> The entire notion of being allowed to enforce arbitrary terms of service is absurd. There are probably a handful of terms everyone agrees are reasonable (no attempted hacking, rate limits, do not break laws) and everything else should be unenforceable.
Why? Why should a government prohibit private parties from agreeing to anything other than those 3 things?
> Especially garbage like what you're allowed to do with the stuff you get from the service even while not using the service, or about setting up competing products. It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it.
It is vaguely like that, but but I'm not sure the analogy facilitates understanding of this subject. McDonalds shouldn't tell you how you can eat your burger, therefore... companies must not enforce any terms on their services aside from those things. Why?
I'm not saying any term should be enforceable. Contract law has a long history against that. I just wonder how and where you draw the line and what existing law is insufficient.
>Why should a government prohibit private parties from agreeing to anything other than those 3 things?
because ToS have been long used to demand unreasonable things and threaten people with expensive lawsuits. The advantage of companies losing bullying power significantly outweighs the disadvantage of less business freedom
ToS are normally "contracts" (hard to even call them that) between a large corporation with very high resources for a lawsuit and an individual with very low resources. The power imbalance makes challenging ToS for the individual unfeasible in 99% of cases
> because ToS have been long used to demand unreasonable things and threaten people with expensive lawsuits. The advantage of companies losing bullying power significantly outweighs the disadvantage of less business freedom
Why those in particular though? The criminal law one sure that's a part of contract law already. Why the others? Why not different ones? It was just asserted that those were reasonable and no other terms are.
The original comment asserted that there are “probably” a finite list of reasonable things everyone could agree on. The examples were parenthetical and surely not meant to be the last word.
The point they were making (rightly or wrongly) seems to be that contract law just isn’t the right way of managing consumer-business relationships. I suspect that actually meshes with the intuitions of a broad swath of the population, who want a reliable, predictable, consistent, and consumer-beneficial set of norms and laws around all consumption so that it is easy to manage and understand when you are departing from the norm and to be able to confidently conduct a public life knowing that your purchases are not subjecting you to any surprising gotchas other than having lost the money and having acquired a product.
You could take this line of thought charitably in another direction to assert that “unusual” agreements are presumed unenforceable but not that there are no legal mechanisms for adding additional clauses.
We could have a sort of “Consumer Protection Agency” that broadly enforces these norms when a company feels the need to avenge themselves on someone. A sort of regulatory agency, if you will.
But the critical question is whether it would be possible to create, staff, operate, publicize, and oversee such an "agency", at a cost that is sufficiently lower than a tiny fraction of a heavy explodey thing.
There are legal terms and concepts like good faith, expected and unexpected terms, reasonable expectations, abuse of a legally unsophisticated party and so on. In other countries, neither the fiction that everyone reads or is expected to read the 10-page "dining contract" of a restaurant exists nor is it allowed (enforceable) to put any unrelated or unreasonable crap in there.
Is it your contention that the rest of the world has solved the case of terms of service? That the alleged solution is restricting possible clauses to those OP enumerated? Or that USA does not have any limits or regulations around fairness in contract law? I'm fascinated.
> This is one of these cases like gun crime where:
This is going off topic but I don't think that's going to go anywhere interesting, so why not...
> USA: There is no solution!
> Rest of world: slightly embarrassed look
Well presumably not the 20 odd countries with higher gun homicide rate than USA, but sure. One that did used to be counted among those ranks was El Salvador. El Salvador used to top the list just a decade ago and it was not even close! Today it's around par with New Zealand. Amazing! That is perhaps the most recent and dramatic case of a solution to gun crime being found. You are right that rest of the world is indeed embarrassed about that for some reason. You would have thought everybody would be overjoyed, praising it, looking to emulate it, all the self-proclaimed "experts" admitting they were wrong... but no. It's strange, everybody just has this slightly embarrassed look about it.
On the other hand, if the goal is to restrict the peoples' access to firearms, the solution to that in most other countries was not constitutional violations by their governments of course. So presumably the same solution for that in USA would be to amend the constitution so that such firearms restrictions could be implemented. Also very obvious. I strangely have not heard of any serious efforts by mainstream political parties toward this solution though. I can see there would be second hand embarrassment for them for not seeing the obvious solution to what they want.
During friendly discussions and arguments my lawyer friends like to make the same kind of thought terminating cliche filed arguments that you just replied to.
I think that your response really hit the nail on the head and it raises the question my mind of how do we most effectively eliminate these kinds of malformed American-system brained thoughts from disrupting real and possibly even productive conversations about these kinds of topics?
In particular, one private party has an expensive and highly educated legal team and a lot of time. The other party wanted to eat a burger and didn't have a week to do a thorough legal review of the TOS to check if they were potentially selling any kidneys for a dollar.
US contract law has the concept of unconscionability already. You're not listening to me, my question is why should those things be allowed but nothing else? "Because a severe power imbalance allows for abuse, and governments should prohibit such abuse." does not address my question because it does not explain why the would-be permitted things are not subject to severe power imbalance or abuse of a type that governments should prohibit.
The GP alluded to "a handful of terms everyone agrees are reasonable". Regardless of what those are, their hypothetical definition makes them implicitly reasonable. You can circularly reason that these hypothetical univerally-reasonable terms are univerally-reasonable because it is impossible to abuse them with a severe power imbalance.
Re-reading your post, you appear to be asking if the GP would ban all contract terms that aren't universally-reasonable. I don't think that's what they were saying, and it's not what I'm saying.
The purpose of unconscionability is clear, the question is what findings will trigger it? There is a spectrum of opinion on that. My position would be that, whenever it can be demonstrated by one court that a powerful entity did commit abuse via unconscionable contract terms, it should be noted by other courts and applied equally to other similar entities.
The US courts already do this, but the problem is they tend to take the narrowest possible application, and that's ultimately because they're deferential to the US Congress. They don't want to be making law, they only want to interpret the law they have. They want Congress to make law... but Congress doesn't seem very good at that. Most other country's systems are Roman law systems rather than Common law, which in practise means they tend to update laws and regulations more often, and the courts get their clarifications via updated laws rather than build up centuries of precendent.
"Inequality of bargaining power is generally thought to undermine the freedom of contract, resulting in a disproportionate level of freedom between parties, and it represents a place at which markets fail. "
It's funny. When I have a topic I am interested and passionate about, and want to find an improvement or solution, I welcome the chance to have my ideas questioned. To explain them, to in turn question the alternatives others put forward.
In their frothing haste to put down my heresy here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47307056, not one single commenter took just a second to understand what I actually wrote. Most of the responses aren't even coherent on their own, much less address my questions. I did not advocate for the status quo, I did not even assert OP was wrong. I invited them to provide some reasoning for their proposal. Quite troubling, even cultish behavior.
I try not to assume malice (i.e. Hanlon's Razor) when it happens to me. Unfortunately the mob rule seen on other user-curated sites seems to be infectious.
I try to gently call it out here when I see it, though, because HN is the one user-curated site where I still feel that people come to get to 'truths' versus 'agendas'. I want it to stay that way!
> Why should a government prohibit private parties from agreeing to anything other than those 3 things?
> I'm not saying any term should be enforceable. Contract law has a long history against that. I just wonder how and where you draw the line and what existing law is insufficient.
This is not a magic list of 3 things that I think is complete.
I think there is a compromise between allowing companies to add arbitrary terms, including some which are enforceable but (by my feeling) unreasonable, and excluding unreasonable terms completely with a blanket ban, which no doubt would result in some companies being unable to add reasonable terms that are not in the list.
I think if we picked the 3 terms I outlined in my comment, the result would be a more pleasant situation than the one we have.
You could just say I disagree about what is an enforceable term. The point of the analogy is to show how ridiculous I find the current judicial reasoning, which is something along the lines of "if you don't like the term, you don't have to use the service, so it doesn't really matter how restrictive the terms are". I really think this is how particularly US judges think about this sort of thing, and I think it does a lot of harm to society. People find it obviously unreasonable for McDonalds to say how you can eat your burger, or for a book store to say what you can do with the information in your book, but when a service tells you how you can use the data you get from them, it's fair game. It's ethically inconsistent.
Judges which apply that sort of reasoning really ought to think about how it applies to a hospital visit in which they were incapacitated and received a bunch of treatment. Would it be legally appropriate to slip a term about binding arbitration, or a hold harmless, or maybe a release allowing photos of their visit to be used for advertising?
> This is not a magic list of 3 things that I think is complete.
Okay, but you do think it should be an extremely limited scope of things along those lines that parties may form contractual agreements around. It's just such a radical idea that I was hoping to hear some interesting reasoning behind it. If it's just things seem like they might be more pleasant if we did that, then sure thing that's great, certainly would be nice if things were more pleasant we can agree on that.
Personally I have no issue with people mutually agreeing to any terms (within reason) as long as it's an actual agreement and not just some boilerplate legalese that nobody really expects you to even read, let alone carefully study and give informed consent to.
"Use implies agreement" should not be allowed. Probably even "check the box to agree" should not be allowed. If a company wants to force all their customers to agree to something in a legally binding way beyond the basic standard of what the law requires (things like don't violate our copyright, don't DoS us, etc) they should have to mail a contract and wait for the customer to sign it with ink and send it back. (Well, maybe not literally that, but at the very least some similarly weighty process which makes it clear to all parties that this is something they need to read carefully and take seriously.)
It's nonsense to on the one hand treat a ToS like "no big deal" and expect everyone to passively agree to it with no friction or push-back while at the same time treating it like a contract signed in blood as soon as lawyers get involved.
Why? Because ToS as they exist today are unreasonably long and not understandable by the average person. Yet nearly everything we buy today comes with a complex ToS.
Added to that is the forced arbitration clauses they exist in most ToS. See the example about Disney getting out of a wrongful death suit at a theme park beciaee the plaintiff had a free Disney account for a PS5 that he bought many years earlier.
Tl;dr - buying a piece of software or home appliance shouldn’t come with more strings attached than buying a piece of real estate.
Because the power is disproportionally concentrated with one party - the service provider. The users of the service are numerous, comparatively small and uncoordinated.
In a situation like that, users have no means of resisting egregious terms, and no you cannot pull up stuff like "if you don't like it, don't buy it". As I wrote, the users are uncoordinated, and would take a huge effort to coordinate. Boycotting services rarely works (if ever). So what we end up with is that legal teams employed by firms optimize to shove as much bullshit into ToS as they can, the users grind their teeth and bear the bullshit, and get shittier service. Nobody really wins, because I'd argue the marginal gain for the company is minimal at best from this.
The government is not there just to enforce laws, but also to legislate such that the scales are balanced. Otherwise we may as well live in a dictatorship.
But some terms were claimed to be reasonable. If power being disproportionate is sufficient to void terms, why not those terms too?
