▲ | ViewTrick1002 2 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Which means you need a return on the investment for it to work. Creating self sustaining industries that don’t need subsidies. Tossing an absolutely mindbogglingly large subsidy to the 70 year old nuclear industry which never has delivered competitive products is not a good use of money. It is like saying we create value by going around breaking windows and paying people to fix it. France’s problem is that if they don’t fix the spending issue on their own the bond market will do it for them. Maintaining the debt will be a larger and larger portion of the budget until the only option is solving the issue. Cutting spending will lower GDP and push up debt as a percent of GDP. But it wasn’t real income when the debt you took on did not lead to productive outcomes. Just polishing a pig. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | mpweiher 2 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Er...nuclear is already self sustaining and has a great ROI for the French (and pretty much everyone else). Even the most catastrophic nuclear construction project the French ever had, Flamanville 3, will have better ROI than intermittent renewable projects. What doesn't make sense is throwing more good money after 25 years of subsidies at intermittent renewables that have yet to show a positive ROI. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|