The nuclear KWH not expensive! True price of EDF nuclear?

[Remundo]

..... Aeronautics is not in good health: to sell an airplane, we must now give the plans + a turnkey factory. Military aeronautics is perfectly sluggish.

Completely false.

The Airbus order book is packed.

I was referring to contracts with China at that time ... 2010

Also be wary of order books full to bursting ... because this augurs over a few additional years of a fleet of very recent aircraft, therefore little replacement, therefore aeronautical factories in technical unemployment ...

I am also fascinated by the good maintenance of the aero civil industry with regard to the problem of peak oil and the inevitable increase in the price of kerosene with simultaneously decreasing purchasing power for the middle classes. No doubt the worst is yet to come on this subject, in an atmosphere of calm before the storm ...

@+

[Did67]

The "low cost" is currently accessible to retirees, middle classes, etc ... I came back from Rome for 59 euros, when the TGV to Paris costs me double!

There are single-parent fleets that are being set up Ryanair, Easyjet for the best known among us. Kingfisher in India ... Etc ... It's 200, 300, 500 planes each time ...

We sail briskly towards the clash, indeed.

With a "snowball" effect: fuel a little more expensive, so headlong rush to renew fleets with planes that promise savings of 20 or 30% ...

So the modernization of the fleets are, with the staff reductions and the outsourcing of tasks, the main levers to reduce costs.

Today.

[Ahmed]

To reduce costs, we must not forget direct or indirect subsidies ...

[jlt22]

Before telling anything about EDF, find out.
To do this, read the EDF reference document for 2013 which was filed with the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) on April 8, 2014.

Link:
http://finance.edf.com/fichiers/fckeditor/Commun/Finance/Publications/Annee/2014/ddr2013/EDF_DDR2013_vf.pdf

Good luck with reading, the document is 524 pages.

Other informations; the shareholders are:

1. French State 84,44%
2. Institutional Shareholders13,59%
3. Employees 1,85%
4. Self-checking 0,12%

The shareholder return is 4,58% (1.25 euros per share)
Note that our leaders who are always the first to criticize the shareholder who is fattening on the backs of employees are the first to demand a high return from the companies they control overwhelmingly.
For 2013, they forced GDF to pay them a return higher than the profit made (7.39%)
So the big speeches !!!!!!!!!

[Did67]

Before telling anything about EDF, ...

Can you explain the "anything" ????

The figures we are talking about recently [I am talking about posts for the last few days, not those from 2010] are an estimate of the price of production, according to estimates from the Court of Auditors, nuclear electricity. This is not the balance sheet of EdF.

EdF also produces and distributes electricity from other origins.

It also distributes electricity which it does not produce.

And it sells produced electricity which it does not distribute (wholesale).

Above I was just saying that this price production [estimated by the Court of Auditors for current of nuclear origin], it was necessary anyway to add the costs of marketing, transport (lines and their maintenance, if you want), marketing (public or private , advertising, for example, at a cost) and "margins" (you yourself speak of "returns served to shareholders" - mainly the State; there are also taxes, etc ...).

Apart from what EdF invoices, to be complete, electricity still supports a multitude of taxes, collected by EdF, for the benefit of others: CSPE, municipal, departmental, regional taxes ... etc ...

This is how a kWh produced at around 5 or 6 cents comes back, including VAT, at the bottom of the bill, at the basic special rate, to more than 15 cents (around 16).

And this is where parity with the cost price of photovoltaics comes closer. Soon, it will be "profitable" to produce your own power at around 15 cents per kWh (if the PV drops a little further), and to buy only the rest (if the price increase of Selling by EdF - or its competitors for that matter - continues).

Many companies in Germany already do this. With PV a little cheaper (especially because not integrated). And much more expensive electricity.

I don't see where I wrote "rubbish".

But maybe you will deign to enlighten me?

[jlt22]

Did 67 wrote:

I don't see where I wrote "rubbish".

But maybe you will deign to enlighten me?

I have probably expressed myself badly, but my point was only aimed at those who claim that EDF touches subsidy packages without providing the slightest proof.

On the other hand, the setbacks in Finland and Flamanville will one day have repercussions on the price of the Kwh that we are billed for, and there the price of green electricity will become competitive.

I agree with you that we still dare to say that EPR is a leading industry. I could understand the setbacks of Finland, because it was the first reactor of this type; but that we haven't learned a lesson for Flamanville seems worrying to me.

[Did67]

OKAY.

Thank you. Is it clearer like this.

