4 ms·

and is a way to significantly reduce dependence on fundamentally authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, etc. One of the reasons France is li

by option 3y ago

and is a way to significantly reduce dependence on fundamentally authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, etc. One of the reasons France is like 75% nuclear generation was response to arab oil crisis in 70ies

mdp2021 3y ago
It seems Uranium has varied sources: Kazakhstan (dominantly), then Namibia, Canada, Australia, Uzbekistan, Russia, Niger, China, India. The USA also have it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Uranium_Mining_Production_2021.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Uranium_Mining_Prod... I am not sure what other "consumables" are involved.
lispm 3y ago
Europe has a large dependence on Russia for nuclear technology. There are also Russian reactors in Europe. The countries who currently lead the deployment of nuclear technology are China and Russia, two authoritarian countries. https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-just-cant-quit-russia-for-nuclear-power/ https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-just-cant-quit-russia...
- mdp2021 3y ago
  > Europe has a large dependence on Russia for nuclear technology. There are also Russian reactors in Europe That seems to be a legacy, not a necessary constraint.
  - lispm 3y ago
    That authoritarian countries are the main deployers and providers of nuclear is no surprise. The central government decides and there is no opposition. In most democratic countries nuclear is not competitive in the market anymore. For a country like Russia it's much easier to sell nuclear cheap into the market: they want to make European countries dependent on their energy delivery. Western countries have much higher technology standards and with market prices they are not competitive.
    - jpgvm 3y ago
      It can be competitive, it's not politically tenable. Because it's not politically tenable it can't be allowed to be commercially competitive, the forces raising the prices will simply increase until it's priced out - such is the way of politics.
      - lispm 3y ago
        > It can be competitive, Not without market intervention of the government. In France the nuclear industry (EDF) is state owned. > it's not politically tenable. France. Pro nuclear country with a large fleet of aging reactors. -> huge costs of maintaining the reactors, large parts of the fleet is offline in the last months, building reactors is extremely costly and takes a long time, industry had to be rescued by the government.
  - jpgvm 3y ago
    Where else are you going to go though? Germany threw in the towel, nuclear has been stagnant in France and USA for decades. Maybe Sweden/Finland? They do it but slowly, expensively and are a whole generation behind. That leaves you with China. Which from an objective/technical standpoint is actually excellent because their current designs are extremely good. However it's probably not tenable for the West to procure nuclear technology from China. Not that China wouldn't sell them plants, they almost certainly would, China has no qualms sharing civilian tech but the West couldn't stomach it geopolitically. Which sadly is going to be the state of affairs for all cutting edge green energy tech. While the rest of the world was sucking off special interests in the fossil fuels industry China was taking it's pledge to be carbon neutral by 2060 extremely seriously. This means China is now leading across the board in solar, wind, batteries, hydro, EVs, high speed rail and importantly nuclear. