4 ms·

> a totally idiotic anti-nuclear popular vote happen Pro-Nukes like to focus on NIMBYs and fools in fear of radiation, and ignore what the problem with nuclear

> a totally idiotic anti-nuclear popular vote happen Pro-Nukes like to focus on NIMBYs and fools in fear of radiation, and ignore what the problem with nuclear power actually is and has always been: economic. The fact of the matter is nuclear power has never, never ever, been profitable, and it has nothing to do with regulations. Fission is the singular most expensive way to generate electricity, and always has been. Only nations could develop nuclear power, paid for by taxes, and the return on the investment was never realized. Investors are only interested in reaping the benefits of charging for electricity, and leave governments and tax payers holding the bag when it comes time to decommission and to deal with the waste, which includes very expensive security. And these days, it costs $10B just to build a nuclear plant before any electricity is generated, and that's just construction costs. The solution is quite simple, my friend: make nuclear power profitable, make it competitive with alternative energies, and you can have a nuke plant in every major city in the world. That's really all you need to do, investors will take care of everything else. But until you do, do not expect any investors to appear and throw their massive capital down the drain just so you can have outrageously expensive electicity.

dashundchen 4y ago
I agree with this. I don't know why people somehow blame the lack of new nuclear energy in the US on environmental groups. Environmentalism in the US the past 50 years certainly hasn't been able to stop energy interests from exploiting coal, oil and then natural gas after phasing out coal. Were nuclear power to be comparable in price I would have no doubt it would have been built. Though environmentalists have pushed a long time for renewables (and certainly were a force pushing for research to be funded) it wasn't until solar and wind prices started the s-curve of price improvements til we saw big installations.
panick21_ 4y ago
First of all, the anti-nuclear vote was incredibly dumb whether you decide to build a new nuclear plant or not. Note, this was not a vote for or against a nuclear power plant, rather it was a general popular vote against nuclear power for now particular reason. That nuclear is expensive is also nonsense. France had incredibly cheap electricity prices for 50 years and most of that was paid for by their cheap electricity prices. Even during the recent crisis while Germany is struggling and dropping 100s of millions in support, France still has cheap electricity. In fact, if you take the price of recently built South Korean reactors, turning the whole German grid 100% nuclear, including cheap long term electricity prices, would cost around 250-300 billion $ conservatively. That is less then Germany is currently planning to spend in support, completely outside of all the cost of the 'Grünewende' over the last 20 years and the next 20 years. When you actually calculate the cost of a society going to green electricity, 0 to 100%, nuclear is by far the best option and in reality its the only option that has proven to work for a modern industrial society. > The fact of the matter is nuclear power has never, never ever, been profitable A number of issues with this. First of all, all power supply in Europe is managed by government and profitability is not really the goal. If you can produce it cheaply, people just pay less. Therefore success in European energy policy is price paid by consumers. And in so far as that, places with well run nuclear operations have long term fix cheap electricity prices. Switzerland has not build a new nuclear reactor in many decades, and yet people living around those reactors are still receiving cheap power and will continue to do so for decades to come. Further, when wind and solar became to be pushed, it was certainty no profitable in the way you suggest. In fact the opposite, it took decades, and was supported by government policies all over the western world and china. The boom in roof solar in the US was directly driven by government support and collapsed after. Much installation of solar/wind happened because of government mandates to have a certain % of renewable electricity. At the same time, when renewables were introduced, basically all countries just pretended that intermittency wasn't a thing and put no value on base energy supply. In the US, solar companies made money even when producing energy when price was 0. I can go threw many more examples, in France for example the government forced the profitable utility (because of nuclear) to invest in solar (and also gas and other fossil). The simple fact is, solar and wind were pushed in Europe and the United states as a point of principle, when it started it was very much not about profitability, and many decisions were made to support that deployment. This overtime lowered the price of the these deployments. Nuclear was often explicitly excluded from all these benefits, despite being just as green. In fact we had the opposite, where most western governments did their best to utterly destroy nuclear and trying to give them every disadvantage. In Germany and other places like Belgium nuclear was planned to be phased out. In France in 2015 they literally decided to start shutting down large parts of their fleet by 2025. Had we spend the last couple decades using every possible means to push nuclear we would have seen a different result. Had we simply picked 1 type of reactor and with the EU planned to build 100 of those across Europe, we would have spent less money for a much better result. As France proved in the 70/80s, as soon as you mass produce these, you can do it quickly and cheaply. > And these days, it costs $10B just to build a nuclear plant before any electricity is generated, and