> The government is not there just to enforce laws, but also to legislate such that the scales are balanced. Otherwise we may as well live in a dictatorship.
Should the state just prohibit all agreements between two parties unless the state's adjudicator decides they are exactly equal in "power" and permits it? Sounds horrific, like a dictatorship. The government is not my guardian and does not do my thinking for me. I get that many people are subservient and would much prefer that, but that's no good either. There's an enormous middle ground between anarchy and "the state intervenes to allegedly 'balance the scales' in every aspect of peoples' private lives".
> If power being disproportionate is sufficient to void terms, why not those terms too?
Power being disproportionate is obviously not sufficient to void terms - that's not what the comment you're replying to said. It is necessary to void terms when there is a power imbalance.
> Should the state just prohibit all agreements between two parties unless the state's adjudicator decides they are exactly equal in "power" and permits it?
This is obviously ridiculous and makes me think you are not arguing in good faith. Terms have to justify their existence according to logical principles that we argue about. It does not follow that there has to be a "state's adjudicator"! I am just describing how democracies come up with laws - it is not some fantasy Orwellian nightmare.
> I get that many people are subservient and would much prefer that
> Power being disproportionate is obviously not sufficient to void terms - that's not what the comment you're replying to said. It is necessary to void terms when there is a power imbalance.
What are you trying to say here? I didn't claim the previous poster didn't think it was necessary, I was just commenting on the sufficiency part of the claim -- sufficient being a subset of necessary.
> This is obviously ridiculous and makes me think you are not arguing in good faith.
What is ridiculous is that you're pretending not to recognize a reductio ad absurdum, particularly in the context of a reply that included McDonalds dictating how you eat a hamburger! Makes me think you are not arguing in good faith, I may be forced to report you to an adjudicator to rule on how we are permitted to debate.
> Terms have to justify their existence according to logical principles that we argue about.
And that's exactly what I'm asking about. OP made a claim about what terms were "justified" and I'm trying to find out the basis for them.
> What are you trying to say here? I didn't claim the previous poster didn't think it was necessary, I was just commenting on the sufficiency part of the claim -- sufficient being a subset of necessary.
Sufficient is not a "subset of necessary". "Sufficient" in this context means a reason that voiding terms is justified. There being a power imbalance does not mean that the terms should be voided. If the more powerful party stipulates "You may not continue to use the service if you use it to commit a crime", then nobody would argue that the term must be voided just because the more powerful party stipulated it. That is why when you say "the state's adjudicator decides they are exactly equal in "power" and permits it?" this is neither a reductio ad absurdum nor logically valid. Nobody said or implied that any part of the process should be "void the terms if the parties are not equally powerful". You just made that up.
What they did imply was "if the terms are otherwise not justified, and the parties are not equally powerful, you may have to void the terms". In other words, it would be necessary to void the terms.
> What is ridiculous is that you're pretending not to recognize a reductio ad absurdum
It isn't a reductio ad absurdum, because you took the argument "all TOS terms except these 3 categories should be unenforceable" to the logical extreme of "there should be a state-appointed adjudicator who reviews every contract". I am simply advocating for a particular law that should be published.
> OP made a claim about what terms were "justified" and I'm trying to find out the basis for them.
The background reasoning is that service providers should not be able to dictate your behaviour unless it is behaviour that directly affects the service - either because you're using the service in an unethical way, or you're making the service unreasonably hard to provide, or whatever. It happens to be the case I can only think of a handful of terms that have this property. Maybe there are more.
> It isn't, you're just unable to address it.
I think we agree, I am unable to address such titanic arguments as "many people are subservient". I will meditate on these words.
No sufficient definitely is a subset in the context I used it. Go back and re-read and try again. Or actually you're getting a bit heated at the suggestion you might be a wee bit subservient to your government betters. Might be an idea to have a nap instead.
> Should the state just prohibit all agreements between two parties unless the state's adjudicator decides they are exactly equal in "power" and permits it?
It's pretty simple. You can write whatever you want into a contract, but if you want to enforce an unreasonable term, you will lose in court and might be forced to remove the term from current and future contracts. That's how it works everywhere. The difference between legislations is just what is considered a reasonable term.
> The government is not my guardian and does not do my thinking for me.
This is a quaintly (US) American perspective.
The government is and does literally both of those things, and the arguments in these threads are about the fine details of the manner in which they should continue doing so in the future.
Why needlessly complicate this with so many obtuse hypotheticals when you can just look at other countries that have objectively lower crime rates, greater citizen happiness levels, lower wealth inequality and see how the solved this problem?
> Should the state just prohibit all agreements between two parties unless the state's adjudicator decides they are exactly equal in "power" and permits it.
This is a strawman and you know it. Please at least make an attempt to argue in good faith, otherwise there's no point.
Of course there should be a reasonable middle-ground. The current situation with completely bogus ToS is not it.
Let me turn it around: should the state just abandon it's duty of creating an fair and equal playing field between large corporations and clients and let society devolve into a corporatocracy where laws are enforced purely to further corporate interests? Because that's exactly what you seem to be suggesting.
See? Not particularly conductive to discourse, is it :D
Uh yes? And you clearly know it too. It was a bit like your McDonalds strawman.
> Please at least make an attempt to argue in good faith, otherwise there's no point.
No need to get in a huff when we obviously both know what we're talking about. It's not conducive to the discussion.
> Of course there should be a reasonable middle-ground. The current situation with completely bogus ToS is not it.
I don't know exactly what the current situation with completely bogus ToS is, I'm willing to accept it could be adjusted. I was asking specifically about your proposed adjustment to it though. Your reasons for the new framework you suggested.
> Let me turn it around: should the state just abandon it's duty of creating an fair and equal playing field between large corporations and clients and let society devolve into a corporatocracy where laws are enforced purely to further corporate interests? Because that's exactly what you seem to be suggesting.
That isn't what I was suggesting. I was asking you how you came to your conclusion in the previous post. (EDIT: Sorry you did not conclude that, the grandparent did the parent of my first post you replied to, but you posted seemingly in support)
Schedule a meeting with the people you are directing it to then.
Blathering vague garbage execu-speak in a large meeting, even if it is some hare brained attempt to send "coded messages", is usually just some self-important charlatan bloviating and trying to sound intelligent and important to everybody else. And it is never effective communication.
> When I graduated in 2007, it was common for tech companies to refuse to let their systems be used for war, and it was an ordinary thing when some of my graduating classmates refused to work at companies that did let their systems be used for war. Those refusals were on moral grounds.
I don't think it was very common really.
I think for the most part it was tech companies whose systems were not being used for war who like to boast that they refused to let their systems be used for war. Or that they creatively interpreted "for war" that since they were not actually manufacturing explosives, they could claim it was not for war.
Similar to CPUs, where many arrays have spare yield capacity, even whole cores can get disabled (and possibly sold in a different bin). DRAM stores redundant electrons in capacitors to patch it up and boost yields. Everything in reliability is a spectrum.
"ECC" does not give you fully reliable RAM. UEs are still be observed.
What's the chance of fail? If you have one device that achieves equal performance with less reliable cells and redundancy to another device that uses more reliable cells without redundancy, it's not really any different.
NAND is horribly flaky, cell errors are a matter of course. You could buy boutique NOR or SLC NAND or something if you want really good cells. You wouldn't though, because it would be ruinously expensive, but also it would not really give you a result that an SSD with ECC can't achieve.
This matches what I have long said, which is that adding ECC memory to consumer devices will not result in any incredible stability improvement. It will barely be a blip really.
As we know from Google and other papers, most of these 10% of flips will be caused by broken or marginal hardware, of which a good proportion of which could be weeded out by running a memory tester for a while. So if you do that you're probably looking a couple out of every hundred crashes being caused by bitflips in RAM. A couple more might be due to other marginal hardware. The vast majority software.
How often does your computer or browser crash? How many times per year? About 2-3 for me that I can remember. So in 50 years I might save myself one or two crashes if I had ECC.
ECC itself takes about 12.5% overhead/cost. I have also had a couple of occasions where things have been OOM-killed or ground to a halt (probably because of memory shortage). Could be my money would be better spent with 10% more memory than ECC.
People like to rave and rant at the greedy fatcats in the memory-industrial complex screwing consumers out of ECC, but the reality is it's not free and it's not a magical fix. Not when software causes the crashes.
Software developers like Linus get incredibly annoyed about bug reports caused by bit flips. Which is understandable. I have been involved in more than one crazy Linux kernel bug that pulled in hardware teams bringing up new CPU that irritated the bug. And my experience would be far from unique. So there's a bit of throwing stones in glass houses there too. Software might be in a better position to demand improvement if they weren't responsible for most crashes by an order of magnitude...
At that level, they are not different. They could suffer from UE due to defect, marginal system (voltage, temperature, frequency), or radiation upset, suffer electromigration/aging, etc. And you can't replace them either.
CPUs tend to be built to tolerate upsets, like having ECC and parity in arrays and structures whereas the DRAM on a Macbook probably does not. But there is no objective standard for these things, and redundancy is not foolproof it is just another lever to move reliability equation with.
> The world is a graveyard littered with startups that thought this way. One of the consequences of wealth concentration and monopolies is that it is insufficient to be better than your competitors because your customers are also incompetent.
It's less that and more that governments and bureaucrats are corrupted to create barriers tot the market and to turn a blind eye to anti competitive behavior and outright illegal practices. For example huge banking corporations have been caught laundering money for drug cartels and got away with fines -- if your fintech startup tried that on, you would never see the outside of a prison cell.
> For example huge banking corporations have been caught laundering money for drug cartels and got away with fines -- if your fintech startup tried that on, you would never see the outside of a prison cell.
German bank N26 was embroiled in money laundering, scams and other issues stemming from bad KYC for years, and all they got was a slap on the wrist from regulators.
Great, hopefully the ship is turning around slowly. I have been hearing from pro-carbon "environmentalists" for 30 years that "we should have built nuclear 20 years ago but doing so now would be pointless". Meanwhile we may have just reached peak-coal today if we are lucky. Well past time to stop listening to anything those grifting charlatans have to say.
> Well past time to stop listening to anything those grifting charlatans have to say.
Are you describing the "just build nukes" party here?
Cause we've been waiting a while for this nuke solution to actually ship but every example is far more expensive all while the nuke lovers block solar and wind for the same reasons.
There is no for-profit companies that are in it to save the planet, despite what the brochures say. Unfortunately for non-carbon power companies, their main competition is each other rather then fossil fuel sources.
I don't think killing solar and wind projects is what the greens do. The problems with solar and wind are entirely due to the laws of physics. They get large advantages in the energy markets in most places. They have been very effective in preventing nuclear though which ironically does so much real world damage to their cause that all the rest of what they do is a drop in the bucket.
Sorry, I was talking about the fake environmentalists being funded by the fossil fuel industry. And the fossil fuel industry is still successfully killing solar and wind projects in the US.
France seems to work. They have plenty of nuclear power that is flexible. And you can have other forms of consumption flexibility; otherwise wind and solar are really in trouble.
France uses their own and their neighbors fossil capacity to manage nuclear inflexibility.
When a cold spell hits France exports turn to imports.
Now EDF is crying about renewables lowering nuclear earning potential and increasing maintenance costs.
The problem is that they are up against economic incentives. Why should a company or person with solar and storage buy grid based nuclear power? They don’t.
Why should they not sell their excess to their neighbors? They do.
French nuclear is more flexible than coal by design and as flexible as many older gas plants with ALFC system. They can reach up to 0.5%/second modulation (proved by Philipsburg) if the situation requires but it's rarely the case if you have a fleet. It's still not as fast as BWR's that can reach 1%/second but german coal is the slowest load follower and still meets min requirements imposed by the grid.
"When a cold spell hits France exports turn to imports." - was true in the past, a bit, but afaik this and last winter France was net exporting a ton. And with FLA3 reaching full capacity this year it'll be even less of a problem. It's not like they have a problem now, they are the largest net exporter on the continent and it's unlikely to change soon.
"Now EDF is crying about renewables lowering nuclear earning potential and increasing maintenance costs." - yes, because ren generation is acting like a parasitic source without proper BESS deployments - they eat into firm power profits without providing firm power benefits.
"Why should a company or person with solar and storage buy grid based nuclear power? They don’t." - because in many places of the world solar+bess are not sufficient. It's also the reason why Microsoft signed a contract for TMI way above market prices instead of building a fully offgrid ren solution
EDF is selling power to neighbors and makes money from it. It also is modulating it's npp a lot, which will maybe change when AC's will be more widely deployed and EV's will expand. It also is trying to schedule most maintenance works in summer, during lowest demand periods
Which are paragraph after paragraph agreeing that nuclear power is inflexible, can’t meet a true grid load on its own without flexibility and that renewables craters the earning potential of both existing and new built reactors.
As EDF will be able to sell fewer and fewer hours at a profit we will likely see them crying for handouts to even maintain the existing plants. Let alone new builds requiring 18-24 cent/kWh average prices to cover the costs.
Who is agreeing that nuclear is inflexible? RTE real generation data is a direct proof it's false.
EDF needs no handouts for maintenance of their reactors. But I'm eager to see their profits evolution in 2026 H1 after arenh got ditched.
There will be some govt loans for EPR2, but the amount is rather tiny if we compare to say German EEG fund.
The proposed subsidies for the EPR2 program is 11 cents kWh and interest free loans. Sum freely, but you end up towards 20 cents kWh.
Why always the German comparison? Who even brought up Germany Can’t the nuclear handouts stand on their own?
The EEG costs are quickly going down as expensive early projects are losing their subsidies.
Renewables and storage are built in massive amounts all over the world without subsidies.
Why this completely one sided focus on absolutely massive handouts for the electricity sector, which is already solved by renewables and storage for the 99% of the cases when we still need to decarbonize industry, agriculture, construction, aviation, maritime shipping etc?
It makes absolutely and sounds like a solution looking for a problem, with a bunch of people who can’t let go attached to it.
It is the fax machine of the internet age. It is time to let go.
Yes, epr2 will get some state loans and cfds, if approved by EC.
I brought up Germany because it's a famous example of lots of subsidies going into transition/deployment
EEG costs are projected to rise per EWI because even though most expensive contracts are being over, it's paid more frequently. It's projected nr will reach 23bn/y.
"which is already solved by renewables and storage for the 99% of the cases" - it's not solved by far in Europe unless you add something on top, eg. Gas firming.
It's interesting to say nuclear is a fax machine in the internet age when nuclear is our youngest invention to extract energy while solar/wind/hydro are much older. Such arguments make no sense whatsoever
France is part of the EU power grid and flexibility comes from that not from nuclear power plants.
And the government had to rise the subsidies for nuclear energy to prevent higher rises of the energy prices. The costs for the consumers still raised.
And their power plants were in trouble in the last hot summer because the rivers were too hot to be used for cooling. Won‘t be the last time. And that will be a big problem when people turn on their AC in a heat wave but the power plants can’t power up because they don’t have enough cool water.
And that was before drone wars were a thing.
People react nervously when unknown drones fly around airports and power plants.
And didn’t we learn from the internet that centralization is a bad thing? Nuclear power plants are exactly that.
Imagine a grid where every consumer is also a producer who can satisfy their energy needs at least partially for themselves even without the grid. Try to blackout that.
"And their power plants were in trouble in the last hot summer" - blatant lie. Cooling was fine, it's env protection law to avoid damaging the fauna(read - to not boil fish). Yet, it affects about 0.02% of annual generation and valid almost exclusively to NPP without cooling towers. Yet in those exact periods EDF was net exporting about 14GW to neighbors, again, data is public. French nukes can handle ppl's AC's just well, probably EDF even hopes for that to modulate their npp less and get more $
"And didn’t we learn from the internet that centralization is a bad thing? Nuclear power plants are exactly that." France has a combination of centralized and decentralized power - npp's are distributed around the country but each can generate a lot of power. Even more distribution and you start paying a ton for transmission lines and maintenance. That's the reason Germany started subsidizing them from this year, with about 6bn/y. Full decentralization is not a feature and you still can't achieve it since transmission system is centralized, prime example being recent cascade blackout in Spain.
"Imagine a grid where every consumer is also a producer who can satisfy their energy needs at least partially for themselves even without the grid. Try to blackout that." - that'll mean having to need a fully parallel grid for firming. Besides, a lot of home solar are grid followers - if there's a blackout, it'll shut down too unless you have a special invertor+bess which many dont have (yet)
"And that was before drone wars were a thing." - a drone would do nothing to a NPP. Even an airplane impact can be tolerated depending how new is the NPP.
1- not being able to cool reactors physically, which is false
2- being a major deal, when it affects only 0.2% of generation per year, during a period when EDF is net exporting about 14GW to the neighbors
3- being an unfixable issue, which is again false. The problem exista for reactors without cooling towers. EDF can fix it by building them. But there's no financial incentive here. Where would EDF sell extra power when export is already maximized in that same timeframe and market prices in summer are low?
Now you are being mean, or are engaging in discussions to spread misinformation
"And their power plants were in trouble in the last hot summer because the rivers were too hot to be used for cooling" - this does imply that cooling was not possible. You said nothing about the fact it's just a legal limit. Nor did you specify what/how many NPP exactly got modulated. Is "their" supposed to mean all? A bunch?
"And that will be a big problem when people turn on their AC in a heat wave but the power plants can’t power up because they don’t have enough cool water." - this implies it's both a major problem during heatwaves and/or that it's unfixable, both being false.
"> being a major deal, when it affects only 0.2% of generation per year
Interesting choice of time period. Energy problems are rarely viewed from a yearly perspective." - did you omit on purpose LITERALLY the following text "during a period when EDF is net exporting about 14GW to the neighbors" ? France is largest net exporter on the continent both yearly and in summer in particular. You are free to inspect energy charts data.
"That time and money can be used for decentralization." - french generation is already sufficiently decentralized. They can decentealize even more by building more plants across the country.
"Drones will get cheaper and cheaper and more capable and many nuclear power plants aren’t built for that threat" - nuclear plants are built or upgraded to withstand airplane impacts, a drone would barely scratch the outer reinforced concrete.
All your statements are either made on purpose to mislead (especially considering how you dismiss your own statements or omit crucial parts of text quoting me) or you are communicating your thoughts in a very unoptimal way...
Nuclear power is one of the most flexible sources of power, especially PWR's with ALFC or even more so - BWR's
You can actually see how France is flexing in the summer on RTE website
France's nuclear operators have been claiming this for years. But recently started claiming that wind and solar are bad because they force nuclear to flex which is too expensive.
> Electricite de France SA said growing solar and wind generation was increasing equipment wear and maintenance costs at its nuclear reactors, which are forced to reduce output when power demand is insufficient.
"France's nuclear operators have been claiming this for years. But recently started claiming that wind and solar are bad because they force nuclear to flex which is too expensive." - one doesnt disprove the other.
French nuclear is extremely flexible https://www.services-rte.com/en/view-data-published-by-rte/g... but it doesn't mean it's free. Solar and wind without proper bess to support them are creating problems for other generators, acting as grid parasites without offering proper firm generation
That's false too. Most of the arguments from antinuclear activists in this direction are about physical capacity of modulating too slow, which was false. Regardless, EDF is modulating now mostly due to economic reasons. Above 50-60% capacity factor you'll be fine, beyond that it'll be problematic with any asset, at which point you'll need to ask yourself if you love gas or you let nuclear run for some minimal CF or if you mandate each NPP to build a bess buffer to absorb capacity when needed
Most of the claims from nuclear opponents talk about lack of flexibility in nuclear without specifying whether they are talking about technical or economic flexibility. Dishonest nuclear proponents then interpret that in a strawman way, as if the opponents were arguing they couldn't technically scale power output.
You can design a load following nuclear reactor (that's the industry term, only activists and marketers say flexible). Nobody does that because the basic NPP design that everyone uses is for a base load reactor. We have had load following NPP designs for 50 years but getting them approved is a political process that greens block.
You are just trying to politicize the laws of physics due to your own lack of understanding of the topic. Meanwhile, your solar panels are manufactured mostly with power gotten from coal, in the 3rd world, and are mostly sited in places where they do little to no good while at the same time destabilizing the grid. Then you have the temerity to argue with actual engineers who spend their lives studying this topic. Seriously???
load following for modern reactors is mostly embedded. For some Gen2 it's possible to adapt ALFC from Framatome (like Germany did in the past). But if you want fastest load follow you need BWR's.
Solar manufactured from coal is irrelevant, it's offsetting that carbon many times over during lifetime. A real problem is on the other hand providing firm power. In some regions like Australia it could be realistic to get by with ren alone. In other regions like say Germany, it's not realistic and confirmed even by Fraunhofer ISE
Calling BS on the last claim there. It's not realistic to do it in Germany with just batteries for storage (since something like Li-ion batteries are poorly suited for handling Dunkelflauten or seasonal storage). Throw in a very low capex, if poor RTE, storage technology and renewables can easily get to 100% anywhere.
I will add that if a place like Germany tries to compete in energy-intensive industry against places nearer the equator with cheap, low seasonality solar they're going to lose.
> This tells me you’ve never looked at a demand curve. In for example California the demand swings from 18 GW to 50 GW over the day
Have you been looking at "net demand" curves? Total demand variation is not too large over the day. The wind/solar production enormously increases the magnitude of remaining demand difference over the day.
