21 ms·

Since the Ukraine crisis the EU is relabeling everything ESG: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/esg-investors-

Since the Ukraine crisis the EU is relabeling everything ESG: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/esg-investors-warm-to-nuclear-power-after-eu-green-label-award-69002267 https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights... Is this the inflection point when we go back to the 1970s? Richard Nixon had planned for 1000 nuclear reactors in the US for Project Independence by the year 2000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Independence

geostupid 4y ago
Appreciate the link to Project Independence. Despite way too many late nights reading about atomic/nuclear history, somehow I missed this one.
sdrwefgfvb 4y ago
This is yet another instance of a phenomenon: When you have good outcomes and bad outcomes, and you take some preventative measures to reduce the likelihood of bad outcomes, as time goes by people start believing that the bad outcomes don't really exist and get rid of the preventative measures. Example, energy independence from Russia and shutting down nuclear reactors. Another example, people think there's no point in taking vaccines.
- TheBlight 4y ago
  Not all vaccines are equal. Just like all things labeled medicine are not equal and not equally beneficial/recommended for everyone.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    I took grandparent comment's reference to be the resistance to COVID-19 vaccines, which could have prevented endemic establishment in the US of COVID-19 had the GOP base adopted them quicker (along with non-pharmaceutical interventions). The mRNA vaccines are an absolute gamechanger in this space. I am glad we have the technology available. EDIT: Whoa, people surprisingly hate this comment. It's true though -- rural red counties have been hit much harder, due to demographic factors, lower vaccine uptake as well as boosting, lower access, and lower testing generally (leading to higher serology rate differentials to reported counts). The entire state of GA, for example, looks like each county has low case counts compared to the rest of the US until you realize testing there only captures 1 in 4 cases. This selective intransigence to public health measures was a problem when there was one case, and has persisted to be a problem until today.
    - TheBlight 4y ago
      Hmm. Did the GOP's reach extend to the island nation of New Zealand on the other side of the globe?
      - nxm 4y ago
        What economic and costs are you willing to pay to be on lockdown for so long?
        TheBlight 4y ago
        "Pay" implies there was some benefit that was purchased.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        > Did the GOP's reach extend to the island nation of New Zealand on the other side of the globe? Well, yeah. New Zealand had great policies and good compliance. Then the same shitty murdoch and facebook led conspiracy theories, selfishness, and lies spread. Now they're dealing with the same issues as everyone else. Plus without the insane propaganda machine, lack of aid, and hoarding of unused vaccines we may not have even developed some of the mutations or had it become endemic in animal populations. At least people in new zealand had a chance to get fully vaccinated there and avoid the short term death toll though.
    - vanattab 4y ago
      This is false. There was no chance of ever stopping covid-19 from reaching endemic status with vaccines. Covid simply is too tranmisable and rapidly changing and spread quickly too wild animal populations such as deer. It was right to be cautious and attempt continment/eradication initially when there was still so much unknown but it's clear now we never stood a chance.
      - tomrod 4y ago
        > There was no chance of ever stopping covid-19 from reaching endemic status with vaccines >> COVID-19 vaccines, which could have prevented endemic establishment in the US of COVID-19 had the GOP base adopted them quicker _(along with non-pharmaceutical interventions)_.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Most of the resistance I’ve seen against vaccines have been against ones that are highly beneficial relative to their risks. Have you seen pushback against ones that weren’t? I’ve literally seen folks push back against Tetanus, Polio, MMR, etc.
    - mbg721 4y ago
      Tetanus and polio do horrifying things to the body; measles and mumps are sort of mid-level, right? And something like chicken pox has a vaccine now, but is relatively harmless if you catch it as a child.
      - abakker 4y ago
        Chicken pox may be harmless as a child. That virus also causes shingles and that is NOT harmless as an adult. edit to add: things like HPV seem harmless, but HPV infection is linked to the vast majority of cervical cancer. Things like epstein-barr are implicated in certain cancers as well. There are no "good viruses" and just because they have mild initial symptoms does not make them harmless.
      - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
        Chicken pox vaccine prevents 8000 hospitalizations per year (in the US) https://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/vaccine-infographic.html https://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/vaccine-infographic.html. Measles vaccine prevents around 50000 hospitalizations per year.
      - kybernetikos 4y ago
