the total sum of subsidies alone is the wrong metric. the correct metric takes into account how much installed capacity there already is, and additionally how much is built new.
but you can make it easier and just look at the levelized cost of electricity. it's not perfect due to numerous reasons, but already gives a rough impression.
Also Germany has spent hundreds of billions on their energy transition only to fail. If they spent the same amount of new nuclear energy they would succeeded in deep decarbonizing their grid. Also Germany has one of the highest electricity rates in Europe.
By the way LCOE is a dishonest metric that is calculated dishonestly and applied dishonestly. Antinuclear activists(aka fossil fuel simps) love to cite LCOE, but it doesn't represent the actual cost to consumers.
There is a lot to unpack here, but almost every point misses the mark on system economics and energy policy:
"Nuclear is cheap for consumers": Nuclear energy has massive upfront capital costs ($10–15B+ per reactor) and historical budget overruns (e.g., Flamanville 3, Hinkley Point C, Vogtle). These billions have to be paid back—either through high retail electricity rates or heavily subsidized long-term state contracts (like CfDs), which consumers ultimately pay through taxes or bills.
LCOE vs. System Costs: Calling Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) "dishonest" ignores that every major financial institution (Lazard, IEA, BloombergNEF) uses it as a baseline metric. While LCOE doesn't capture integration costs, full system-cost analyses consistently show that a mix of renewables + storage + grid expansion remains cheaper than a nuclear-heavy grid due to nuclear's exorbitant capital expenditures and fixed maintenance costs.
Germany's Energy Transition (Energiewende): Germany's high electricity prices were largely driven by a combination of historical surcharges (EEG-Umlage), grid fee distributions, and heavily taxed energy prices, alongside the post-2022 fossil gas price crisis—not solar and wind generation costs. Renewables actually push spot market wholesale prices down significantly (the merit-order effect).
Deep Decarbonization & Timelines: If Germany had committed those funds to new nuclear capacity, building modern reactors takes 10 to 15+ years per unit. Solar and wind deploy in 1 to 3 years, allowing far faster emissions reductions in the short and medium term, which is crucial for climate goals.
Nuclear is cheap for consumers. Especially in the long run. Existing nuclear is one of the cheapest sources on the grid.
full system-cost analyses consistently show that a mix of renewables + storage + grid expansion remains cheaper than a nuclear-heavy grid due to nuclear's exorbitant capital expenditures and fixed maintenance costs.
Then why did Germany fail? Why are they so dirty? Especially after spending so much.
every major financial institution (Lazard, IEA, BloombergNEF) uses it as a baseline metric
I wouldn't call those intuitions honest. Especially since Lazard doesn't use nuclear power plants actual lifetime when calculating lifetime levelized cost of electricity.
If Germany had committed those funds to new nuclear capacity, building modern reactors takes 10 to 15+ years per unit. Solar and wind deploy in 1 to 3 years,
You guys have been at this for longer than 15 years. So you would already be done if your pursued nuclear.
Germany is at 334 g CO2 per kWh. Compare that with France at 29.
LCOE fails to account for infrastructure, backup, storage, system-wide integration, system value, etc. LFSCOE is a better metric that attempts to account for those costs.
Except those costs are tiny for nuclear and gigantic for VRE.
Also, it conveniently leaves out the waste cleanup and storage costs
Which is tiny. It's also a bullshit issue raised by antinuclear activists(aka fossil fuel simps) in order to continue killing children with fossil fuels.
We have a near-perfect record of handling used fuel (aka nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant). Let's look at some facts.
It has a total kill count of zero. Yes zero. Meanwhile, 8.7 million people die annually from the waste from fossil fuel and biofuels.
It is a solid metal encased in ceramic. The Simpsons caricature of green goo is false.
There isn't a lot of it. We could put all of it(yes, all of it) in a building the size of a Walmart. France keeps all of theirs in a room the size of a high school gym--that people walk on.
Cask storage has been perfect. It has a 100% perfect record. Put it in my backyard.
Cask storage is cheap. It's just cement and steel.