There are "old ideas" that die hard.

Like for example that the EU subsidizes agricultural exports ... (debate on the European election the other day)

The world is moving faster than some people's ideas forum.

What is fair, however, is to note that even today, an indirect subsidy remains in the price of the nuclear kWh produced. All the research efforts, in the time of the CEA, were never supported by "nuclear production". If we had invoiced the full development costs of the power plants, EdF would not have 58 (I believe, from memory) reactors! It would have cost too much. They paid for the hardware, not the development.

However in liberal economics, which the CEO of this venerable company claims loud and clear, the costs of RetD impact the final price. When you buy a Clio, you pay, sheet metal, plastic, workers (Slovenian), energy, subcontractors ... But also Renault engineers, in the various specialties (bodywork, design, engines , transmissions ...) as well as prototypes, tests, marketing ...

The power plants, like the 1st Airbus d'ailleus in the wake of Concorde, were subsidized indirectly. They have never been sold at true cost price including RetD ...

So the depreciation of power plants, even today, is reduced in the accounts ...

There remains therefore, in all economic rigor, a small part (because they are however roughly amortized) of subsidy in each kWh produced.

Even if the grant no longer appears in the 500 pages of the EdF accounts.

This must be left to the truth. Above all, there remains in the EdF war chest the profits made from depreciation reduced for 30 years! [which also benefited consumers, with an electric energy abnormally inexpensive compared to other countries; but this is only a discount on the taxes paid !!!]

A bit like the youngster who drives the car that Dad paid him for his ferry, and thinks that the cost is reduced to fuel, insurance and garbage. And pack the girls at a lower cost (compared to the young person who had to pay for the scooter himself!).

And then one day, he discovers the big breakdown!

This is what EdF is doing at the moment, with the work prescribed by the nuclear safety authority.

More the initial purchase, it remains passed to "profit and loss". Or "paid by dad".

It will be the replacement that he will have to consider.

As EdF now has to pay for the new "full pot" EPRs. The state no longer has the means to subsidize. EdF will not be able to afford 58! (hence the temptation to say hello at 50 - and after that, we'll see!).

And there, we discover that Areva is not competitive at all! They spent the dough in an EPR that does not sell. And whose sites are pharaonic and poorly controlled. And have neglected the wind turbines, which they had to buy "full pot" (a German company) to still weigh on the world energy market and not be a looser.

A sort of Simca 1000, for those who have known. Who still knows Simca today? However, she "packed" the Simca 1000!


And we continue to call it a "high-tech industry"! I'm not talking about Simca, but Areva.

Here too, (false) ideas do not change quickly!

[jlt22]

Completely agree with your presentation.

The first 58 reactors benefited from military research at the time, since at the same time France also wanted to become a major nuclear power.
Military and civil subsidies were intertwined and the true cost of these old power plants was never really established

This is obviously no longer the case today.
Electricity will increase seriously, it is obvious.

Moreover, CRE recommended an increase of 30% between 2013 and 2017 to cover the costs of production, commercial activity, and new upgrades to existing plants.
The government is putting the brake on for the moment; but he will have to drop ballast.
And when Flamanville goes back into production, I think there will be a new boost.

[Remundo]

Very good presentation from Did67 ...

Ah the Simca 1000 ... my Papa even had a "1100 special" one several decades ago ... He sold it because he found that it consumed too much

HS

[sen-no-sen]

Did 67 wrote:

I don't see where I wrote "rubbish".

But maybe you will deign to enlighten me?

I have probably expressed myself badly, but my point was only aimed at those who claim that EDF touches subsidy packages without providing the slightest proof.

The annual subsidies received by CEA and IRSN for R&D are around 250 million euros.

Furthermore:

The production of nuclear electricity gives rise not only to EDF's annual operating expenses, but also to expenses which, without being “directly” linked to the production itself, are the consequence thereof and which would not exist without nuclear power generation. These are expenses financed by public credits and which are therefore not reflected in the production costs of the operators. There are two categories of expenditure that meet this definition:
· Research expenditure financed by public funds
· Expenses related to security, safety and transparency of
information that is not supported by the producers.

Source: thematic report by the Court of Auditors on the costs of the nuclear power sector (January 2012).


Nevertheless nuclear has this particularity that it leaves the care to future generations to settle the bill, the court of auditors estimates that the dismantling of the French nuclear park will amount to nearly 18 billion euros ... for others observers the figure should amount to 100 billion euros, which is much more likely!
Who will pay???

Taxpayers via tax ... and debt!