        > chicken pox has a vaccine now, but is relatively harmless if you catch it as a child. I think if adults were catching a disease that took them out of action for a week in a fairly miserable way and gave them blisters that frequently ended up leaving permanent scars, we'd be taking it way more seriously. Kids don't make the decisions, and everyone remembers that they suffered through it, so kids these days should too...
        lazide 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
jiveturkey42 4y ago
I certainly hope so. Maybe we can now move boldly forward into a nuclear future since the Boomers got cold feet about it
- api 4y ago
  So many things can happen when the boomers retire, including not just this but building more housing stock in insanely overpriced NIMBY cities and building public transit.
  - bogantech 4y ago
    Why do people think that selfishness is quality only found in boomers? Reality check even when the boomers are all dead there's still going to be shortsighted selfish people running the show
    - jiveturkey42 4y ago
      The boomers lived through an age of unprecedented abundance, when that dries up, innovation out of necessity will trump any ideology
ihsw 4y ago
_ph_ 4y ago
No, since all currently available nuclear reactor models are way more expensive to build than renewables. And a lot of tangentials remain open. Like where to get and reprocess fuel rods? What about operational safety? And most of all, where to dump the radiactive waste? But in the end, just the price will kill them on any larger scale.
- scrlk 4y ago
  >And a lot of tangentials remain open. Like where to get and reprocess fuel rods? What about operational safety? And most of all, where to dump the radiactive waste? All solved issues - nuclear energy is a matter of political will at this point.
  - pydry 4y ago
    If operational safety were a completely solved problem nuclear plants would be able to buy insurance without a liability cap of <0.5% of the cost of dealing with 1 fukushima. As it is, even with that subsidy financing plants is basically impossible without more subsidies. Bill Gates' new reactor startup required taxpayers to fund 50% of it to even exist.
    - scrlk 4y ago
      The reason why I believe operational safety is a solved problem: the US Navy has run reactors on board ships and submarines since the 50s, with 0 reactor accidents. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Reactors
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        And the Russians have had accidents untold. Which is run more like commercial reactors?
  - _ph_ 4y ago
    No, they are not solved.
Algent 4y ago
> Since the Ukraine crisis the EU is relabeling everything ESG I remember reading about the "relabeling" long before UK crisis. It started as Germany wanting to label gas as green to defend their high interest in Russian gas and going all surprised when France pulled the "Nuclear is cleaner than gas so it's green too, right ?" card. Current crisis probably helped Nuclear to make the cut because it originally wasn't a done deal at all.
cinntaile 4y ago
> Since the Ukraine crisis the EU is relabeling everything ESG: This discussion was already happening before the war in Ukraine, it probably helped both gas and nuclear getting labeled as green though.
quadcore 4y ago
Knowing its 42°C currently in France and 40°C in UK, that we blasted previous temp records two times in two months, well I think we should make it mandatory to build reactors.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  "but those take 10 years to build, that's too long" -people telling me this 5 years ago -also people telling me the same 10 years ago -also people telling me the same 15 years ago -also people telling me te same 20 years ago -and of course, people telling me this now.
  - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
    People also tell to build wind and solar, while ignoring that those two needs to be backed up by coal and gas.
    - abakker 4y ago
      or batteries / battery analogs. It is possible to solve this problem with tools we currently have. If we're thinking long term, we do not require coal or gas for power generation given sufficient hydro, wind, solar and storage. Cryogenic air, pumped hydro, and other storage designs are possible.
      - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
        Chemical batteries are completely useless and expensive gimmick in state-wide storage of electric energy. Cost is main reason why it is cheaper to build coal/gas plant instead.
        Pxtl 4y ago
        From what I've read batteries are the preferred option for short-term zero-emissions levelling but once you get into longer term stuff you start looking at storing compressed air or hydrogen in salt caverns. But hydrogen cracking/storage as a grid-level utility is still at the experimental stage.
api 4y ago
If we'd done what Nixon suggested climate change would probably not be a problem, as not only would we emit less than half current carbon emissions but the rest of the world would have followed and we'd have a huge nuclear power supply chain to make it easier for them to do that. We'd now be replacing gasoline and diesel with EVs and our carbon emissions would be falling rapidly. While solar and wind have advanced quite a bit to the point that they're a viable option in many regions, whether or not nuclear is at least on the table is the litmus test for whether someone actually takes climate change seriously. Anyone who dogmatically rules out nuclear either doesn't actually believe in climate change or is hopelessly ignorant. At the very least Germany and other countries should be leaving the perfectly good nuclear plants they already have online until the end of their operable life as they build out renewables and shut down coal and gas. The priority should always be shutting down fossil fuels first.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  Energy and politics are intertwined. Nixon’s alcoholism and mental illness took him out of the picture, and really killed the more traditional “establishment” GOP; a new generation of “conservatives” was empowered and eventually took over the GOP. Who funded these newcomers? Oil, gas and friends was a big part of it. We converted to coal instead as a result.
  - JacobThreeThree 4y ago
    Oil and gas lobbyists insisted on using coal, instead of oil and gas? Was it the same lobbyists who convinced China to use coal? https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/china-starts-building-33-gw-coal-power-2021-most-since-2016-research-2022-02-24/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/china-starts-bui... Maybe coal is just a convenient energy source.
  - api 4y ago
    We didn't convert to coal. It was the primary source for industry and power. We stuck with it.
    - 4y ago
mc32 4y ago
I will rail against Jane Fonda. This person is the most responsible person for the situation we're in right now. She conspired with others to derail (literally in some cases) Nuclear power. This is what happens when you follow uninformed advocates from Hollywood. People should learn to despise "influencers." They know little but aim to move people to action based on poor or very poor understanding of the things they propose and base their positions on emotion, mostly.
- hammock 4y ago
  - mc32 4y ago
    That they might align at times with a better decision does not imply they made a logical decision. In many instances they were making emotional appeals, if I recall correctly. Also, it's to hard to imagine that any of the other Democrat candidates for president could have fared worse than Biden. Bloomberg or Bernie, I think could have done a better job so far. The others were a bit green and likely unprepared for global events, but even so, could one imagine them dong any worse? There is a fair chance they could have done better.
    - jen20 4y ago
      > Bloomberg or Bernie, I think could have done a better job so far. Assuming they had been capable of winning against Trump in the first place.
      - jack_pp 4y ago
        Why would a senile man who can barely talk straight have a better chance against Trump? If the democrats didn't fear Bernie and would've pushed him as much and as ruthlessly as they did Biden I'm pretty sure he would've won as well
        4y ago
0xbadcafebee 4y ago
Holy shit, 1000 reactors? Did anyone tell them the more reactors you have, the more likely one will melt down? (basic probability) IMO they should be used strategically, i.e. concentrated large power requirements and to lower overall emissions. You want a mix of power-generating solutions, otherwise you have a monoculture which can lead to system collapse. Right now they're short on gas, but what happens when they're short on uranium, or places to put spent fuel? You can't just spin up a new power plant over a weekend (which is their problem right now). Or if we had a supervolcano and solar went out, or if winds died down, or had a shortage of parts due to a pandemic or recession, etc. We need many solutions to cover all our bases. You spin up and down capacity in each market depending on the circumstances. This allows the lowest cost, least harmful solutions at any given time, hedges against changing market conditions, and enables emergency power relief. edit: LOL @ all the downvotes because I said a nuclear meltdown might be bad
- thrown_22 4y ago
  Chernobyl killed fewer people during the worst meltdown possible than the average coal plant kills during its lifetime of normal operation.
  - polotics 4y ago
    also talking about radioactive waste, guess what comes out of burning coal? more dangerous radioactive material than you'd expect. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-is-coal-ash-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste-and-what-is-the-exact-reason https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-is-coal-ash-more-radio...
  - 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
    I never said nuclear power plants were bad. But Chernobyl depopulated a 1,000 square mile region that will remain uninhabitable for hundreds to thousands of years. Do that a couple more times over a century in a densely populated area like Europe and see how easy it is to travel without a car made of lead, much less find a place to live.
    - 4y ago
rjzzleep 4y ago
Germany was actively trying to block labelling nuclear as green to make sure nuclear isn't eligible for subsidies [1]. France was pushing for nuclear energy to be added to the list. Nobody knows if it was just general erratic behaviour by the green party or just general hatred and jealousy towards the french. But let's also remember that France sold their turbine business due to pressure of the DoJ[2], has been talking about repatriating it[3] (which has not happened yet), but as of now has 29 out of 56 reactors out of commission and as a result, the energy powerhouse France is buying energy from Bavaria[4]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/germany-reject-eu-green-investment-label-nuclear-power-2022-05-16/ https://www.reuters.com/business/germany-reject-eu-green-inv... [2] https://www.economist.com/business/2019/01/17/how-the-american-takeover-of-a-french-national-champion-became-intertwined-in-a-corruption-investigation https://www.economist.com/business/2019/01/17/how-the-americ... [3] https://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/nucleaire/nucleaire-edf-annonce-qu-il-va-racheter-les-turbines-arabelle-de-general-electric-steam-power-20618942-8a4e-11ec-b1a4-b42f8ae3c7af https://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/nucleaire/nucleair... [4] https://www.merkur.de/bayern/atomkraftwerke-bayern-auswirkungen-preis-kosten-deutschland-frankreich-strom-gas-91651098.html https://www.merkur.de/bayern/atomkraftwerke-bayern-auswirkun...
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > Nobody knows if it was just general erratic behaviour by the green party or just general hatred and jealousy towards the french. Those are terrible explanations. There's a much simpler one: The oil and gas industry was able to corrupt Germany and not France.
  - Bayart 4y ago
    Total doesn't have a stellar reputation abroad.
- Bayart 4y ago
  French lowered production capacity at the moment is largely due to delayed inspections because of Covid.
  - 4y ago
kuratkull 4y ago
Ukraine Crisis? It's Russias War
_fat_santa 4y ago
Is it just me or does ESG feel like a giant virtue signal from companies and investors? Taking this specific issue of nuclear. Nuclear Energy is objectively cleaner than other forms of energy generation and is objectively safe if you operate it properly. With that said, it seems like Nuclear Energy would be embraced by the ESG crowd, but that simply wasn't the case. Now that the rubber met the road, the sentiment has changed. So was nuclear actually bad? Or was it just "bad". Almost seems that everyone was so obsessed with going green and getting rid of "big bad nuclear" that they forgot that they depend on it. Much like a kid quitting his job to pursue the arts and then realizing, he can't make rent without the job they just quit...
- indy 4y ago
  ESG is a tool that certain political parties can use to "give to their friends" and "take from their enemies". Anyone who doesn't toe the line will find their ESG rating dropping (see Tesla: https://theconversation.com/how-a-sustainability-index-can-keep-exxon-but-drop-tesla-and-3-ways-to-fix-esg-ratings-to-meet-investors-expectations-183705 https://theconversation.com/how-a-sustainability-index-can-k...)
  - woodpanel 4y ago
    Been criticizing Tesla for years. But once Elon openly confronted cancel culture's twitterized grip on democracy all of a sudden those criticisms became newsworthy and a concern for regulators. Same with crypto: The scammy-ness and un-pleasentness (ie of funding terrorists and organized crime) was always there, but news-worthy it got only once Canadian Truckers made use of it.
- Geee 4y ago
  Yes. It's not only virtue signaling, but a deceitful way to control policies and investments. It's not for the environment, but for power and profit.
- misterprime 4y ago
  Agreed. I'm not opposed to identifying situations where companies are getting away with something for free that they should be paying for, and then correcting that. For example, dumping chemicals into a river, or emitting toxic fumes into the air. Somehow this turned into: "only solar, wind, and thermal are good, so everything other than those are bad. We need to shut down nuclear." It would have been better if it was: "wow, these decades old designs did really well. We've learned a lot over the years, let's build newer, better, cleaner, safer nuclear plants and then shut down the old ones."
poushkar 4y ago
Calling it a "Ukraine crisis" omits mentioning Russia and the full-scale invasion of annihilation and genocide it's conducting. Please, consider calling it "Russian invasion of Ukraine" or similar. Thank you.
hash07e 4y ago
No No No. I watched for a long time Germany virtual signalling about their commitment to phase out fossil fuels all the green stuff. Then Greta BratBerg telling me I am the evil. No compromises. I am expecting germany out of ALL fussil + nuclear in 2025. If they are cold they can make some soup with chilli to warm them up.
IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
i think the change is too little, too late. Historically, nuclearprojects take in avg 7.5 years to come online. [1] Thats a long time, almost 2 full terms of a presidency (US). Plenty of time for political winds to change. Instead of relabeling a rotten apple as 'edible' to investors, the EU should put something fresh that can be quickly consumed. [1]https://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/ https://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucl...
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Your aticle explains why not: > Financial concerns may also deter investors from putting money into nuclear. Plants have vast up-front costs, and there is a long wait for profits due to lengthy development and construction times, particularly in comparison to renewables. Recent new-builds, including the Finland's Olkiluoto nuclear plant, France's Flamanville 3 and the U.K.'s Hinkley Point C, all suffered from huge delays and cost overruns. > Such issues further complicate both efforts to raise investment for nuclear and policy makers' reliance on the technology to meet environmental goals.