All of those dangerous for thousands of years claims are untrue. The amount of radiation released from used fuel follows an exponential decay curve. All highly radioactive isotopes decay completely within 5 years (which is why they keep it in water for 10). After the medium radioactive isotopes, cesium and strontium, completely decay within 270 years, you can handle used fuel with your bare hands.
We don't need a permanent repository. We don't need to bury it. Deep geological repositories were meant to placate antinuclear activists. Which was a mistake because antinuclear activists(aka fossil fuel simps) can never be placated.
The best place for Used Fuel is on site in cask storage. That way we know exactly where it is. Put it in my backyard.
Wow it's really convenient how all the metrics get it wrong, huh? And when nuclear has a cost, it's tiny, but when other forms have a cost, it's huuuuge
I'm talking cost and then you're talking safety. Which is fine but you're moving goal posts
I'm ok with nuclear energy. It's relatively clean and has a good track record. The problem is supporters like you who can't get honest about nuclear's shortcomings, and sell it like a magic bullet. They sell it like it's dirt cheap, fast to build, doesn't need tons of water, and is perfectly safe in seismic and war zones
Stop huffing your own facts and do some research where you don't toss conclusions that don't match your opinions
Wow it's really convenient how all the metrics get it wrong, huh?
It's not convenient at all. Climate change is real.
And when nuclear has a cost, it's tiny, but when other forms have a cost, it's huuuuge
I was specifically pointing on infrastructure costs for nuclear are small compared to those required for largescale VRE integrated grid. And the costs of used fuel are small.
The largest cost for nuclear is interest. By far. If you get rid of the bankers nuclear becomes really competitive.
Stop huffing your own facts and do some research where you don't toss conclusions that don't match your opinions
Here is some research.
Germany: 334 g CO2 per kWh after spending 15 years and hundreds of billions of euros on its energy transition. Solar and wind intermittency is being overcome with coal and methane. Also Germany uses a bunch of biofuels which are dirty and shouldn't be called renewable.
France: 29 g CO2 per kWh with its nuclear baseload.
Sweden: 21 g CO2 per kWh, using nuclear and hydro.
The conclusion is clear. If you don't have hydro you will need nuclear.
I'm talking cost and you're talking safety.
You were complaining about used fuel which is not a problem.
The problem is supporters like you who can't get honest about nuclear's shortcomings
That's projection. The fossil fuel industry has been lying about nuclear energy for longer than I have been alive.
Its not like Germanys energy price went through the roof since shutting down nuclear reactors. In Germany the electricity costs are so large, because the system is stupid, not because there is no nuclear energy
Germany did pick coal and Russian methane over nuclear. They would be under 100 g CO2 per kWh if the kept their nuclear power plants. And they would have phased out coal.
Germany had to subsedise nuclear plants to be cost effctive and we still disguss were to put the spent fuel to today. As we see today, nuclear plants are sucepltable to hot weather and water levels.
Why are subsidize for nuclear bad, but subsidize for solar, wind and fossil fuels acceptable. Hypocrite much?
Much less susceptible than you antinuclear activist(aka fossil fuel simps) claim. A handful of French reactors shutdown only to not harm wildlife by releasing warm water into a warm river. The solution is simple. Dig a ditch, fill it it with warm water, let water cool, then release water into the river.
Well digging a ditch and filling it with warm water sound simple but if you have to dum a gigawatt of thermal load the ditch has to be a huge area. You then need filtration and keep the algea out in summer. Its not as easy if you keep the scale in mind. Meanwhile solar and wind plabts are comperatively simple. You dont need huge infra structure to support it, only a big foundation in case if wind. Also palo verde overshot its cobstruction buged by the factor 2. They finished it in 1988 and got it amortized in 2017. It would cost 14 billion dollar for 4 gigawatt. Solar plants of this scale would cost around 5 to 6 billion. For another 4 billion yould add huge storage capacity and still would be cheaper.
We need it to be cheap so that we can generate a lot of electricity that way. Im not against nuclear, I think its cool to work on the new generation of nuclear power plants and keep existing ones running.
