4 ms·

Obviously not, as very successful anti-nuclear campaigning means all of EU is dependant on russian fossil fuels

by nikanj 5y ago

KennyBlanken 5y ago
Nuclear power plants have been shutting down because the companies that run them can make power more cheaply with wind and solar, not because of "anti-nuclear campaigning." Wind is the cheapest way to make power, with solar being a close second.
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  There has definitely been extensive anti nuclear campaigning. Wind and solar are great but they’re not dependable.
- Aperocky 5y ago
  > Nuclear power plants have been shutting down because the companies Except that is demonstrably false: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...
- xienze 5y ago
  But what happens if say, the wind doesn’t blow as much as expected [0]? Renewables are great but since you can’t easily bank massive amounts of power for later, you need some sort of reliable, consistent energy source that continues working when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Like gas or nuclear. But with nuclear plants falling out of fashion, guess what that leaves you with. Renewables are great but you can’t just ignore their downsides. 0: https://fortune.com/2021/09/16/the-u-k-went-all-in-on-wind-power-never-imaging-it-would-one-day-stop-blowing/amp/ https://fortune.com/2021/09/16/the-u-k-went-all-in-on-wind-p...
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  They are also way less reliable which is a huge disadvantage from the point of view of the state. And we're still far from having good energy storage (that is cheap, clean, efficient).
hawk_ 5y ago
Yep, one after another decision reeks of short termism. There's a dictator who believes the world as some zero sum system right at our borders and we are burying our heads in sand.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  It seems odd that you use the term "short termism" in connection with a remark about the anti-nuclear movement, one of the major concerns of which has been the the multi-thousand year half life of fission waste.
  - hawk_ 5y ago
    short termism there is the fear of losing elections due to a misinformed populace. we should have educated people instead and embraced nuclear as the stop gap for the next 100 years while we develop all kinds of other energy tech.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      I'm 58. Back at the "height" of the anti-nuclear movement in the UK (which I'd peg at about 1978-1982, that movement was full of educated people who chose to reject nuclear (fission) power. The fact that you don't agree with them doesn't require you to suggest that they were uninformed or uneducated. I don't agree with you (mostly), but that just means that I've come to different conclusions about what is in reality a complex question.
      - nickpp 5y ago
        They are directly guilty for the climate crisis, though. We wouldn’t have so much CO2 in the air if we followed the logical path to almost free electricity from nuclear.
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        > almost free electricity from nuclear. It seems that you may have watched a few too many of the early promotional videos of the nascent nuclear industry. Also, "directly guilty for the climate crisis" seems a little over the top. Sure, the anti-nuclear movement did lead us to generally not go down a path that would have helped avert or at least reduce the climate crisis. But the climate crisis was directly caused by the discovery and subsequent use of fossil fuels, not the anti-nuclear movement. That movement had what it considered a clear and present danger that implied that nuclear was not the right answer to replace fossil fuels. It is not a "logical" path to follow - the decision involves many tradeoffs and value judgements, and while I understand that you apparently would have resolved those differently, the anti-nuclear movement operated in good faith to try to avert what was at the time considered a much greater risk than climate change. We might, or might not, ever discover if they were right.

Obviously not, as very successful anti-nuclear campaigning means all of EU is dependant on russian fossil fuels

by nikanj 5y ago

Obviously not, as very successful anti-nuclear campaigning means all of EU is dependant on russian fossil fuels

Nuclear power plants have been shutting down because the companies that run them can make power more cheaply with wind and solar, not because of "anti-nuclear campaigning." Wind is the cheapest way to make power, with solar being a close second.

Swenrekcah 5y ago
There has definitely been extensive anti nuclear campaigning. Wind and solar are great but they’re not dependable.
Aperocky 5y ago
> Nuclear power plants have been shutting down because the companies Except that is demonstrably false: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...
xienze 5y ago
But what happens if say, the wind doesn’t blow as much as expected [0]? Renewables are great but since you can’t easily bank massive amounts of power for later, you need some sort of reliable, consistent energy source that continues working when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Like gas or nuclear. But with nuclear plants falling out of fashion, guess what that leaves you with. Renewables are great but you can’t just ignore their downsides. 0: https://fortune.com/2021/09/16/the-u-k-went-all-in-on-wind-power-never-imaging-it-would-one-day-stop-blowing/amp/ https://fortune.com/2021/09/16/the-u-k-went-all-in-on-wind-p...
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
They are also way less reliable which is a huge disadvantage from the point of view of the state. And we're still far from having good energy storage (that is cheap, clean, efficient).

hawk_ 5y ago

Yep, one after another decision reeks of short termism. There's a dictator who believes the world as some zero sum system right at our borders and we are burying our heads in sand.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
It seems odd that you use the term "short termism" in connection with a remark about the anti-nuclear movement, one of the major concerns of which has been the the multi-thousand year half life of fission waste.
- hawk_ 5y ago
  short termism there is the fear of losing elections due to a misinformed populace. we should have educated people instead and embraced nuclear as the stop gap for the next 100 years while we develop all kinds of other energy tech.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    I'm 58. Back at the "height" of the anti-nuclear movement in the UK (which I'd peg at about 1978-1982, that movement was full of educated people who chose to reject nuclear (fission) power. The fact that you don't agree with them doesn't require you to suggest that they were uninformed or uneducated. I don't agree with you (mostly), but that just means that I've come to different conclusions about what is in reality a complex question.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      They are directly guilty for the climate crisis, though. We wouldn’t have so much CO2 in the air if we followed the logical path to almost free electricity from nuclear.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        > almost free electricity from nuclear. It seems that you may have watched a few too many of the early promotional videos of the nascent nuclear industry. Also, "directly guilty for the climate crisis" seems a little over the top. Sure, the anti-nuclear movement did lead us to generally not go down a path that would have helped avert or at least reduce the climate crisis. But the climate crisis was directly caused by the discovery and subsequent use of fossil fuels, not the anti-nuclear movement. That movement had what it considered a clear and present danger that implied that nuclear was not the right answer to replace fossil fuels. It is not a "logical" path to follow - the decision involves many tradeoffs and value judgements, and while I understand that you apparently would have resolved those differently, the anti-nuclear movement operated in good faith to try to avert what was at the time considered a much greater risk than climate change. We might, or might not, ever discover if they were right.