geostupid 4y ago

Appreciate the link to Project Independence. Despite way too many late nights reading about atomic/nuclear history, somehow I missed this one.

sdrwefgfvb 4y ago

This is yet another instance of a phenomenon: When you have good outcomes and bad outcomes, and you take some preventative measures to reduce the likelihood of bad outcomes, as time goes by people start believing that the bad outcomes don't really exist and get rid of the preventative measures. Example, energy independence from Russia and shutting down nuclear reactors. Another example, people think there's no point in taking vaccines.

TheBlight 4y ago
Not all vaccines are equal. Just like all things labeled medicine are not equal and not equally beneficial/recommended for everyone.
- tomrod 4y ago
  I took grandparent comment's reference to be the resistance to COVID-19 vaccines, which could have prevented endemic establishment in the US of COVID-19 had the GOP base adopted them quicker (along with non-pharmaceutical interventions). The mRNA vaccines are an absolute gamechanger in this space. I am glad we have the technology available. EDIT: Whoa, people surprisingly hate this comment. It's true though -- rural red counties have been hit much harder, due to demographic factors, lower vaccine uptake as well as boosting, lower access, and lower testing generally (leading to higher serology rate differentials to reported counts). The entire state of GA, for example, looks like each county has low case counts compared to the rest of the US until you realize testing there only captures 1 in 4 cases. This selective intransigence to public health measures was a problem when there was one case, and has persisted to be a problem until today.
  - TheBlight 4y ago
    Hmm. Did the GOP's reach extend to the island nation of New Zealand on the other side of the globe?
    - nxm 4y ago
      What economic and costs are you willing to pay to be on lockdown for so long?
      - TheBlight 4y ago
        "Pay" implies there was some benefit that was purchased.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      > Did the GOP's reach extend to the island nation of New Zealand on the other side of the globe? Well, yeah. New Zealand had great policies and good compliance. Then the same shitty murdoch and facebook led conspiracy theories, selfishness, and lies spread. Now they're dealing with the same issues as everyone else. Plus without the insane propaganda machine, lack of aid, and hoarding of unused vaccines we may not have even developed some of the mutations or had it become endemic in animal populations. At least people in new zealand had a chance to get fully vaccinated there and avoid the short term death toll though.
  - vanattab 4y ago
    This is false. There was no chance of ever stopping covid-19 from reaching endemic status with vaccines. Covid simply is too tranmisable and rapidly changing and spread quickly too wild animal populations such as deer. It was right to be cautious and attempt continment/eradication initially when there was still so much unknown but it's clear now we never stood a chance.
    - tomrod 4y ago
      > There was no chance of ever stopping covid-19 from reaching endemic status with vaccines >> COVID-19 vaccines, which could have prevented endemic establishment in the US of COVID-19 had the GOP base adopted them quicker _(along with non-pharmaceutical interventions)_.
- lazide 4y ago
  Most of the resistance I’ve seen against vaccines have been against ones that are highly beneficial relative to their risks. Have you seen pushback against ones that weren’t? I’ve literally seen folks push back against Tetanus, Polio, MMR, etc.
  - mbg721 4y ago
    Tetanus and polio do horrifying things to the body; measles and mumps are sort of mid-level, right? And something like chicken pox has a vaccine now, but is relatively harmless if you catch it as a child.
    - abakker 4y ago
      Chicken pox may be harmless as a child. That virus also causes shingles and that is NOT harmless as an adult. edit to add: things like HPV seem harmless, but HPV infection is linked to the vast majority of cervical cancer. Things like epstein-barr are implicated in certain cancers as well. There are no "good viruses" and just because they have mild initial symptoms does not make them harmless.
    - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
      Chicken pox vaccine prevents 8000 hospitalizations per year (in the US) https://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/vaccine-infographic.html https://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/vaccine-infographic.html. Measles vaccine prevents around 50000 hospitalizations per year.
    - kybernetikos 4y ago
      > chicken pox has a vaccine now, but is relatively harmless if you catch it as a child. I think if adults were catching a disease that took them out of action for a week in a fairly miserable way and gave them blisters that frequently ended up leaving permanent scars, we'd be taking it way more seriously. Kids don't make the decisions, and everyone remembers that they suffered through it, so kids these days should too...
      - lazide 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