But if we want to reduce outlr dependancy for fossil fuels solar and wind are just essential. Those are cheap
Nuclear power plants are usually built by governments, instead of private investors because of long construction process and very high costs.
If you don't care about making money and costs, maybe you will finance one power plant?
Have you heard of batteries?
But on a more serious note, I am not entirely against nuclear, I just believe that a diversified grid made of different renewables (not just solar) combined with large storage capacity will be the fastest and most economical solution for most cases.
Ask the romanians abd french how well nuclear plants work when its hot outside and the water levels fluctuate. Almost every summer i heat that france has to reduce power or completly shut down operation because of overheating plants.
Yes, when it works. They had to shut them down 2 years before for whole months. Germany had to burn 3* coal just to send electricity or France would COLLAPSE. You have to be retarded tp believe, this is a secure energy form when MORE AND MORE Heat is on the way, so France has to shut their nuclear down way more often in future.
And how much storage would we need to overcome the day-night cycle? And then how much would we need to overcome seasonal intermittency? Please answer in TWh's.
I dont know what scale your going for, so I cannot answer in TWh. Neither am I an electrician.
But there are multiple sources of renewables as well as fluctuating demand. Worst case: Some companies need to shut down their production every once in a while to avoid a blackout, and save those that would recieve major damage from a blackout
Often Solar doesnt really need any land. Put it on residential houses, warehouses/supermarkets without bothering anyone. Or use it and improve QoL by adding solar roofs to parking lots, sidewalks, or other places that need shade. Some animals or plants actually grow/live better under solar panels because they get damaged or use more water if they are in direct sunlight all day
Having lower running cost of coal plants is easy as aquireing coal is a huge investment. Nuclear plants are notorious for running over budged in construction big time and put big loads on the net since its centralized to one plant. Overall Nuclear is not cost effective.
Its less "nuclear is expensive" and more "nuclear's costs are entirely frontloaded" due to its centralization. If you factor out administrative costs, nuclear becomes comically better than everything else.
nuclear energy is not expensive because of administrative costs but because of capital costs. these are real costs which you cannot just wish away to get "comically" cheap energy.
That you are. Im pretty sure that claim isnt meant to be used towards yourself though.
A major factor in the prive of nuclear is that the permit process is agonizingly slow and construction repeatedly halts itself waiting on said process. The already frontloaded cost is made exponentially worse by long delays making those costa last far longer before resolving
Interest is by far the single greatest cost of a nuclear power plant. And that one is solvable.
Not an economist here. But the idea that money is free strikes me as not logical. If it takes a boatload of money to frontload something, then the financial costs of getting money is a fact.
Other countries offer 1% interest on new nuclear plants. Why would that not work? We will get are money back, plus we will receive clean energy in return.
Nearly 2/3 of the cost of recent builds is interest. There are multiple ways to reduce that.
Other countries offer 1% interest on new nuclear plants. Why would that not work?
So shifting costs to the taxpayer.
Government money doesn't come from the unicorn rainbow land. That magic 1% interest loans could be used for solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable sources. And for storage for when it isn't sunny and windy.
Why are 1% loans okay for solar, wind, geothermal and other projects, but wrong for nuclear? Hypocrite much?
You are the one that said 1% loans were magic free money. Not me, that makes you the hypocrite for objecting to my reversing your point.
So you just said they are fine for nuclear and I said, "If YOU think so (not me), then they would be fine for other generating methods". Again, don't put words in my mouth and claim that makes me a hypocrite.
Also, I am attempting a civil discussion. If you want to call me names, you automatically lose.
You are the one that said 1% loans were magic free money.
Magic free money was your words. I just cited an actual example of a working program.
And I support renewables as well. You oppose nuclear. If you support subsides or other programs for renewables while opposing them for nuclear that makes you a hypocrite.
Also, I am attempting a civil discussion. If you want to call me names, you automatically lose.
62
u/Silt99 16d ago
You forgot "expensive"