In one decade (1977–1987), France increased its nuclear power production 15-fold, with the nuclear portion of its electricity increasing from 8% to 70%.

In one decade (2001–2011) Germany increased the non-hydroelectric renewable energy portion of its electricity from 4% to 19%, with fossil fuels decreasing from 63% to 61% (hydroelectric decreased from 4% to 3% and nuclear power decreased from 29% to 18%).
Next Big Future Jan 2014
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/01/climate-and-carbon-emission-study-by.html

The hype about nuclear power has always far exceeded the reality. Historically just over half of the nuclear power stations world wide, where construction was commenced reached the point where they actually produced any power.

To Quote Al Gore
"Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canceled_nuclear_plants_in_the_United_States#Canceled_nuclear_plants_and_units

http://agreenroad.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/abandoned-nuclear-powerplants-worldwide.html

Typical of the sort of stuff ups that occur on a regular basis, is the British Hinkley Point nuclear plant, which has had to have a price guarantee of $200 per W/h for 35 years just to make it economically viable, but don't worry it is being built by the French who are experts in nuclear power. It is already over budget and time, and runs a fair chance of being cancelled.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b8741dd0-1048-11e5-bd70-00144feabdc0.html

Currently there are some 60 odd new nuclear plants under construction, my guess is that they will be lucky if they complete 36 of them, despite the fact nearly all of them are using PWR which has been the dominate technology for the last 50 years.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2562146/three_in_every_four_nuclear_power_builds_worldwide_are_running_late.htm

To paraphrase John Cleese "don't mention the Japan nuclear crisis."

Peter,
You're doing the things you accuse me of!

I don't recall seeing the comment where you explained how weighted average cost of capital is calculated. What thread was it on?

There seems to be a big difference in the way we think. Rather than just saying "now I understand", I'm more inclined to look at what assumptions are made, what the effects of changing those assumptions would be, and what conditions would justify changing those assumptions.

How low do you think the interest on something has to be to constitute a subsidy? Is is still a subsidy if it's profitable?

Infrastructure subsidies are a gross economic cost to the country, but if they result in improved productivity, they're unlikely to be a net economic cost to the country.

The "Economics in one lesson" site's one basic point is good, but because it fails to understand how inflation is affected by savings and productivity improvements, many of its conclusions are wrong.

Your claim "Nuclear generated electricity is about 1/3 the cost of renewables when all system costs are included" relies on several unstated assumptions. And your claim that "renewables cannot reach high penetration levels sustainably" is rather dubious, as their penetration levels are being limited by political rather than technical factors.

You also didn't ask me whether I understand the contrast between high nuclear France versus high renewables Germany and Denmark. The answer is yes. And Germany would've been better off deciding not to phase out nuclear. But that's a matter for the Germans. With their high latitude and relatively high population density, the cost of genuinely high levels of renewables will also be high, but it's not a technical impossibility.

I have already expressed my opposition to the very inefficient policy of using feedin tariffs to encourage renewable energy, so I don't know why you're bothering to post so much evidence of the cost of that policy and the results of governments baulking at its cost. Using concessional loans instead wouldn't have that effect.

"Infrastructure subsidies are a gross economic cost to the country, but if they result in improved productivity, they're unlikely to be a net economic cost to the country."

We're not talking of productivity. The cheapest option on that basis, all considered, is coal.

We're talking about a shift of energy source to avert CAGW. Any subsidies should be directed at the best chance of achieving that affordably, and it's not renewables.

Correction, in AUSTRALIA coal's the cheapest way to productivity, not everywhere. Nuclear trumps coal in many parts of the northern hemisphere, particularly.

Aidan,

“I don't recall seeing the comment where you explained how weighted average cost of capital is calculated. What thread was it on?”
A classic example of you not reading links and not looking back to see the link. In your words “How dumb is that?

“I'm more inclined to look at what assumptions are made, what the effects of changing those assumptions would be”
No you don’t. You don’t do a reality check to see if your beliefs make sense or can be supported. You simply look for excuses to make up nonsense. Like this pearler from your previous comment: .

“Your comment … Coal, gas, nuclear are all far cheaper than renewables if they also have cheap finance" PROVES YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION AT ALL!

Renewables, nuclear … have different cost structures. ... For nuclear the [cost reduction from cheaper finance is] nowhere near as good as for renewables.”

How ignorant is that. Have you checked. Tell me the percentage saving for cost of electricity (including grid costs) for nuclear versus renewable if discount rate is reduced from 10% to 5% (using AETA LCOE figures for technologies and OECD figures for grid costs http://www.energyinachangingclimate.info/Counting%20the%20hidden%20costs%20of%20energy.pdf ). Go on – see if you can do it. I reckon you can’t.

Then there’s your ignorant dismissal of the classic economic text "Economics in one lesson".

And your ignorant comment that the limits on renewables are political but not recognizing the constraints are physical despite having been told dozens of times by people who actually know what they are talking about, unlike you.

“Your claim "Nuclear generated electricity is about 1/3 the cost of renewables when all system costs are included" relies on several unstated assumptions.”

Please state what are the unstated assumptions and what is the significance of them – tell me the percentage change they’d make to the result if changed. I bet you can’t do that.

Aidan, you continually avoid the relevant facts and raise trivial issues.