jiveturkey42 4y ago

I certainly hope so. Maybe we can now move boldly forward into a nuclear future since the Boomers got cold feet about it

api 4y ago
So many things can happen when the boomers retire, including not just this but building more housing stock in insanely overpriced NIMBY cities and building public transit.
- bogantech 4y ago
  Why do people think that selfishness is quality only found in boomers? Reality check even when the boomers are all dead there's still going to be shortsighted selfish people running the show
  - jiveturkey42 4y ago
    The boomers lived through an age of unprecedented abundance, when that dries up, innovation out of necessity will trump any ideology

ihsw 4y ago

_ph_ 4y ago

No, since all currently available nuclear reactor models are way more expensive to build than renewables. And a lot of tangentials remain open. Like where to get and reprocess fuel rods? What about operational safety? And most of all, where to dump the radiactive waste? But in the end, just the price will kill them on any larger scale.

scrlk 4y ago
>And a lot of tangentials remain open. Like where to get and reprocess fuel rods? What about operational safety? And most of all, where to dump the radiactive waste? All solved issues - nuclear energy is a matter of political will at this point.
- pydry 4y ago
  If operational safety were a completely solved problem nuclear plants would be able to buy insurance without a liability cap of <0.5% of the cost of dealing with 1 fukushima. As it is, even with that subsidy financing plants is basically impossible without more subsidies. Bill Gates' new reactor startup required taxpayers to fund 50% of it to even exist.
  - scrlk 4y ago
    The reason why I believe operational safety is a solved problem: the US Navy has run reactors on board ships and submarines since the 50s, with 0 reactor accidents. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Reactors
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      And the Russians have had accidents untold. Which is run more like commercial reactors?
- _ph_ 4y ago
  No, they are not solved.

Algent 4y ago

> Since the Ukraine crisis the EU is relabeling everything ESG I remember reading about the "relabeling" long before UK crisis. It started as Germany wanting to label gas as green to defend their high interest in Russian gas and going all surprised when France pulled the "Nuclear is cleaner than gas so it's green too, right ?" card. Current crisis probably helped Nuclear to make the cut because it originally wasn't a done deal at all.

cinntaile 4y ago

> Since the Ukraine crisis the EU is relabeling everything ESG: This discussion was already happening before the war in Ukraine, it probably helped both gas and nuclear getting labeled as green though.

quadcore 4y ago

Knowing its 42°C currently in France and 40°C in UK, that we blasted previous temp records two times in two months, well I think we should make it mandatory to build reactors.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
"but those take 10 years to build, that's too long" -people telling me this 5 years ago -also people telling me the same 10 years ago -also people telling me the same 15 years ago -also people telling me te same 20 years ago -and of course, people telling me this now.
- TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
  People also tell to build wind and solar, while ignoring that those two needs to be backed up by coal and gas.
  - abakker 4y ago
    or batteries / battery analogs. It is possible to solve this problem with tools we currently have. If we're thinking long term, we do not require coal or gas for power generation given sufficient hydro, wind, solar and storage. Cryogenic air, pumped hydro, and other storage designs are possible.
    - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
      Chemical batteries are completely useless and expensive gimmick in state-wide storage of electric energy. Cost is main reason why it is cheaper to build coal/gas plant instead.
      - Pxtl 4y ago
        From what I've read batteries are the preferred option for short-term zero-emissions levelling but once you get into longer term stuff you start looking at storing compressed air or hydrogen in salt caverns. But hydrogen cracking/storage as a grid-level utility is still at the experimental stage.

api 4y ago

If we'd done what Nixon suggested climate change would probably not be a problem, as not only would we emit less than half current carbon emissions but the rest of the world would have followed and we'd have a huge nuclear power supply chain to make it easier for them to do that. We'd now be replacing gasoline and diesel with EVs and our carbon emissions would be falling rapidly. While solar and wind have advanced quite a bit to the point that they're a viable option in many regions, whether or not nuclear is at least on the table is the litmus test for whether someone actually takes climate change seriously. Anyone who dogmatically rules out nuclear either doesn't actually believe in climate change or is hopelessly ignorant. At the very least Germany and other countries should be leaving the perfectly good nuclear plants they already have online until the end of their operable life as they build out renewables and shut down coal and gas. The priority should always be shutting down fossil fuels first.