Nobody is talking about batteries to deal with demand swings between seasons though. Capacity has to accommodate whether it's nuclear or fossil or battery or renewable. The issue is day to day variation. And it does not matter how much wind/solar capacity you have, you can't supply demand without storage. That is untrue of other generation types.
Other generation might use batteries to take the edge of peaks, but that would only be done if it made total cost cheaper. That's not the case for renewables. If there were no other generation then they would have to use storage, so it's always going to make them more expensive.
The net demand curve varies 30 GW over the period you posted?
It goes 7 GW negative.
The problem with nuclear power is that about all costs are fixed. It costs 18-24 cents/kWh when running at 100% for 40 years excluding backup, transmission, final waste disposal and taxes.
Now remove any earning potential from large portions of the day coming from renewables and storage and the economics simply does not pan a out.
> The net demand curve varies 30 GW over the period you posted?
Right. Due to solar/wind.
Gross demand is much flatter. Not completely flat, but it's obvious that it does not require anywhere near the amount of storage or variation that renewables alone would require.
Are you sure with the numbers? Maybe for failed projects like Vogtle it may be true but otherwise, the cost is about 4.7ct/kwh everything included looking at swiss open data. And Goesgen didn't run at 100% CF all these years.
You mean middle eastern labor and design that doesn’t fly with western regulations?
Sounds applicable!
Let’s first acknowledge that KHNP pulled out of all western projects except the Czech one after their settlement with Westinghouse. They don’t exist as an option.
Then let’s look at the Czech subsidies. They aren’t materially different compared to any other modern western nuclear construction.
They’ve shaved a few billion from the headline number but the project is still pure cost plus putting all construction and financial risk on the governments tab.
Barakah is Korean design partly based on Westinghouse patents. That's why for Barakah they had a deal with Westinghouse just like with Czechia. The design is in line with western regulations. Labor is not that relevant for such projects. By far the biggest problems are depleted supply chain and immature design (Both EPRs and Vogtle started when their design wasn't finalized. On top, EPR suffered major design changes for each build due to specific regulations, especially in UK)
Czechian govt subsidies were approved by EC and are pretty ok cost-wise. Even 11bn/reactor is fine considering FLA3 is 23bn. On the other hand, Germany spends on EEG alone each year almost a full equivalent of a failed FLA3. And with new transmission subsidies it's even higher. Both EEG and transmission subsidies are not subject to EC approval, unlike subsidies for nuclear
But agree with the other comment - your remarks sound rather racist
Hmm...any evidence for your weird and to be frank a bit racist claims about "middle eastern labor and design" as well as regulations?
You may not be aware of this, but the UAE is one of the richest countries in the world, on par with with the United States and ahead of Denmark and most of the European nations.
That is incorrect. The profitability floor of even the catastrophic FOAK FV 3 build is 9 cents/kWh for a 2% ROI, with around €130 for 4%. The EPR2 units are lower, around €90/MWh for 4% return and €70-80 for 2% return.
Contrast this with French intermittent renewables projects, which are not profitable at all, EDF receives massive subsidies for them.
Thanks for confirming how insanely expensive new built nuclear power is by using absolutely insanely low discount rates.
Hinkley Point C just got a bridging loan to finalize the plant, after 8 years of building so the remaining risk should be minimal. They got an 7% interest rate. Then EDF needs to make profit on top of that.
When using real world discount rates for FV3 you end up towards 20 cents/kWh.
I love how you quote the EPR2 units cheaper than the proposed subsidies. This looks like blind conviction rather than a factual statement.
The proposed subsidies for the EPR2 fleet is a 10 euro cents CFD and interest free loans. Sum freely, but you end up towards 20 cents per kWh.
And that is excluding for example the backup needed when suddenly half your fleet is offline at the same time. Like happened in France during the energy crisis and multiple times in Sweden last year.
I don't call out all the disinformation you put forward en-detail, that would be far too much work.
The interest-free loans are also not a subsidy, at least not the loans, as the principal has to be repaid in full. The lack of interest payment is a subsidy, but that's a lot less than the loan amount, and being a state company EDF can get pretty good interest rates on the free market. Oh, and those loans will only be for half of the investment.
My estimates put the value of this subsidy at around €20 billion. So less than 1 year of Germany renewable subsidies just from the EEG. For plants that will run for 80 years or more and produce electricity worth >€600 billion (at 10 cents).
20/600 = 0,0333 or around 3,3% of those 10 cents, or less than about 1/3 of a cent per kWh.
And of course the French state owns EDF, so when EDF makes a profit, the state gets those profits. As they have been doing consistently for the last half century or so.
So as with CFD payment, which you put as a subsidy of 10 cent/kWh, there is the tiniest grain of truth in your claims, but then inflated beyond the pale.
Speaking of the CFD: the expected wholesale price of electricity in Germany is expected to be around €90-95/MWh in the next couple of years, and prices have tended to be higher than predictions. And if the wholesale price goes above the CFD price, then EDF loses money on the CFD, because they get exactly the CFD, no less, but also no more.
Assuming the predictions are correct and apply to France as well, the subsidy would be 0,5-1 cents/kWh, so a factor 10-20 less than your claim of 10 cents, and only if wholesale prices actually stay low.
After all, the CFD is primarily necessary, because the subsidized and preferentially treated intermittent renewables have wrecked havoc with wholesale electricity prices, with prices in Germany in 2025 fluctuating wildly between + €583/MWh and - €130/MWh.