that's just construction costs. UAE just build 4xARP-1400 for US$24.4 billion. That is in a country with no existing infrastructure and no knowlage base. Yes, if you build a one time specific reactor it might cost 10 billion, but as we can see in the UAE example, with each one you build them faster and cheaper. If Europe would just build many ARP-1400, soon the per unit cost would be very small. As France has shown in 70/80s, you can easily finish 5 reactors per year and build them within 5 years. If we as a society are actually serious and want to quickly move have 100% green grid, nuclear is the logical conclusion. Its not expensive, in fact its the opposite, its the most efficient. It has the least amount of resources used, the least amount of land, its the cleanest and the most reliable. Your whole perspective acts as if energy is some kind of free market, when in effect literally every where around the globe it actually isn't, it is about politics. Your narrow minded profit focused perspective is just ignorant of the reality of global energy policy. And even if it were true that nuclear was more expensive, for Switzerland it would still make sense. Other nations can use energy policy to put pressure on us. Having reliable local electricity at slightly higher cost is still beneficial.
- pydry 4y ago
  >That nuclear is expensive is also nonsense. France had incredibly cheap electricity prices for 50 years and most of that was Was thanks initially to lavish state subsidies and subsequently lax maintenance of their reactor fleet which meant that their reactors kept being shut down for maintenance. EDF is now basically bankrupt and France is building a ton of new reactors at eye watering expense which still won't be enough to replace all the reactors that have aged out. Theyre officially hoping solar and wind can make up the difference. The nuclear industry can only function with lavish state subsidies and those subsidies are only provided by states that need an industrial backing for their nuclear military or who have a strong desire for a nuclear option (Iran, south Korea, Sweden).
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    French state deliberately didn't want to pay much so the utility actually sold bonds in the US. Actually most of the cost ended up on the books of the utility and was paid off with the money gathered from rate payers of the last 50 years. The idea that the French nuclear reactors are aging out is nonsense. The French government for the last 30 years has taken nuclear for granted and have not done any maintenance and they are treating their reactor pretty badly. In 2015 they literally wanted to force the whole fleet down and basically prevented maintenance on reactors. Worse then that, the French government literally forced the utility to invest large amounts of money in solar, that introduced grid instability that then again the French nuclear fleet had to manage. Next the French also forced the utility to sell huge amounts of nuclear capacity to fossil fuel power so they could use it for stability. Then when the energy crisis hit, the utility was forced to buy it back at absurd prices. This cost them billions, all on the back of the nuclear fleet. The French treat their nuclear reactor fleet like the giving tree. They were spoiled from what was done in the 70-90s and then basically turned anti-nuclear, failing to make any progress. They completely stopped building new plants, and lost all that knowlage. The french energy and British minister even both lied to their own governments to get both governments to not support nuclear and they were proud of it (they should go to prison for that). And of course instead of building next generation reactors that had the potential to be cheaper, the French left killed that reactor and now they are back building PWRs. The French fleet suffers from 30 years of mismanagement but the reality of the situation is that France is in a much better place then anybody. Nuclear has given them 50 years of low energy prices. Even if you assume that the government spend some money in the 70s, the idea that this was not worth it is absurd. 50 years without coal dust in the air, 50 years of stable electricity, 50 years of low prices. Nuclear paid of for France in a big way. The French fleet still has huge potential, its not aging out. PWR can run 80-100 years just fine. Some US plants are being certified for 80 years now and there is no indication that extension to 100 years is not possible. If they just did some basic steps that have been done in most other countries, they could increase capacity to 95+% and they could increase output by 15%. Even Germany did those things (ironically the Germans were actually much better at running nuclear plants). That is 30 years of neglect by French government and their idiotic anti-nuclear policies. Instead of building intermittent solar, an utterly idiotic idea that will just hurt the reactor fleet. They should simply upgrade their existing fleet and start a program to build 10 extra reactor. If they actually did that, like the did in the 70s, starting many reactors in a short timespan it would be fine. As the example (that you conveniently ignore) in UEA shows. The first one is painful, after that you finish them faster and faster. In fact, with Poland, the Baltics, and Sweden and potentially other nations turning pro nuclear now, they could likely make a European agreement to build a whole bunch of new reactors. Poland alone need like 30 reactors and nuclear is the only way forward for Poland, and the Polish government has started to realize that. You point out the French problems, but you ignore the many 100s of billions that Germany is now paying to shield its economy. And you still trying to tell me nuclear is a bad deal, that laughable. Being one of the states with nuclear in Europe is vastly better then being without, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland.

