4 ms·

Well, it certainly goes against the trend of de-nuclearization... I would invest in renewable energy instead.

dudul 8y ago
Interesting to see this comment downvoted because I believe it is true. Most European countries are looking for alternatives and nuclear power generation is heavily criticized there.
- oytis 8y ago
  There are looking, sure, but at the same time investing in projects in fossil fuels like Nord Stream. And fossil fuels are less environment friendly than nuclear power. To me this anti-nuclear sentiment in Europe looks like pure populism.
- chriswarbo 8y ago
  > Most European countries are looking for alternatives and nuclear power generation is heavily criticized there. I'm not sure about "most". Germany is certainly phasing out nuclear. France has relied extensively on nuclear for decades, and it's a large export industry for them, so I'm not sure what the general sentiment is (a quick Google search didn't find anything conclusive). Here in the UK there does seem to be a general anti-nuclear sentiment (e.g. the (tiny minority) Green Party want to phase it out). We are building new nuclear, like Hinkley Point C, but they're unpopular mostly due to bureaucracy and financial nonsense (the vested interests and brinkmanship over the contract seems like a test run for the current farce over Brexit negotiations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... !).
  - dudul 8y ago
    France heavily relies on nuclear that's true, but it is trying to find an alternative as old centrals are more expensive to maintain.
  - hwillis 8y ago
    France is shutting down most of their plants in the coming decades, and Switzerland is shutting a few down too. Nuclear is genuinely facing a lot of opposition in Europe, particularly due to rising costs. In many cases popular sentiment is a driving force too though. That's probably the case in Switzerland (direct democracy) where there were a couple notable accidents right before a referendum. Bad timing and not really terribly newsworthy, but it really damaged public opinion.
    - cm2187 8y ago
      I don't think it's cost. Merkel took the decision to exit nuclear energy after very little thinking following Fukushima. Building a single nuclear power plant is very expensive. Building 20 in a row is cheap (+ the ever changing regulations).
- lostmsu 8y ago
  Because following a trend is your only argument. I can see how restoring good fame to nuclear power can improve our chances to see fusion in our lifespans. And fusion, basically, is the best.
chriswarbo 8y ago
Investment money doesn't come in one discrete unit: it's allocated across many different things, including (for energy, climate change, etc.): - Nuclear (existing tech, emerging tech, fundamental research, fusion, etc.) - Renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, current tech, emerging tech, fundamental research, etc.) - Fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas, existing tech, emerging tech, fundamental research, etc.) - Carbon capture (reforestation, underground storage, fundamental research, etc.) - Geoengineering (space shades, reflective aerosols, fundamental research, etc.) - Economics/sociology (carbon markets, incentives, subsidies, public awareness, fundamental research, etc.) We should be debating what the total budget is, and how it's divided proportionally among these. A blanket statement like "invest in renewable energy" only makes sense if we think the proportion of investment allocated to renewables is smaller than it should be. I personally think that's a fair argument to make, so saying "invest in renewable energy" is a statement I agree with. However, doing so "instead" of nuclear only makes sense if we think that (a) nuclear already has too much investment and (b) it's better to defund nuclear than to defund other investments. I disagree with both of these. Nuclear is in need of more investment, for example there are many new reactor designs that have not been commercially exploited yet; and the old-tech plants are near retirement (which keeps getting extended). The fact that we're not seeing retired plants replaced with new tech, let alone many brand new plants, is largely due to lack of investment, as well as issues of regulation and public awareness (which affects the investment; but could also be invested in themselves!). Regarding defunding: investment in fossil fuels can make sense (e.g. replacing coal with natural gas is a "quick win" which buys the climate some time), but as long as so much is over-invested in actively harmful areas (e.g. coal, tree burning like UK's Drax, etc.), then not only is it better to spend that money on renewables rather than taking it from nuclear, in some cases (e.g. marketing climate disinformation in the US) we'd be better off even if we burned that money for fuel, let alone invested it in renewables!

