4 ms·

Read between the lines. It's not about the best solution(s), it's about _their_ solution. Nuclear solves the problem they champion, which means, it negates the

Read between the lines. It's not about the best solution(s), it's about _their_ solution. Nuclear solves the problem they champion, which means, it negates the need for their efforts and existence (economic). Ironically, the rejection of nuclear as a viable option seems to be the result of a psychological existential threat to the supposed "elite" of our world. The mask is off. Protecting the future of humanity isn't the goal; it's protecting their own egos.

passerby1 5y ago
Gains and profits, and power. Not egos.
7952 5y ago
I think you could make the same argument against nuclear advocates. Ego based focus on the "best" option and endless ad-hominem against proponents of good options. When actually the best option is one that is politically possible. Also, the green zone is managed by the British Government rather than the UN who are fairly supportive of nuclear. Nuclear is politically viable in the UK so it gets built. Onshore turbines in South-East England are not politically viable so they don't get built and we go offshore instead. The objective should be to stop climate change rather than chase optimal technology.
jillesvangurp 5y ago
The reason nuclear is unpopular is that it is expensive. It's more expensive than coal and gas typically. It's also very slow to deploy. A decade is nothing. We'll hit 2035 when several countries are planning to be 100% renewable powered in about 13 years. That's not a lot of time to build a meaningful amount of nuclear plants. Nuclear plants coming online recently are not great examples of speedily execution on a tight budget either. Despite this, there are still a quite a few under construction (around 50 world wide). It's their financial performance relative to renewables that determines if we end up with more of them. The word baseload always comes up in these discussions but its meaning never really gets specified in a very satisfying way. For example in GW needed for how long (i.e. GWH). Having such a number would facilitate a discussion about alternate ways how we would get that power more cheaply. That's not a debate nuclear proponents like having because it focuses attention on poor financial performance of nuclear relative to just about anything else. The simple reality driving a lot of the decision making is that you simply get more GWH per $ with solar and wind. And not just a little bit; the difference is massive. And you get it much quicker too. And it's far less risky from a political point of view. So instead of getting say 8GW with a very big nuclear plant costing maybe 30-40 billion and taking two decades to get built and planned with lots of uncertainty around the process, you can have 30-40 GW online two years from now for about the same amount of money. That's based on a price of 5000$/kw for recent offshore wind installations. A couple of hundred GW of wind came online over the last few years. The investments in renewables are massive and for good reasons: it delivers results quickly and prices are trending down. Offshore wind is actually relatively expensive compared to solar and onshore wind. But also relatively reliable. People put solar on their roofs for less (2-3k/kw) and solar plants are even cheaper but of course less stable sources of power. Add batteries to the mix and other forms of storage (ammonia, hydrogen, thermal mass, pumped hydro, etc.) and there is no lack of a "baseload" that can't be planned for and mitigated. It will have a price and a certain capacity and that's what needs to be debated in Glasgow. It's a conference about allocating massive amounts of money in the next decades. The stakes are high both in financial terms and in the outcomes. Nuclear might be part of this if the price is right. But the whole nuclear or nothing attitude is just not a very productive argument. Many countries that have the option are still doing some nuclear of course. But far less than what they are allocating for wind and solar (in dollars and planned GWH capacity).
- sofixa 5y ago
  Not everything is about price, and it shouldn't be. If it were, we'd have stayed with coal and gas a few decades ago. As i mentioned elsewhere, much of Europe is currently facing an ongoing wind shortfall ( since around a month ago and projected to continue into the winter), which is adding extra fuel to the ongoing energy crisis. To cover such a potential future scenario with renewables only, you'd need to build absolutely massive storage, which would certainly change the costs. But in any case, fuck the costs - investment is needed into more nuclear, different types of storage tech, more renewables, because this is a very serious issue and making the wrong decisions purely based on costs would be really sad.
- jpdus 5y ago
  This! Almost all of the pro-nuclear crowd misses that nuclear is just too expensive. Nobody brought a convincing argument why e.g. China wouldn't push Nuclear way more if nuclear would economically be viable - there are no "activists" over there that would stop them from building thousands of reactors. Additionally, most calculations that result in somewhat competitive prices for nuclear energy dismiss the implied subsidies (state guarantees as nuclear plants are uninsurable, waste handling until eternity) which are massive.
  - sp332 5y ago
    China has 50 nuclear plants running and over a dozen plants under construction right now. Kinda seems like they're ramping up to me.
    - g8oz 5y ago
      They are ramping up everything, solar and wind included. It's not clear to me that they regard nuclear as a panacea.
      - jillesvangurp 5y ago
        China is also still building coal plants. But that doesn't mean they see that as the future either. Like everybody else, they are not putting all their eggs in one basket but at the same time they like wind and solar a lot more than nuclear and coal. The bulk of their investments are going towards those at this point.
pumpkinman 5y ago
[flagged]
viktorcode 5y ago
The original title "Message: Nuclear must be represented at COP26, says World Nuclear Association" reminds of meme "The cat is being starved, according to cat".

passerby1 5y ago

Gains and profits, and power. Not egos.