dashundchen 4y ago

I agree with this. I don't know why people somehow blame the lack of new nuclear energy in the US on environmental groups. Environmentalism in the US the past 50 years certainly hasn't been able to stop energy interests from exploiting coal, oil and then natural gas after phasing out coal. Were nuclear power to be comparable in price I would have no doubt it would have been built. Though environmentalists have pushed a long time for renewables (and certainly were a force pushing for research to be funded) it wasn't until solar and wind prices started the s-curve of price improvements til we saw big installations.

panick21_ 4y ago

First of all, the anti-nuclear vote was incredibly dumb whether you decide to build a new nuclear plant or not. Note, this was not a vote for or against a nuclear power plant, rather it was a general popular vote against nuclear power for now particular reason. That nuclear is expensive is also nonsense. France had incredibly cheap electricity prices for 50 years and most of that was paid for by their cheap electricity prices. Even during the recent crisis while Germany is struggling and dropping 100s of millions in support, France still has cheap electricity. In fact, if you take the price of recently built South Korean reactors, turning the whole German grid 100% nuclear, including cheap long term electricity prices, would cost around 250-300 billion $ conservatively. That is less then Germany is currently planning to spend in support, completely outside of all the cost of the 'Grünewende' over the last 20 years and the next 20 years. When you actually calculate the cost of a society going to green electricity, 0 to 100%, nuclear is by far the best option and in reality its the only option that has proven to work for a modern industrial society. > The fact of the matter is nuclear power has never, never ever, been profitable A number of issues with this. First of all, all power supply in Europe is managed by government and profitability is not really the goal. If you can produce it cheaply, people just pay less. Therefore success in European energy policy is price paid by consumers. And in so far as that, places with well run nuclear operations have long term fix cheap electricity prices. Switzerland has not build a new nuclear reactor in many decades, and yet people living around those reactors are still receiving cheap power and will continue to do so for decades to come. Further, when wind and solar became to be pushed, it was certainty no profitable in the way you suggest. In fact the opposite, it took decades, and was supported by government policies all over the western world and china. The boom in roof solar in the US was directly driven by government support and collapsed after. Much installation of solar/wind happened because of government mandates to have a certain % of renewable electricity. At the same time, when renewables were introduced, basically all countries just pretended that intermittency wasn't a thing and put no value on base energy supply. In the US, solar companies made money even when producing energy when price was 0. I can go threw many more examples, in France for example the government forced the profitable utility (because of nuclear) to invest in solar (and also gas and other fossil). The simple fact is, solar and wind were pushed in Europe and the United states as a point of principle, when it started it was very much not about profitability, and many decisions were made to support that deployment. This overtime lowered the price of the these deployments. Nuclear was often explicitly excluded from all these benefits, despite being just as green. In fact we had the opposite, where most western governments did their best to utterly destroy nuclear and trying to give them every disadvantage. In Germany and other places like Belgium nuclear was planned to be phased out. In France in 2015 they literally decided to start shutting down large parts of their fleet by 2025. Had we spend the last couple decades using every possible means to push nuclear we would have seen a different result. Had we simply picked 1 type of reactor and with the EU planned to build 100 of those across Europe, we would have spent less money for a much better result. As France proved in the 70/80s, as soon as you mass produce these, you can do it quickly and cheaply. > And these days, it costs $10B just to build a nuclear plant before any electricity is generated, and that's just construction costs. UAE just build 4xARP-1400 for US$24.4 billion. That is in a country with no existing infrastructure and no knowlage base. Yes, if you build a one time specific reactor it might cost 10 billion, but as we can see in the UAE example, with each one you build them faster and cheaper. If Europe would just build many ARP-1400, soon the per unit cost would be very small. As France has shown in 70/80s, you can easily finish 5 reactors per year and build them within 5 years. If we as a society are actually serious and want to quickly move have 100% green grid, nuclear is the logical conclusion. Its not expensive, in fact its the opposite, its the most efficient. It has the least amount of resources used, the least amount of land, its the cleanest and the most reliable. Your whole perspective acts as if energy is some kind of free market, when in effect literally every where around the globe it actually isn't, it is about politics. Your narrow minded profit focused perspective is just ignorant of the reality of global energy policy. And even if it were true that nuclear was more expensive, for Switzerland it would still make sense. Other nations can use energy policy to put pressure on us. Having reliable local electricity at slightly higher cost is still beneficial.

