Anything is small if you choose a big enough denominator (eg. GDP). What's the total value rice production in japan? This source[1] values all agricultural output at $29B, which means rice subsidy alone is 6.9% of agricultural production.
> The amount of annual subsidies is around $2 billion. It's a tiny number for a country as large as Japan. Their GDB is $4 trillion per year.
Their Debt-to-GDP ratio is 263% (so around $9 trillion in debt), and the government's budget is only $1.2 trillion per year, so it becomes very difficult to maneuver, especially due to the increased Yen volatility.
The current status quo keeps farmers happy and voting for the LDP, while continuing to fund Japan's very generous and very expensive welfare system that everyone loves.
Mainichi is also the opposition newspaper and election season is approaching in Japan due to Kishida's scandals leading to his resignation.
it is not a simple number.. people who operate business on the commodity scale, often have very low profits and therefore, have lower spending power economically.. in other words, lots of farmers tend to live close to a kind of poverty. Meanwhile, in the center of some kind of fast and loose economics, like entertainment for example.. lots of economic spending power is traded very quickly.. plenty of people in the entertainment industries do not live close to poverty at all..
Large economic systems in real life have economic niches. Government policy levers change the basic flow patterns.. it is often a matter of life and death
Low electricity costs are a problem for all electricity plans, not only nuclear.
Renewables are even more susceptible to this because the weather affects all renewable plants of the same type similarly across wide geographic areas, so there will be times when they all generate more than is needed and nothing can be done about it. What's worse, the output is unpredictable, so there's little opportunity for some business to base its operation on renewable electricity generation patterns.
At least the weekend demand drop is predictable, so businesses can use this predictable opportunity to reduce their costs and thus reduce the impact the weekends have on the profitability of nuclear and similar dispatchable plants.
Low is relative, in most areas a 3c/kWh wholesale price is wildly profitable for solar and a massive loss for nuclear.
Renewables very much provide surplus power at scale, but they don’t always provide that massive surplus. So, Solar could provide 3/4 of its power when wholesale prices are below 1c/kWh and the economics still end up working out over the year. Meanwhile every other source of power needs to deal with electricity being increasingly cheap for most of the day.
> At least the weekend demand drop is predictable, so businesses can use this predictable opportunity to reduce their costs and thus reduce the impact the weekends have on the profitability of nuclear and similar dispatchable plants.
There’s almost nothing nuclear can do to reduce its costs when demand is low for a few days. They still need to pay interest, still need security guards, the reinforced concrete is still aging etc. They do major maintenance when seasonal demand drops normally in the spring or fall, but they don’t have any way to make use of downtown over weekends because weekends are so frequent. In a world with cheap electricity for 1/3 the day and cheap electricity 2/7 days a week and cheap electricity for 3-6 months out of the year, they need very high prices the rest of the time to break even.
Batteries fed cheap solar power can provide relatively cheap peaking power whenever you want. That’s going to effectively be the maximum daily wholesale price per kWh long term.
Wind/Hydro and possibly some Nuclear might survive in that kind of an environment, but most industry insiders think Nuclear is basically doomed outside the far north without truly massive subsidies.
While it would be nice if all the required nuclear or storage was installed decades ago, (1) we don't need to do this transition overnight, (2) a decade is on the optimistic side for rolling out new nuclear on this scale so it's not much of an improvement in that regard, and (3) most of the existing power infrastructure can be kept running until the batteries are available, and we get to keep looking at storage supply in the supply is still growing appropriately for the targets.
>Low electricity costs are a problem for all electricity plans, not only nuclear.
No, it's worst for the more expensive, capital intense sources.
Gas is expensive but not capital intense. An idled plant doesnt lose too much because fuel costs dominate. Solar/wind is capital intense but not expensive - idling is cheap if the whole thing is cheap.
Nuclear power is capital intense and expensive. Idling burns through a lot of cash.
Wind and solar are only possible because they use the rest of the grid as effectively a giant battery. When the sun shines and/or the wind blows, someone else needs to reduce the electricity generation. The end result will be that during good weather the price of electricity is zero, and during any other time the price of electricity is high to pay for unused capacity and additional wear and tear on the equipment due to additional power cycling.
We are already seeing this in Germany[1], where electricity prices are also becoming zero[2] during parts of the day. The problem with renewables will become apparent only once the reserves of easily dispatchable electricity generation is used up across Europe to balance renewable generation.
Also, the reason this is only possible at all is that Germany uses the rest of Europe as a giant battery to manage the non-dispatchability of renewables. The import-export balance often changes by as much as one third of Germany consumption in 12 hours [1].
The electricity prices are also becoming zero[2] in Germany during parts of the day, which is a great outcome only on the surface. As this progresses, the consequence will be that renewable electricity producers aren't getting paid during their prime generating hours. This means even more subsidies will be required going forward to bring additional production. It will become more apparent once the reserve of easily dispatchable electricity sources is fully tapped to balance renewables across Europe. We will see very high prices during mornings and evenings and whenever it's cold and dark. The fossil fuel plants that are turned on during these periods will need to earn enough to address the additional wear due to quick power cycling and to keep being maintained for the rest of the time when they are unused.
The grid is for trade, so I am not sure what sense this complaint makes. Also France relies on imports sometimes. Electricity prices changing with production and demand is also exactly what market is for. As long as the market is working, this is beneficial to buyer and seller and changing prices are signals that allow the market to optimize production and consumption. Even when the price becomes zero sometimes, that does not mean than renewables need more subsidies if they earn money at other times where the price is higher. Also Germany still has enough of conventional generation capacity to ramp up production if needed, so the "is possible at all because" comment is wrong. If there is trade, then because this is cheaper overall (and in general this helps buyer and seller).
> As long as the market is working, this is beneficial to buyer and seller and changing prices are signals that allow the market to optimize production and consumption.
The market will always look to extract the highest possible price from the consumer.
> If there is trade, then because this is cheaper overall (and in general this helps buyer and seller).
Strange how "cheaper overall" fantasy is "consumer energy prices have quintupled in the past few years" in reality
> dispatchable electricity sources is fully tapped to balance renewables across Europe. We will see very high prices during mornings and evenings and whenever it's cold and dark
The prices in summer were so high mainly because half of France nuclear plants were offline. Look, even the article you cite mentions this: "The largest Nordic nation became the region’s top exporter in the first half after France suffered problems at its aging reactors"
> hydrogen fuel cells are technically batteries and have absurdly high energy densities.
The devil is in the details - this is only partially right. Hydrogen has absurdly high energy densities when considering weight, however when considering volume it has absurdly low density. The low volumetric density is one of the primary barriers to hydrogen adoption.
Fuel cells is not a problem. Hydrogen storage is. Hydrogen is just a very nasty material, it leaks through everything, makes steel brittle and requires extreme pressures to store it at meaningful density. Combine the last two problems together and it's easy to see why there are significant technological barriers to hydrogen adoption.
And lithium is somehow easy to deal with? This is really just another excuse. The point wasn't claiming those problems don't exist, it is asking why we are not seeing those problems as motivation for massive R&D spending in order to solve them.
> What utter bullshit. Most countries could do so.
Unfortunately when wishes and hard reality meets for a fight, the reality wins.
In this case failure modes of renewable-only policy are not obvious, but this doesn't mean they don't exist. Claiming otherwise is just wishful thinking.
It's not even that all the nuclear power plants failed. It was a combination of a choice to defer maintenance due to Covid, and also a choice to stop every power plant to address a new possible fault regardless of whether it impacts the specific power plant or not. The latter is a sensible choice given the zero risk tolerance, but it is nevertheless a choice.
Renewables won't power everything, bulk electricity prices are already becoming zero across Germany when the weather for renewables is good. Once this is widespread, further subsidies will be required for additional renewable generation.
The current renewable build out across Europe so far tackled the easiest problem - replacement of other sources of electricity during times when the Sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Going the other ~70% of time will be much harder.