7952 5y ago

I think you could make the same argument against nuclear advocates. Ego based focus on the "best" option and endless ad-hominem against proponents of good options. When actually the best option is one that is politically possible. Also, the green zone is managed by the British Government rather than the UN who are fairly supportive of nuclear. Nuclear is politically viable in the UK so it gets built. Onshore turbines in South-East England are not politically viable so they don't get built and we go offshore instead. The objective should be to stop climate change rather than chase optimal technology.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

The reason nuclear is unpopular is that it is expensive. It's more expensive than coal and gas typically. It's also very slow to deploy. A decade is nothing. We'll hit 2035 when several countries are planning to be 100% renewable powered in about 13 years. That's not a lot of time to build a meaningful amount of nuclear plants. Nuclear plants coming online recently are not great examples of speedily execution on a tight budget either. Despite this, there are still a quite a few under construction (around 50 world wide). It's their financial performance relative to renewables that determines if we end up with more of them. The word baseload always comes up in these discussions but its meaning never really gets specified in a very satisfying way. For example in GW needed for how long (i.e. GWH). Having such a number would facilitate a discussion about alternate ways how we would get that power more cheaply. That's not a debate nuclear proponents like having because it focuses attention on poor financial performance of nuclear relative to just about anything else. The simple reality driving a lot of the decision making is that you simply get more GWH per $ with solar and wind. And not just a little bit; the difference is massive. And you get it much quicker too. And it's far less risky from a political point of view. So instead of getting say 8GW with a very big nuclear plant costing maybe 30-40 billion and taking two decades to get built and planned with lots of uncertainty around the process, you can have 30-40 GW online two years from now for about the same amount of money. That's based on a price of 5000$/kw for recent offshore wind installations. A couple of hundred GW of wind came online over the last few years. The investments in renewables are massive and for good reasons: it delivers results quickly and prices are trending down. Offshore wind is actually relatively expensive compared to solar and onshore wind. But also relatively reliable. People put solar on their roofs for less (2-3k/kw) and solar plants are even cheaper but of course less stable sources of power. Add batteries to the mix and other forms of storage (ammonia, hydrogen, thermal mass, pumped hydro, etc.) and there is no lack of a "baseload" that can't be planned for and mitigated. It will have a price and a certain capacity and that's what needs to be debated in Glasgow. It's a conference about allocating massive amounts of money in the next decades. The stakes are high both in financial terms and in the outcomes. Nuclear might be part of this if the price is right. But the whole nuclear or nothing attitude is just not a very productive argument. Many countries that have the option are still doing some nuclear of course. But far less than what they are allocating for wind and solar (in dollars and planned GWH capacity).

sofixa 5y ago
Not everything is about price, and it shouldn't be. If it were, we'd have stayed with coal and gas a few decades ago. As i mentioned elsewhere, much of Europe is currently facing an ongoing wind shortfall ( since around a month ago and projected to continue into the winter), which is adding extra fuel to the ongoing energy crisis. To cover such a potential future scenario with renewables only, you'd need to build absolutely massive storage, which would certainly change the costs. But in any case, fuck the costs - investment is needed into more nuclear, different types of storage tech, more renewables, because this is a very serious issue and making the wrong decisions purely based on costs would be really sad.
jpdus 5y ago
This! Almost all of the pro-nuclear crowd misses that nuclear is just too expensive. Nobody brought a convincing argument why e.g. China wouldn't push Nuclear way more if nuclear would economically be viable - there are no "activists" over there that would stop them from building thousands of reactors. Additionally, most calculations that result in somewhat competitive prices for nuclear energy dismiss the implied subsidies (state guarantees as nuclear plants are uninsurable, waste handling until eternity) which are massive.
- sp332 5y ago
  China has 50 nuclear plants running and over a dozen plants under construction right now. Kinda seems like they're ramping up to me.
  - g8oz 5y ago
    They are ramping up everything, solar and wind included. It's not clear to me that they regard nuclear as a panacea.
    - jillesvangurp 5y ago
      China is also still building coal plants. But that doesn't mean they see that as the future either. Like everybody else, they are not putting all their eggs in one basket but at the same time they like wind and solar a lot more than nuclear and coal. The bulk of their investments are going towards those at this point.

pumpkinman 5y ago

[flagged]

viktorcode 5y ago

The original title "Message: Nuclear must be represented at COP26, says World Nuclear Association" reminds of meme "The cat is being starved, according to cat".