pydry 4y ago
>That nuclear is expensive is also nonsense. France had incredibly cheap electricity prices for 50 years and most of that was Was thanks initially to lavish state subsidies and subsequently lax maintenance of their reactor fleet which meant that their reactors kept being shut down for maintenance. EDF is now basically bankrupt and France is building a ton of new reactors at eye watering expense which still won't be enough to replace all the reactors that have aged out. Theyre officially hoping solar and wind can make up the difference. The nuclear industry can only function with lavish state subsidies and those subsidies are only provided by states that need an industrial backing for their nuclear military or who have a strong desire for a nuclear option (Iran, south Korea, Sweden).
- panick21_ 4y ago
  French state deliberately didn't want to pay much so the utility actually sold bonds in the US. Actually most of the cost ended up on the books of the utility and was paid off with the money gathered from rate payers of the last 50 years. The idea that the French nuclear reactors are aging out is nonsense. The French government for the last 30 years has taken nuclear for granted and have not done any maintenance and they are treating their reactor pretty badly. In 2015 they literally wanted to force the whole fleet down and basically prevented maintenance on reactors. Worse then that, the French government literally forced the utility to invest large amounts of money in solar, that introduced grid instability that then again the French nuclear fleet had to manage. Next the French also forced the utility to sell huge amounts of nuclear capacity to fossil fuel power so they could use it for stability. Then when the energy crisis hit, the utility was forced to buy it back at absurd prices. This cost them billions, all on the back of the nuclear fleet. The French treat their nuclear reactor fleet like the giving tree. They were spoiled from what was done in the 70-90s and then basically turned anti-nuclear, failing to make any progress. They completely stopped building new plants, and lost all that knowlage. The french energy and British minister even both lied to their own governments to get both governments to not support nuclear and they were proud of it (they should go to prison for that). And of course instead of building next generation reactors that had the potential to be cheaper, the French left killed that reactor and now they are back building PWRs. The French fleet suffers from 30 years of mismanagement but the reality of the situation is that France is in a much better place then anybody. Nuclear has given them 50 years of low energy prices. Even if you assume that the government spend some money in the 70s, the idea that this was not worth it is absurd. 50 years without coal dust in the air, 50 years of stable electricity, 50 years of low prices. Nuclear paid of for France in a big way. The French fleet still has huge potential, its not aging out. PWR can run 80-100 years just fine. Some US plants are being certified for 80 years now and there is no indication that extension to 100 years is not possible. If they just did some basic steps that have been done in most other countries, they could increase capacity to 95+% and they could increase output by 15%. Even Germany did those things (ironically the Germans were actually much better at running nuclear plants). That is 30 years of neglect by French government and their idiotic anti-nuclear policies. Instead of building intermittent solar, an utterly idiotic idea that will just hurt the reactor fleet. They should simply upgrade their existing fleet and start a program to build 10 extra reactor. If they actually did that, like the did in the 70s, starting many reactors in a short timespan it would be fine. As the example (that you conveniently ignore) in UEA shows. The first one is painful, after that you finish them faster and faster. In fact, with Poland, the Baltics, and Sweden and potentially other nations turning pro nuclear now, they could likely make a European agreement to build a whole bunch of new reactors. Poland alone need like 30 reactors and nuclear is the only way forward for Poland, and the Polish government has started to realize that. You point out the French problems, but you ignore the many 100s of billions that Germany is now paying to shield its economy. And you still trying to tell me nuclear is a bad deal, that laughable. Being one of the states with nuclear in Europe is vastly better then being without, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland.