Comments on: Competition economics to the rescue https://energytransition.org/2017/01/competition-economics-to-the-rescue/ The Global Energiewende Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:10:05 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.1.1 By: heinbloed https://energytransition.org/2017/01/competition-economics-to-the-rescue/#comment-5080 Fri, 06 Jan 2017 11:42:54 +0000 http://energytransition.boellblog.org/?p=11844#comment-5080 French Areva has finalised it’s RE-exit:

http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/areva-dans-l-eolien-c-est-fini.N484209

It wasn’t worth it …….

Areva sticks with the atom war machines, those pockets to be picked are so much deeper:

” Dans le même temps, Areva s’est également séparé d’Areva TA, spécialisé dans la conception des chaudières nucléaires pour les sous-marins et les porte-avions, que l’Etat a souhaité nationaliser pour la sanctuariser. ”

Areva clients wonder how to try to confiscate an atom submarine or air plane carrier when you’re a small reactor owner with the steel crumbling and faced with forced closure and costly testing regimes……..

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-france-nuclear-idUSKBN14P2NG

]]> By: heinbloed https://energytransition.org/2017/01/competition-economics-to-the-rescue/#comment-5078 Fri, 06 Jan 2017 01:04:15 +0000 http://energytransition.boellblog.org/?p=11844#comment-5078 Well said, Loath Google.

The funds can be even better funneled away when the ‘national interest’ isn’t allowing for public controls as it is with the arms industry. Building killing machines isn’t forbidden and it is worth it …..

About continuing the mining industry:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Chinese-coal-miner-to-invest-in-UKs-Hinkley-project-03011702.html

At home the mafiosis end behind bars but their greed is still working.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-crime-corruption-idUSKBN14B0RR

]]> By: Loath Googel https://energytransition.org/2017/01/competition-economics-to-the-rescue/#comment-5070 Wed, 04 Jan 2017 06:22:04 +0000 http://energytransition.boellblog.org/?p=11844#comment-5070 It will still take decades for the comparatively onlyrecently independent central European countries to entirely sluice the last dregs of Soviet mentality out of their thinking. Seemingly inexplicable lurches backward can be expected in all sorts of unexpected areas. One such remnant is that nuclear might still be considered modern in these countries. I know for certain that that is true in Siberia. Okay, Siberia is not central Europe, but the Soviet mindset achieved a bloc-wide penetration that outsiders generally cannot believe, with the almost exclusive exception being that of national identity. Secondly – and this is pure speculation – nuclear is immensely more amenable than are renewables to the funneling of funds. As coal begins to go down the gurgler and the other hydrocarbons hover in uneasy stasis above the abyss, nuclear must appear a haven for those seeking a way to continue the mining industry, i.e. mining the finances of electricity consumers.

]]> By: James Wimberley https://energytransition.org/2017/01/competition-economics-to-the-rescue/#comment-5068 Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:41:05 +0000 http://energytransition.boellblog.org/?p=11844#comment-5068 In reply to Jarmo.

Except that the German FIT costs are almost entirely legacy. Current FITs for wind are close to wholesale. Solar FITs are twice wholesale, but only apply to the small residential sector, and once you allow for reduced transmission and distribution costs the rate can’t be far from a fair VOST.

The German renewable subsidies aimed at and achieved a major objective of public policy, getting prices for wind and solar down to grid parity. What objective do the planned new reactors in SEE aim at? They won’t make nuclear as cheap as renewables plus storage or hydro/gas backup. It’s vanity all the way.

The claimed capital cost of EUR 5,000/kW comes from the Tooth Fairy. Hinkley C will cost at least £16 bn in straight construction costs at 2012 prices, a nice round £5.000 per kw, or €5,860.To get the full cost, allowing for capital tied up during construction, you have to double that. The UK has a great deal of experience in nuclear construction, which the SEE countries do not. Given the grisly past experience of the EPR, the Hinkley budget is likely to be overshot. Use US/Japanese designs instead? Look what’s happening to Vogtle.

]]> By: Dr. Josef Pesch https://energytransition.org/2017/01/competition-economics-to-the-rescue/#comment-5066 Tue, 03 Jan 2017 17:16:28 +0000 http://energytransition.boellblog.org/?p=11844#comment-5066 Dear Jarmo,
this is assuming that the price of nuclear is full-cost and the risk is fully ensured, which it is not the case for both aspects. This, as experience in Germany and Japan has clearly shown, is completely distorting the market.
In Germany, our children and their children will still be paying for nuclear without having any of the benefits. And there is not even a full cost calculation for the storage of nuclear waste!
And besides: Renewables are not subsidized in Germany: there is no tax payers money involved (which is the EU definition of a subsidy). It is paid for by those who consume the power – and isn’t this how it should be?
Your comparison of nuclear with Renewables is simply wrong.

]]> By: Jarmo https://energytransition.org/2017/01/competition-economics-to-the-rescue/#comment-5065 Tue, 03 Jan 2017 06:18:26 +0000 http://energytransition.boellblog.org/?p=11844#comment-5065 “Assuming conservative unit investment cost of EUR 5,000/kW the intended nuclear investment program of CEE countries will need to attract EUR 75 billion. This is equivalent to 50% of the GDP of the Czech Republic, according to Eurostat data.”

Or three years worth of EEG levy paid to subsidize renewables in Germany at current rate.

Just about everything said about subsidizing nuclear and distorting competition in this article also applies to renewables. Except the scale, which is an order of magnitude greater.

]]>