Spooky23 4y ago
Energy and politics are intertwined. Nixon’s alcoholism and mental illness took him out of the picture, and really killed the more traditional “establishment” GOP; a new generation of “conservatives” was empowered and eventually took over the GOP. Who funded these newcomers? Oil, gas and friends was a big part of it. We converted to coal instead as a result.
- JacobThreeThree 4y ago
  Oil and gas lobbyists insisted on using coal, instead of oil and gas? Was it the same lobbyists who convinced China to use coal? https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/china-starts-building-33-gw-coal-power-2021-most-since-2016-research-2022-02-24/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/china-starts-bui... Maybe coal is just a convenient energy source.
- api 4y ago
  We didn't convert to coal. It was the primary source for industry and power. We stuck with it.
  - 4y ago

mc32 4y ago

I will rail against Jane Fonda. This person is the most responsible person for the situation we're in right now. She conspired with others to derail (literally in some cases) Nuclear power. This is what happens when you follow uninformed advocates from Hollywood. People should learn to despise "influencers." They know little but aim to move people to action based on poor or very poor understanding of the things they propose and base their positions on emotion, mostly.

hammock 4y ago
- mc32 4y ago
  That they might align at times with a better decision does not imply they made a logical decision. In many instances they were making emotional appeals, if I recall correctly. Also, it's to hard to imagine that any of the other Democrat candidates for president could have fared worse than Biden. Bloomberg or Bernie, I think could have done a better job so far. The others were a bit green and likely unprepared for global events, but even so, could one imagine them dong any worse? There is a fair chance they could have done better.
  - jen20 4y ago
    > Bloomberg or Bernie, I think could have done a better job so far. Assuming they had been capable of winning against Trump in the first place.
    - jack_pp 4y ago
      Why would a senile man who can barely talk straight have a better chance against Trump? If the democrats didn't fear Bernie and would've pushed him as much and as ruthlessly as they did Biden I'm pretty sure he would've won as well
      - 4y ago

0xbadcafebee 4y ago

Holy shit, 1000 reactors? Did anyone tell them the more reactors you have, the more likely one will melt down? (basic probability) IMO they should be used strategically, i.e. concentrated large power requirements and to lower overall emissions. You want a mix of power-generating solutions, otherwise you have a monoculture which can lead to system collapse. Right now they're short on gas, but what happens when they're short on uranium, or places to put spent fuel? You can't just spin up a new power plant over a weekend (which is their problem right now). Or if we had a supervolcano and solar went out, or if winds died down, or had a shortage of parts due to a pandemic or recession, etc. We need many solutions to cover all our bases. You spin up and down capacity in each market depending on the circumstances. This allows the lowest cost, least harmful solutions at any given time, hedges against changing market conditions, and enables emergency power relief. edit: LOL @ all the downvotes because I said a nuclear meltdown might be bad

thrown_22 4y ago
Chernobyl killed fewer people during the worst meltdown possible than the average coal plant kills during its lifetime of normal operation.
- polotics 4y ago
  also talking about radioactive waste, guess what comes out of burning coal? more dangerous radioactive material than you'd expect. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-is-coal-ash-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste-and-what-is-the-exact-reason https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-is-coal-ash-more-radio...
- 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
  I never said nuclear power plants were bad. But Chernobyl depopulated a 1,000 square mile region that will remain uninhabitable for hundreds to thousands of years. Do that a couple more times over a century in a densely populated area like Europe and see how easy it is to travel without a car made of lead, much less find a place to live.
  - 4y ago

rjzzleep 4y ago

Germany was actively trying to block labelling nuclear as green to make sure nuclear isn't eligible for subsidies [1]. France was pushing for nuclear energy to be added to the list. Nobody knows if it was just general erratic behaviour by the green party or just general hatred and jealousy towards the french. But let's also remember that France sold their turbine business due to pressure of the DoJ[2], has been talking about repatriating it[3] (which has not happened yet), but as of now has 29 out of 56 reactors out of commission and as a result, the energy powerhouse France is buying energy from Bavaria[4]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/germany-reject-eu-green-investment-label-nuclear-power-2022-05-16/ https://www.reuters.com/business/germany-reject-eu-green-inv... [2] https://www.economist.com/business/2019/01/17/how-the-american-takeover-of-a-french-national-champion-became-intertwined-in-a-corruption-investigation https://www.economist.com/business/2019/01/17/how-the-americ... [3] https://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/nucleaire/nucleaire-edf-annonce-qu-il-va-racheter-les-turbines-arabelle-de-general-electric-steam-power-20618942-8a4e-11ec-b1a4-b42f8ae3c7af https://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/nucleaire/nucleair... [4] https://www.merkur.de/bayern/atomkraftwerke-bayern-auswirkungen-preis-kosten-deutschland-frankreich-strom-gas-91651098.html https://www.merkur.de/bayern/atomkraftwerke-bayern-auswirkun...

