4 ms·

Yet another lie and attempt to derail from the point. Political centralisation, not physical. You can build a 1GW renewable plant and connect it to a transmiss

Yet another lie and attempt to derail from the point. Political centralisation, not physical. You can build a 1GW renewable plant and connect it to a transmission line just fine, but much more importantly anyone can build one. There's no way 50% of the world will be allowed their own enrichment or reprocessing facilities. And even in the ones that are allowed, the process is necessarily under extreme regulatory capture and is controlled by a cartel that makes oil look like a free market. Rosatom had to be exempted from sanctions because the fuel and waste processing supply chains are so centralised that over half of Europe's nuclear fleet would have shut down if they didn't do businessnwith Russia.

Manuel_D 4y ago
Highlighting the (potential) benefits of political decentralization does not detract from the downsides of geographic decentralization. Regardless, plenty of smaller countries manage to get along with nuclear power just fine. Slovakia, Korea, Canada, the Czech republic, Argentina. Nuclear power has spread to every content, and dozens of countries. Centralizing reprocessing may help with nuclear weapons proliferation, but most countries have a regional hegemon that already have nuclear weapons that they're fine importing from. How big was the business with Rosatom compared with Germany importing gas from Gazprom because they invested in an intermittent power source? China accounts for nearly 80% of the world's battery supply chain [1]. And over 80% for solar panels [2]. There's a strong case to be made that renewable are more centralized: besides wind it's just one country dominating the whole market. The enriched uranium supply is actually much more diverse: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1147358/leading-enriched-uranium-exporting-countries-based-on-value/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1147358/leading-enriched... 1. https://www.onecharge.biz/blog/how-china-came-to-dominate-the-market-for-lithium-batteries-and-why-the-u-s-cannot-copy-their-model/ https://www.onecharge.biz/blog/how-china-came-to-dominate-th... 2. https://www.iea.org/reports/solar-pv-global-supply-chains/executive-summary https://www.iea.org/reports/solar-pv-global-supply-chains/ex...
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  "What about Gazprom" falls flat when Gazprom was sanctioned and Rosatom was not. No-one is claiming gas is better. I'm claiming we should do the thing which reduces the total amount of gas needed most quickly. Which is wind and solar. As to China, the barriers to developing a renewable industry are vastly smaller than building a nuclear industry (as evidenced by Europe not sanctioning Rosatom but building new solar production, wind, and battery capacity). Whether or not it's necessary, it remains true that when some countries try building their own infrastructure, they get it blown up by state sponsored terrorists https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

Manuel_D 4y ago

Highlighting the (potential) benefits of political decentralization does not detract from the downsides of geographic decentralization. Regardless, plenty of smaller countries manage to get along with nuclear power just fine. Slovakia, Korea, Canada, the Czech republic, Argentina. Nuclear power has spread to every content, and dozens of countries. Centralizing reprocessing may help with nuclear weapons proliferation, but most countries have a regional hegemon that already have nuclear weapons that they're fine importing from. How big was the business with Rosatom compared with Germany importing gas from Gazprom because they invested in an intermittent power source? China accounts for nearly 80% of the world's battery supply chain [1]. And over 80% for solar panels [2]. There's a strong case to be made that renewable are more centralized: besides wind it's just one country dominating the whole market. The enriched uranium supply is actually much more diverse: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1147358/leading-enriched-uranium-exporting-countries-based-on-value/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1147358/leading-enriched... 1. https://www.onecharge.biz/blog/how-china-came-to-dominate-the-market-for-lithium-batteries-and-why-the-u-s-cannot-copy-their-model/ https://www.onecharge.biz/blog/how-china-came-to-dominate-th... 2. https://www.iea.org/reports/solar-pv-global-supply-chains/executive-summary https://www.iea.org/reports/solar-pv-global-supply-chains/ex...

Schroedingersat 4y ago
"What about Gazprom" falls flat when Gazprom was sanctioned and Rosatom was not. No-one is claiming gas is better. I'm claiming we should do the thing which reduces the total amount of gas needed most quickly. Which is wind and solar. As to China, the barriers to developing a renewable industry are vastly smaller than building a nuclear industry (as evidenced by Europe not sanctioning Rosatom but building new solar production, wind, and battery capacity). Whether or not it's necessary, it remains true that when some countries try building their own infrastructure, they get it blown up by state sponsored terrorists https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet