Nuclear’s Cheap: French Power Prices Half That Suffered In Wind & Solar ‘Powered’ Germany

That the nuclear-powered French pay prices around half that suffered by their wind and solar-obsessed German neighbours is the kind of barebones fact the wind and sun cult absolutely hate.

The French set the benchmark for generating clean, safe and reliable nuclear power; they’ve been doing so for nearly 60 years and still get over 75% of their electricity from their nuclear plants, and export large volumes of what they generate to power-starved Germans and Brits.

The French put paid to the lie that nuclear power is expensive; the French power consumer pays around half what wind and solar-powered Danes and Germans do (see above). Since Vladimir Putin’s adventure in Ukraine, German power prices have rocketed, further still, recently hitting a record 40 US cents per kWh.

And the French don’t suffer the indignity of routine power rationing and blackouts like their German neighbours, when the sun sets and/or calm weather sets in. Indeed, it’s nuclear power from France and coal-fired power from Poland that keeps Germany’s near-terminal power grid from total collapse.

Following on from yesterday’s post, setting out Nationals MPs David Gillespie’s call for the introduction of SMRs in Australia, here’s a report on Adi Paterson calling for precisely the same solution to this country’s self-inflicted power pricing and supply calamity.

Wise up on benefits of nuclear power, Anthony Albanese told
The Australian
Greg Brown
23 November 2022

The former head of Australia’s nuclear science agency has urged Anthony Albanese to become “fully informed” about nuclear energy generation, warning against placing too much emphasis on intermittent renewables to transition to a zero emissions electricity sector.

Adi Paterson, appointed chief executive of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation by the Rudd govern­ment in 2009, will on Thursday moderate a nuclear energy forum in Parliament House in Canberra attended by MPs, industry experts, engineers and scientists.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, obtained by The Australian, Dr Paterson says small modular reactors “are the lowest carbon, safe and reliable source of energy”.

“We believe the government is not fully informed in relation to the best science, engineering, and economic cost. Indeed, it is currently potentially misled on this aspect of energy policy,” he wrote.

“Recent reviews and published refereed research have accelerated moves to mitigate, and reverse, the effects of high penetration dilute intermittent sources of electricity, and their impact on markets and consumers.

“We hope you have received considered and thorough briefings in this regard.

“However, we cannot see any evidence of this in your most recent public remarks or those of your senior cabinet colleagues.”

Dr Paterson said a growing number of engineers and scientists were “deeply concerned about the current activities and plans for deep penetration of intermittent renewable sources in the eastern grid”.

“To achieve a low carbon ­future, we seek to offer a positive alternative to the current plans,” he said.

“It is demonstrably true that successive federal and state governments have been badly advised in relation to our critical national infrastructure, that is deep reliance on non-dispatchable wind and solar.

“The near-term and future impact on millions of consumers, industry and essential public services is being locked in with this flawed approach.”

The Albanese government has ruled out lifting the ban in nuclear energy generation, while the Coalition is likely to back nuclear power ahead of the next election.

Labor is justifying its opposition to lifting the ban using a report by the CSIRO that the prospect of ­nuclear generation being realised in Australia this decade was low, “given the technology’s commercial immaturity and high cost”.

“Future cost reductions are possible but depend on its successful commercial deployment overseas,” the CSIRO report said.

Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has rejected the modelling in the CSIRO’s July report.

“I personally do not accept it,” he said. “We have 32 countries in the world right now that are nuclear countries; for them, the economics stack up.

“We’ve got 50 other countries that are embarking on nuclear programs, seriously assessing it; for them the economics stack up.”

Writing in The Australian, Nationals MP David Gillespie, who is organising the two-day energy conference, says SMRs could be used to replace retiring coal and gas plants.

“Like all nuclear generation, SMRs have incredibly low carbon emissions, as good or better than wind and solar,” he writes.

“Our economy will not be dependent on the weather or on solar panels and wind turbines, 95 per cent of which are made offshore.

“Having a civil nuclear industry would increase our sovereign independence, with additional long-term benefits to the AUKUS initiatives.

“Britain, France, Estonia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Romania and Japan have announced plans for new SMRs,” Mr Gillespie writes.
The Australian

The French Method: cheap, safe and reliable.

2 thoughts on “Nuclear’s Cheap: French Power Prices Half That Suffered In Wind & Solar ‘Powered’ Germany

  1. Blind fools running this country who listen to the CSIRO ramblings are creating a country devoid of safe, reliable energy supplies, which leave the people of this nation poorer financially and in being able to develop industries here that have either long been sent overseas where production is cheaper. Nor have they been openminded about the need to to rekindle manufacturing in this country enabling employment to flourish and industry to prosper, as well as for the people of Australia to purchase items designed and produced here knowing they are making the country prosperous not only for themselves but for future generations.
    We should NOT be reliant on other countries to produce our needs.
    The CSIRO has been advocates for Wind Turbines for as long as they have been sold to us and installed here. They have never been openminded to the uselessness of this form of energy production on a large scale, nor have they been openminded about the damage the wind industry can and does cause to the environment and human health.
    Those who continue to stew over historical problems with nuclear energy production are laying themselves open to being considered backward thinkers, who do not wish to or cannot accept the world has come a long way from the days of Anti Nuclear marches etc.
    They live in the past and unfortunately our Governments are full of such people who have scared some people and especially those of younger years into believing nuclear will bring death and destruction automatically. The ‘brainwashing’ that is going on within our education system and social media is a disgrace and should be clamped down on immediately.
    We constantly hear the cry ‘look/listen to the science’ – well those who condemn nuclear automatically should take their own advice and LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE.
    We should be well advanced on installing modern nuclear energy production facilities, we should not have to have Government giving handouts to people so they can pay their bills, we should not have a nation of unemployed people – we should have full employment and the ability for everyone to use as much energy as they require, whether to heat or cool their homes and businesses or to run a manufacturing business.

  2. While politicians are mainly driven by the twatteratti brigade I don’t expect common sense to prevail.
    As for the Lieberal party? Pffft! They have proven time and time again that they are only marginally better than the Liebor party. No guts, no glory.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s