity. When they opened the place they had a local rugby player kick a ball over the blades lol. This was one of the last built with subsidies, but all of the money from the electricity generated goes back into the local community.
As for energy production being monitored and managed, somewhat. The distribution and transmission operators have decent information, but not in depth down to the generators themselves. It’s all typically privately owned through multiple entities and the government doesn’t have a huge amount of oversight - at the end of the day they have to listen to the experts, and the experts work in the private sector for the power companies, not in government.
deleted by creator
The difference being that when you’re 10 billion into a renewables project, you usually have SOME generation already, whereas your nuclear reactor isn’t doing shit until it’s fully completed.
I don’t mind nuclear, but the fact is that the reactors take decades to build, whereas renewables can be deployed far quicker. Going all-in on nuclear, and then twiddling your thumbs for 10-15 years while the reactors are built doesn’t sound like a great idea.
deleted by creator
Erm, how many renewables projects are many years late? How many of them have taxpayers picking up the tab?
Renewables are cheap and quick to build, and turn a huge profit. Granted, that profit isn’t passed down to the energy consumer, but that’s an issue with the way electricity is sold to consumers. Most countries have a complete disconnect between the market for generators and the market for consumers, so the price of electricity on the consumer market will only go up even if the costs in the generation market go down.
On the generation market, nuclear electricity is more expensive than renewable electricity. Nuclear electricity is also heavily subsidised, while large scale renewables typically are not these days (because they’re profitable on their own).
Removed by mod
And meanwhile France on average buys electricity from Germany because the German shit works (including the renewables) and the French nuclear plants are more often off than on.
Talk about reliable energy…
And there is always sun or wind somewhere.
Removed by mod
Just read and inform yourself for once in your life :)
France invested in nuclear hard at the right time. Things aren’t the same now. Germany fucked up and switched various things off (coal and nuclear) too eagerly, without encouraging enough development to replace it first.
Renewables typically aren’t subsidised these days. They’re profitable in their own right. You don’t even need to subise them, expanding capacity through the planning process will encourage their development - however subsidies could encourage even more.
Removed by mod
I’m in the UK, and I’ve worked building wind farms for the last 8 years. The contracts are obviously quite nuanced and varied, and any business is going to do whatever it can to get grants and such to increase their revenue, but most of the ones I’m familiar with include payments by the wind farm to the local community.
England doesn’t just not subsidise them, they’ve actively banned new onshore wind farms for the last 6 years - the main development has been in Scotland. This ban came in with an end to subsidies, and as a result a lot of the smaller installs (eg 1-3 turbines) stopped being built, and the return on value investment to be at scale (10+ turbines ~3MW each or higher). The downside to this is that you have fewer community projects, in favour of larger, typically foreign owned power plants. There’s also a lot less venture capitalists building wind/solar farms and then selling them on immediately on completion (which is probably a good thing).
My favourite little wind farm was entirely community owned in Wales, just 2 turbines. They have school kids visit up there and they modified this exercise bike with a dynamo to power things like a light bulb, fan, USB charger and inverter for AC, so all the kids can see how hard they have to peddle to make the electricity. When they opened the place they had a local rugby player kick a ball over the blades lol. This was one of the last built with subsidies, but all of the money from the electricity generated goes back into the local community.
As for energy production being monitored and managed, somewhat. The distribution and transmission operators have decent information, but not in depth down to the generators themselves. It’s all typically privately owned through multiple entities and the government doesn’t have a huge amount of oversight - at the end of the day they have to listen to the experts, and the experts work in the private sector for the power companies, not in government.
Ah yeas, stupid ecologist Merkel and her nuclear hate.
Thanks fully the green minister habeck extended the plants for 4 great more months this year.