guerrilla 4y ago
> Nobody knows if it was just general erratic behaviour by the green party or just general hatred and jealousy towards the french. Those are terrible explanations. There's a much simpler one: The oil and gas industry was able to corrupt Germany and not France.
- Bayart 4y ago
  Total doesn't have a stellar reputation abroad.
Bayart 4y ago
French lowered production capacity at the moment is largely due to delayed inspections because of Covid.
- 4y ago

kuratkull 4y ago

Ukraine Crisis? It's Russias War

_fat_santa 4y ago

Is it just me or does ESG feel like a giant virtue signal from companies and investors? Taking this specific issue of nuclear. Nuclear Energy is objectively cleaner than other forms of energy generation and is objectively safe if you operate it properly. With that said, it seems like Nuclear Energy would be embraced by the ESG crowd, but that simply wasn't the case. Now that the rubber met the road, the sentiment has changed. So was nuclear actually bad? Or was it just "bad". Almost seems that everyone was so obsessed with going green and getting rid of "big bad nuclear" that they forgot that they depend on it. Much like a kid quitting his job to pursue the arts and then realizing, he can't make rent without the job they just quit...

indy 4y ago
ESG is a tool that certain political parties can use to "give to their friends" and "take from their enemies". Anyone who doesn't toe the line will find their ESG rating dropping (see Tesla: https://theconversation.com/how-a-sustainability-index-can-keep-exxon-but-drop-tesla-and-3-ways-to-fix-esg-ratings-to-meet-investors-expectations-183705 https://theconversation.com/how-a-sustainability-index-can-k...)
- woodpanel 4y ago
  Been criticizing Tesla for years. But once Elon openly confronted cancel culture's twitterized grip on democracy all of a sudden those criticisms became newsworthy and a concern for regulators. Same with crypto: The scammy-ness and un-pleasentness (ie of funding terrorists and organized crime) was always there, but news-worthy it got only once Canadian Truckers made use of it.
Geee 4y ago
Yes. It's not only virtue signaling, but a deceitful way to control policies and investments. It's not for the environment, but for power and profit.
misterprime 4y ago
Agreed. I'm not opposed to identifying situations where companies are getting away with something for free that they should be paying for, and then correcting that. For example, dumping chemicals into a river, or emitting toxic fumes into the air. Somehow this turned into: "only solar, wind, and thermal are good, so everything other than those are bad. We need to shut down nuclear." It would have been better if it was: "wow, these decades old designs did really well. We've learned a lot over the years, let's build newer, better, cleaner, safer nuclear plants and then shut down the old ones."

poushkar 4y ago

Calling it a "Ukraine crisis" omits mentioning Russia and the full-scale invasion of annihilation and genocide it's conducting. Please, consider calling it "Russian invasion of Ukraine" or similar. Thank you.

hash07e 4y ago

No No No. I watched for a long time Germany virtual signalling about their commitment to phase out fossil fuels all the green stuff. Then Greta BratBerg telling me I am the evil. No compromises. I am expecting germany out of ALL fussil + nuclear in 2025. If they are cold they can make some soup with chilli to warm them up.

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago

i think the change is too little, too late. Historically, nuclearprojects take in avg 7.5 years to come online. [1] Thats a long time, almost 2 full terms of a presidency (US). Plenty of time for political winds to change. Instead of relabeling a rotten apple as 'edible' to investors, the EU should put something fresh that can be quickly consumed. [1]https://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/ https://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucl...

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Your aticle explains why not: > Financial concerns may also deter investors from putting money into nuclear. Plants have vast up-front costs, and there is a long wait for profits due to lengthy development and construction times, particularly in comparison to renewables. Recent new-builds, including the Finland's Olkiluoto nuclear plant, France's Flamanville 3 and the U.K.'s Hinkley Point C, all suffered from huge delays and cost overruns. > Such issues further complicate both efforts to raise investment for nuclear and policy makers' reliance on the technology to meet environmental goals.