> Nuclear is also extremely heavily subsidized.

That is also not true. For example in Germany, nuclear production was never subsidized at all. Even Greenpeace and the Green's chief anti-nuclear Lobbyist, Jürgen Trittin, called nuclear power plants "money printing machines".

> Be it through state sponsored loans or tax breaks (France)

Those are minute compared to subsidies intermittent renewables get in Germany. In particular as there is the ARENH program, which is effectively a negative subsidy (it takes money away from the nuclear company EDF), and of course EDF is profitable and gives money to the government.

When you add it all up, France has a negative subsidy of € 0.1 - 7 billion yearly, whereas Germany subsidizes intermittent renewables to the tune of around €20 billion a year.

> System costs may be high, but they are on a downward trend

That is also not true. System costs are actually rising, because yields are dropping, the share of renewables has risen and the (fairly cheap) coal backup is to be eliminated. Total costs are now estimated at several trillion euros. For comparison, France's nuclear program cost a total of €228 billion through 2011.

▲

V__ 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Until 2016, nuclear energy received more subsidize than renewables in Germany. [1]

EDF was nationalized in 2022, doesn't have to build money reserves for decommissioning (which would be tens of billions), is about 50 billion in debt and just got a 5 billion government loan to keep some old reactors running and another government loan to build new plants. These are not minute interventions, both France and Germany heavily subsidize their sectors (in different ways). With the ARENH program ending in 2025, a more fair comparison will be possible.

I have to read up on the system costs though, that may be ai fair point.

[1] https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/877586/4e4dce913c3d88... (last page)

	▲	mpweiher 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Until 2016, nuclear energy received more subsidize than renewables in Germany. That's not true. That report is based on a completely ridiculous paper by the FÖS, the "Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft". Calling the numbers it uses "completely made up" is putting it kindly. One of the many debunking is here: https://kernd.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Artikel_atw_D_20... Summary: "The disregard for scientific methodology, for basic knowledge of economics and business administration, environmental economics, energy economics, and nuclear technology, the biased selection of sources, even the use of newspaper articles as supposedly scientific sources, and the denial of the positive effects of nuclear energy, which far outweigh its social costs, are unworthy of the FÖS. Either they are a sign of insufficient economic expertise at the institute, as well as a lack of knowledge of scientific methodology, or the FÖS is deliberately misleading readers with the aim of being able to cite the highest possible fictitious costs for nuclear energy on behalf of its NGO clients. Both discredit the study and its client." The debt that EDF carries is completely normal for a company this size, especially one that does infrastructure. It would be unusual for a company not to use the capital markets to finance such projects. EDF has been highly profitable for decades, recently while being used to subsidize other parts of the economy via ARENH as well as being used to buffer the effects of the energy crisis, not just via ARENH, but through massive expansion of ARENH. ARENH is not "ending", it is being replaced by a comparable scheme that is structured slightly differently. EDF was not "nationalized" in 2022. It was always a state company, with the state never holding less than 85%. The period where the state held less than 100% was relatively short, from 2005 to 2022. The state bought out the minority shareholders in order to streamline the planned nuclear expansion. The "subsidies" for EDF (cheaper loans etc.) amount to around € 2.7 - 3 billion a year. By itself, that's obviously not "minute". However, these sums are dwarfed by the ARENH program and the profits that EDF pays to the state, which turn the subsidies into "negative subsidies" in sum. That is, the state gets more money from EDF than it gives it, by a good amount. Even if that weren't the case, the sums are dwarfed by the German subsidies for renewable, which are an order of magnitude higher than the gross subsidies in France (and infinitely higher than the net-negative subsidies).

▲

Jon_Lowtek 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> For example in Germany, nuclear production was never subsidized at all.

Except financing research and development, guaranteeing loans to reduce default risk and interest rates, capping liabilities to enable insureability at lower rates by guaranteeing to fix damages in case of critical failures with public money, financing and organizing emergency civil protection measures, as well as waste disposal, granting massive tax cuts, doing the diplomatic leg work to import uranium and protecting its transport with the police, all and all summing up public spending on making nuclear energy in germany to 169,4 billion euros according to the scientific service of the Bundestag (Document Number WD 5 - 3000 - 090/21), with the more green leaning FOES calculating 304 billion. And on top of that it is estimated that another 100 billion in public money will be needed to fix up long term waste disposal sites morsleben and asse.

... well except from those few hundred billion euros they barely ever subsidize it at all.

▲

mpweiher 3 days ago | parent [-]

The FÖS "paper" that gets circle-cited everywhere in anti-nuclear advocacy is complete bollocks. This is obvious from even a cursory reading, but many have also done it in detail.

https://kernd.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Artikel_atw_D_20...

	▲	Jon_Lowtek 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		i only cited it as a side note for the upper bound. the more conservative estimate of the scientific service of the Bundestag still shows that your claim of zero subsidies is made up and unsubstantiated. Discrediting the radical other position and ignoring the center positions does not make your own radical claims true. I can give another source: "Aufstieg und Krise der deutschen Atomwirtschaft 1945-1975" by historian Prof. Dr. Joachim Radkau. However that one you have to get from a library, it describes in detail how the nuclear industry in germany was build and what role and subsidies the government provided.