5 ms·

I read that letter in the newspaper this morning and I had a few questions about the claims being made: - They claim nuclear could create a million of jobs in

I read that letter in the newspaper this morning and I had a few questions about the claims being made: - They claim nuclear could create a million of jobs in Europe. What kind of jobs ? Is that job creation or job swapping ? - Switching to nuclear power guarantees energy independence. But where is the uranium we need ? How can we guarantee delivery ? The argument I hear against building new nuclear plants is that it's basically too late: - it takes 30 years or more to build one - it usually costs twice as planned - it's way more expensive than renewables - renewables can be deployed now I do believe we should have built more nuclear plants 20 or 30 years ago but we were drunk on cheap oil and gas.

derlvative 5y ago
Australia is the country wih the world's largest uranium reserves. They seem to be a more agreeable trading partner than Russia.
- forty 5y ago
  From a French point of view, this might have become debatable lately ;)
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    From a French point of view it doesn't matter because: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOMAIR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOMAIR [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMINAK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMINAK [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_Namibia#Trekkopje https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_Namibia#Trek... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orano_Cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orano_Cycle
    - forty 5y ago
      I was only joking on the topic of Australia vs Russia :)
- oblak 5y ago
  In what way is Australia more agreeable uranium selling partner? I really don't know
djbebs 5y ago
There are plenty of old abandoned uranium mines in portugal. They were abandoned because the price of uranium is so cheap it's not economical to mine it, but that can change if the economics of the situation change (ie, it suddenly becomes impossible to Import) Regardless the point is moot. The amount of uranium required isn't that huge.
Ekaros 5y ago
I think construction timeframes all due to complex political process and lack of proper experience. With enough political will and accepting more reactors in numbers I believe in 10 years, we could get plants up and running in 5 year timeframe.
- Krasnol 5y ago
  > I think construction timeframes all due to complex political process and lack of proper experience. Are you aware that Hinkley Point is build by the EDF a French company...they sure don't lack proper experience but the project is still all OP listed. Fission is no solution for the crisis.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    How many of those type of reactors have they build in past 10 years? Unless they are building at least 1 a year I don't consider it overall proper experience. And realistically we should aim to much higher numbers, as at that point most problems would already have solutions and quality would be substantially higher with skilled workers.
    - Krasnol 5y ago
      I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. Those fantasies would cost immense amounts of money in the decades it would take to build up your "super experience". The cost and speed of improvement of renewable sources do not justify anything like that.
08-15 5y ago
> I do believe we should have built more nuclear plants 20 or 30 years ago Would you like to know why we didn't? Because climate activists told us 20 years ago that - [a nuclear power plant] takes 30 years or more to build one - [a nuclear power plant] usually costs twice as planned - [nuclear power is] way more expensive than renewables - renewables can be deployed now Then we (Germany) wasted 20 years building renewables, and now we are nowhere close to fulfilling our Kyoto commitment, and got the most expensive electricity anywhere in the world. Well done, climate activists!
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  I do wonder why and how green parties were able to get everyone else to retire nuclear plants but then nobody (green, blue, red, etc.) set plans in motion to replace it.
  - 08-15 5y ago
    Your first question has a simple answer: by law. New nuclear plants haven't been licensed in Germany in, like, forever. Currently, the law explicitly states that no new nuclear power plants will be licensed. How they got the operators to agree to the early shutdown is less clear. By offering a good deal, I guess. It's only taxpayer money, after all. Why nobody set plans in motion to replace it? I don't know. My best guess is, because politicians are unbelievably stupid. They really don't know anything about electricity. They really don't get that excess electricity in Juli doesn't help you in cold, dark January. Annalena Baerbock stated publically: "The grid is all the battery we need." At that level of incompetence, who knows why anything happened.

derlvative 5y ago

Australia is the country wih the world's largest uranium reserves. They seem to be a more agreeable trading partner than Russia.

forty 5y ago
From a French point of view, this might have become debatable lately ;)
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  From a French point of view it doesn't matter because: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOMAIR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOMAIR [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMINAK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMINAK [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_Namibia#Trekkopje https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_Namibia#Trek... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orano_Cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orano_Cycle
  - forty 5y ago
    I was only joking on the topic of Australia vs Russia :)
oblak 5y ago
In what way is Australia more agreeable uranium selling partner? I really don't know

djbebs 5y ago

There are plenty of old abandoned uranium mines in portugal. They were abandoned because the price of uranium is so cheap it's not economical to mine it, but that can change if the economics of the situation change (ie, it suddenly becomes impossible to Import) Regardless the point is moot. The amount of uranium required isn't that huge.

Ekaros 5y ago

I think construction timeframes all due to complex political process and lack of proper experience. With enough political will and accepting more reactors in numbers I believe in 10 years, we could get plants up and running in 5 year timeframe.

Krasnol 5y ago
> I think construction timeframes all due to complex political process and lack of proper experience. Are you aware that Hinkley Point is build by the EDF a French company...they sure don't lack proper experience but the project is still all OP listed. Fission is no solution for the crisis.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  How many of those type of reactors have they build in past 10 years? Unless they are building at least 1 a year I don't consider it overall proper experience. And realistically we should aim to much higher numbers, as at that point most problems would already have solutions and quality would be substantially higher with skilled workers.
  - Krasnol 5y ago
    I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. Those fantasies would cost immense amounts of money in the decades it would take to build up your "super experience". The cost and speed of improvement of renewable sources do not justify anything like that.

08-15 5y ago

> I do believe we should have built more nuclear plants 20 or 30 years ago Would you like to know why we didn't? Because climate activists told us 20 years ago that - [a nuclear power plant] takes 30 years or more to build one - [a nuclear power plant] usually costs twice as planned - [nuclear power is] way more expensive than renewables - renewables can be deployed now Then we (Germany) wasted 20 years building renewables, and now we are nowhere close to fulfilling our Kyoto commitment, and got the most expensive electricity anywhere in the world. Well done, climate activists!

johnchristopher 5y ago
I do wonder why and how green parties were able to get everyone else to retire nuclear plants but then nobody (green, blue, red, etc.) set plans in motion to replace it.
- 08-15 5y ago
  Your first question has a simple answer: by law. New nuclear plants haven't been licensed in Germany in, like, forever. Currently, the law explicitly states that no new nuclear power plants will be licensed. How they got the operators to agree to the early shutdown is less clear. By offering a good deal, I guess. It's only taxpayer money, after all. Why nobody set plans in motion to replace it? I don't know. My best guess is, because politicians are unbelievably stupid. They really don't know anything about electricity. They really don't get that excess electricity in Juli doesn't help you in cold, dark January. Annalena Baerbock stated publically: "The grid is all the battery we need." At that level of incompetence, who knows why anything happened.