Interesting to see this comment downvoted because I believe it is true. Most European countries are looking for alternatives and nuclear power generation is heavily criticized there.

oytis 8y ago
There are looking, sure, but at the same time investing in projects in fossil fuels like Nord Stream. And fossil fuels are less environment friendly than nuclear power. To me this anti-nuclear sentiment in Europe looks like pure populism.
chriswarbo 8y ago
> Most European countries are looking for alternatives and nuclear power generation is heavily criticized there. I'm not sure about "most". Germany is certainly phasing out nuclear. France has relied extensively on nuclear for decades, and it's a large export industry for them, so I'm not sure what the general sentiment is (a quick Google search didn't find anything conclusive). Here in the UK there does seem to be a general anti-nuclear sentiment (e.g. the (tiny minority) Green Party want to phase it out). We are building new nuclear, like Hinkley Point C, but they're unpopular mostly due to bureaucracy and financial nonsense (the vested interests and brinkmanship over the contract seems like a test run for the current farce over Brexit negotiations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... !).
- dudul 8y ago
  France heavily relies on nuclear that's true, but it is trying to find an alternative as old centrals are more expensive to maintain.
- hwillis 8y ago
  France is shutting down most of their plants in the coming decades, and Switzerland is shutting a few down too. Nuclear is genuinely facing a lot of opposition in Europe, particularly due to rising costs. In many cases popular sentiment is a driving force too though. That's probably the case in Switzerland (direct democracy) where there were a couple notable accidents right before a referendum. Bad timing and not really terribly newsworthy, but it really damaged public opinion.
  - cm2187 8y ago
    I don't think it's cost. Merkel took the decision to exit nuclear energy after very little thinking following Fukushima. Building a single nuclear power plant is very expensive. Building 20 in a row is cheap (+ the ever changing regulations).
lostmsu 8y ago
Because following a trend is your only argument. I can see how restoring good fame to nuclear power can improve our chances to see fusion in our lifespans. And fusion, basically, is the best.

chriswarbo 8y ago

Investment money doesn't come in one discrete unit: it's allocated across many different things, including (for energy, climate change, etc.): - Nuclear (existing tech, emerging tech, fundamental research, fusion, etc.) - Renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, current tech, emerging tech, fundamental research, etc.) - Fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas, existing tech, emerging tech, fundamental research, etc.) - Carbon capture (reforestation, underground storage, fundamental research, etc.) - Geoengineering (space shades, reflective aerosols, fundamental research, etc.) - Economics/sociology (carbon markets, incentives, subsidies, public awareness, fundamental research, etc.) We should be debating what the total budget is, and how it's divided proportionally among these. A blanket statement like "invest in renewable energy" only makes sense if we think the proportion of investment allocated to renewables is smaller than it should be. I personally think that's a fair argument to make, so saying "invest in renewable energy" is a statement I agree with. However, doing so "instead" of nuclear only makes sense if we think that (a) nuclear already has too much investment and (b) it's better to defund nuclear than to defund other investments. I disagree with both of these. Nuclear is in need of more investment, for example there are many new reactor designs that have not been commercially exploited yet; and the old-tech plants are near retirement (which keeps getting extended). The fact that we're not seeing retired plants replaced with new tech, let alone many brand new plants, is largely due to lack of investment, as well as issues of regulation and public awareness (which affects the investment; but could also be invested in themselves!). Regarding defunding: investment in fossil fuels can make sense (e.g. replacing coal with natural gas is a "quick win" which buys the climate some time), but as long as so much is over-invested in actively harmful areas (e.g. coal, tree burning like UK's Drax, etc.), then not only is it better to spend that money on renewables rather than taking it from nuclear, in some cases (e.g. marketing climate disinformation in the US) we'd be better off even if we burned that money for fuel, let alone invested it in renewables!