The biggest recipient for energy subsidize in France is fossil fuel, and the lowest is nuclear. This is despite the fact that fossil fuels account for the least amount of energy, and nuclear the highest. Renewables sits in between. Fossil fuel subsidizes is on the rise, especially for oil and gas.
What France (and other countries in EU) should do is to cut those subsidizes for everything, and an additional carbon tax on top that directly targets the energy sector. That money can then go into a tax reduction/social support for individuals most effected by the increase energy prices, while at the same time letting fossil fuel industry die a horrible death.
Interesting can you list all the actual nuclear subsidies and the money set aside for plant decommissioning or are you just repeating something you read somewhere? Including those related to nuclear weapons production via state owned nuclear reactors.
Page 6, figure 2, Subsidies for different energy sources, as percent of GDP and in billion euros in 2019
The yellow slice is nuclear, green renewables and grey fossil fuels. The image text describe the additional colors that refers to "other" and "shared by all".
In term of actually money collected by tax agencies in EU countries, fossil fuels and renewables is the primary recipient of citizens money. Year in, year out.
We are talking about France not the EU. Look at your own numbers: “ Figure 2 - Subsidies for different energy sources, as percent of GDP and in billion euros in 2019”
France is a rather large anomaly even though their nuclear reactors have been built and paid for. This is exactly the time period they should be most profitable, yet still a significant subsidy. More, that’s in comparison to all energy consumption not simply the electric grid. And further, their subsidies for wind and solar are actually paying for new generation to just continued production.
I am trying very heard right now to not invoke the statement "learn to read", but fair enough, graphs are hard for some people.
In page 6, figure 2, bottom line, there are country codes. FR is the country code for France. From left is the 11th, which only represent the numbers from France. France and only France.
Amazing. Not only you don't even bother getting sources, but when someone finds a source that directly contradicts you, you end up distorting the figures you read to fit your twisted view of the world.
A misunderstanding isn't when somebody don't believe in the same things as you. The GP's source was clearly not going in your direction, yet you acted as if it was by just refusing to understand what it was about. The level of self-delusion is truly incredible.
Suppose someone said the US had a budget surplus and linked to an article showing the opposite. Should I not correct them?
When we are talking about electricity grid subsidies in France and they bring up EU wide gasoline subsidies that’s a rather clear misunderstanding. I could have gone further and talked about subsidies on a per kWh over the lifetime of a power plant rather than the relatively tivial amounts mentioned to keep already built nuclear reactors operating but that’s likely to go above their head.
As I have told you I don’t actually care about correcting the ignorant. At best I get some dark joy at making some people look foolish.
Comments
Misinformation is harmful for the climate.
The biggest recipient for energy subsidize in France is fossil fuel, and the lowest is nuclear. This is despite the fact that fossil fuels account for the least amount of energy, and nuclear the highest. Renewables sits in between. Fossil fuel subsidizes is on the rise, especially for oil and gas.
What France (and other countries in EU) should do is to cut those subsidizes for everything, and an additional carbon tax on top that directly targets the energy sector. That money can then go into a tax reduction/social support for individuals most effected by the increase energy prices, while at the same time letting fossil fuel industry die a horrible death.
Interesting can you list all the actual nuclear subsidies and the money set aside for plant decommissioning or are you just repeating something you read somewhere? Including those related to nuclear weapons production via state owned nuclear reactors.
You can link your sources first since you were the first one to make a claim.
That said, EU mas a yearly report of the state which include graphs: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/default/files/annex_to_the...
Page 6, figure 2, Subsidies for different energy sources, as percent of GDP and in billion euros in 2019
The yellow slice is nuclear, green renewables and grey fossil fuels. The image text describe the additional colors that refers to "other" and "shared by all".
In term of actually money collected by tax agencies in EU countries, fossil fuels and renewables is the primary recipient of citizens money. Year in, year out.
We are talking about France not the EU. Look at your own numbers: “ Figure 2 - Subsidies for different energy sources, as percent of GDP and in billion euros in 2019”
France is a rather large anomaly even though their nuclear reactors have been built and paid for. This is exactly the time period they should be most profitable, yet still a significant subsidy. More, that’s in comparison to all energy consumption not simply the electric grid. And further, their subsidies for wind and solar are actually paying for new generation to just continued production.
I am trying very heard right now to not invoke the statement "learn to read", but fair enough, graphs are hard for some people.
In page 6, figure 2, bottom line, there are country codes. FR is the country code for France. From left is the 11th, which only represent the numbers from France. France and only France.
Amazing. Not only you don't even bother getting sources, but when someone finds a source that directly contradicts you, you end up distorting the figures you read to fit your twisted view of the world.
Should I not correct peoples misunderstanding? If that’s what you want I am happy to ignore yours.
A misunderstanding isn't when somebody don't believe in the same things as you. The GP's source was clearly not going in your direction, yet you acted as if it was by just refusing to understand what it was about. The level of self-delusion is truly incredible.
Suppose someone said the US had a budget surplus and linked to an article showing the opposite. Should I not correct them?
When we are talking about electricity grid subsidies in France and they bring up EU wide gasoline subsidies that’s a rather clear misunderstanding. I could have gone further and talked about subsidies on a per kWh over the lifetime of a power plant rather than the relatively tivial amounts mentioned to keep already built nuclear reactors operating but that’s likely to go above their head.
As I have told you I don’t actually care about correcting the ignorant. At best I get some dark joy at making some people look foolish.