Or make more use of renewables. Nuclear has never been cost-efficient, it’s just that the costs have been buried in state subsidies to the industry and its supply chain.
Nuclear has never been cost-efficient, it’s just that the costs have been buried in state subsidies to the industry and its supply chain.
A lie repeated again and again.
French Cour des Comptes has released a report, back in 2012, the costs of the french nuclear fleet, everything included: 121 billions of euros between 1960 and 2010.
2,4 billions a year. To provide decarbonized and reliable electricity for decades.
To put in perspective, Germany is more than a trillion of euros in for their Energiewende, or about 40 billions of euros a year for ~25 years, and they still have one of the costliest and dirtiest electricity or Europe, while still not being close to stop coal and having no plan to get out of gas.
And for more perspective, EDF had 118 billions of dollars of revenues in 2024, mostly coming from nuclear, and 11 billions of net results, including the payback of the interests of the debt that the french government imposed on EDF.
Anyone claiming nuclear has never been or can’t be profitable or cost-efficient is either uneducated or a liar.
When done right, nuclear is profitable as fuck, that’s empirically proved.
That might have been true in the past, but right now renewable energy is by far cheaper and faster to build than nuclear energy. (Just look into the final end user prices they produce)
but right now renewable energy is by far cheaper and faster to build than nuclear energy.
No. Building a solar or wind plant is cheaper and faster than building a nuclear plant, sure, but that’s not what we’re aiming for. The goal is to decarbonize electricity by phasing out fossils.
Replacing all fossil-based electricity production nationwide is quite cheap for nuclear when done right (e.g. France, planning for decades and multiple reactors at once, while actually politically supporting your industry, instead of throwing a project once in a while and letting it fight in courts by itself against NIMBY and anti-nuclears).
Replacing fossils with solar and wind power is science fiction. There is not a single country in the world that has decarbonized its electricity without significant decarbonized and controllable electricity capacities, or to name them: hydro or nuclear. Except that you just can’t build hydro anywhere, and most countries’ capacities are limited.
You can’t claim that solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear, because solar and wind just can’t do what nuclear can, and can at best be complementary to other controllable power sources.
Countries will do everything except build nuclear power plants ig.
Don’t feed the troll
Renewables are going so hard, it’s not even a competition anymore
Or make more use of renewables. Nuclear has never been cost-efficient, it’s just that the costs have been buried in state subsidies to the industry and its supply chain.
A lie repeated again and again.
French Cour des Comptes has released a report, back in 2012, the costs of the french nuclear fleet, everything included: 121 billions of euros between 1960 and 2010.
2,4 billions a year. To provide decarbonized and reliable electricity for decades.
To put in perspective, Germany is more than a trillion of euros in for their Energiewende, or about 40 billions of euros a year for ~25 years, and they still have one of the costliest and dirtiest electricity or Europe, while still not being close to stop coal and having no plan to get out of gas.
And for more perspective, EDF had 118 billions of dollars of revenues in 2024, mostly coming from nuclear, and 11 billions of net results, including the payback of the interests of the debt that the french government imposed on EDF.
Anyone claiming nuclear has never been or can’t be profitable or cost-efficient is either uneducated or a liar.
When done right, nuclear is profitable as fuck, that’s empirically proved.
That might have been true in the past, but right now renewable energy is by far cheaper and faster to build than nuclear energy. (Just look into the final end user prices they produce)
As I believe you are German or at least can read it: here is something well written to read https://quellen.tv/energie#aber-frankreich2025
Also there is more to Germany having costly electricity than not building nuclear power plants as you make it to be.
No. Building a solar or wind plant is cheaper and faster than building a nuclear plant, sure, but that’s not what we’re aiming for. The goal is to decarbonize electricity by phasing out fossils.
Replacing all fossil-based electricity production nationwide is quite cheap for nuclear when done right (e.g. France, planning for decades and multiple reactors at once, while actually politically supporting your industry, instead of throwing a project once in a while and letting it fight in courts by itself against NIMBY and anti-nuclears).
Replacing fossils with solar and wind power is science fiction. There is not a single country in the world that has decarbonized its electricity without significant decarbonized and controllable electricity capacities, or to name them: hydro or nuclear. Except that you just can’t build hydro anywhere, and most countries’ capacities are limited.
You can’t claim that solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear, because solar and wind just can’t do what nuclear can, and can at best be complementary to other controllable power sources.