It's not really the price, it's the artificially and unnecessarily introduced fluctuations that cause problems for investors.
And of course those renewables that are causing al this havoc get vastly more subsidies per kWh than this. And preferential loans, preferential feed-in, preferential regulations etc.
Anyway, your claim was 20 cents of subsidies per kWh. The real value ranges from less than a cent (could even go negative) to maybe up to 2 cents. So very generously you inflated by a factor of only 10-40.
So you can see why I don't debunk all of the disinformation you put forward, just some of it. It's too much work.
Do you think that demand is willing to pay 18-24 cents per kWh excluding backup, insurance, transmission, final waste disposal etc.?
I can tell you they won’t. Which is why there’s currently 0 commercial nuclear reactors under construction in the US.
You also have to look at it from incentives. Why should a person or company with solar and storage buy horrifyingly expensive nuclear power from the grid when their own installation delivers?
Well, they don’t.
Why should their neighbors prefer horrifyingly expensive grid based nuclear electricity to their neighbors excess renewables?
Well, they don’t.
Do you know what they do instead? These steady consumers. They buy financial instruments like futures and PPAs to ensure steady price and supply.
The problem for new built nuclear power is that these financial instruments costs a fraction of the price new built nuclear power requires.
New built nuclear power is the fax of the internet age. It is time to let go.
The exact opposite of what you write is true. Please inform yourself.
They are currently buying up all the nuclear they can get their hands on, reactivating shut down plants, investing both in startups and in existing players to build as much nuclear as they can:
Storage would mean just to reroute the energy to storage, otherwise you need to lower the power plant‘s output what doesn’t happen fast in nuclear power plants
If I go around bragging about my awesome self-built home design for years, and then buy, clear and level a plot of land, while it is a necessary step, it is also largely irrelevant to my ability to actually build the house, much less the quality of the finished building.
Building the actual reactor is the challenging bit.
You claimed that building the non-nuclear parts of the construction as evidence that the reactor itself will successfully be built, which is nonsense. That someone builds a launchpad tells you nothing about their ability to build and successfully launch rockets
No it's actual hardware coherent memory across the system. At a high level it is the same way two cores/caches are connected within one chip, or the same way two sockets are connected on the same board. Just using cables instead of wires in the chip or on a board.
This system has SMP ASICs on the motherboards that talk to a couple of Intel processor sockets using their coherency protocol over QPI and they basically present themselves as a coherency agent and memory provider (similarly to the way that processors themselves have caches and DDR controllers). The Intel CPUs basically talk to them the same way they would another processor. But out the other side these ASICS connect to a bunch of others all doing the same thing, and they use their own coherency protocol among themselves.
So it's not CXL, instead it's proprietary ASICs masquerading as NUMA nodes but actually forwarding to their counterparts in the other chassis? Are they proprietary to HP or is this some new standard?
It's not cheating or a cluster based system. All the biggest high end servers use multiple externally cabled systems (chassis, sled, drawer). The biggest ones even span multiple racks (aka frames). These days it is HP and IBM remaining in the game.
These all have real hardware coherency going over the external cables, same protocol. Here is a Power10 server picture, https://www.engineering.com/ibm-introduces-power-e1080-serve... the cables attach right to headers brought out of the chip package right off the phy, there's no ->PCI->ethernet-> or anything like that.
These HP systems are similar. These are actually descendants of SGI Altix / SGI Origin systems which HP acquired, and they still use some of the same terminology (NUMAlink for the interconnect fabric). HP did make their own distinct line of big iron systems when they had PA-RISC and later Itanium but ended up acquiring and going with SGI's technology for whatever reasons.
These HP/SGI systems are slightly different from IBM mini/mainframes because they use "commodity" CPUs from Intel that don't support glueless multi socket that large or have signaling that can get across boards, so these have their own chipset that has some special coherency directories and a bunch of NUMAlink PHYs.
SGI systems came from HPC so they were actually much bigger before that, the biggest ones were something around 1024 sockets, back when you only had 1 CPU per socket. The interconnect topology used to be some tree thing that had like 10 hops between the farthest nodes. It did run Linux and wasn't technically cheating, but you really had to program it like a cluster because resource contention would quickly kill you if there was much cacheline transfer between nodes. Quite amazing machines, but not suitable for "enterprise" so IIRC they have cut it down and gone with all-to-all interconnect. It would be interesting to know what they did with coherency protocol, the SGI systems used a full directory scheme which is simple and great at scaling to huge sizes but not the best for performance. IBM systems use extremely complex broadcast source snooping designs (highly scoped and filtered) to avoid full directory overhead. Would be interesting to know if HPE finally went that way with NUMAlink too.
Cheating IMO would be an actual cluster of systems using software (firmware/hypervisor) to present a single system image using MMU and IB/ethernat adapters to provide coherency.
Why? Why should a government prohibit private parties from agreeing to anything other than those 3 things?
> Especially garbage like what you're allowed to do with the stuff you get from the service even while not using the service, or about setting up competing products. It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it.
It is vaguely like that, but but I'm not sure the analogy facilitates understanding of this subject. McDonalds shouldn't tell you how you can eat your burger, therefore... companies must not enforce any terms on their services aside from those things. Why?
I'm not saying any term should be enforceable. Contract law has a long history against that. I just wonder how and where you draw the line and what existing law is insufficient.
reply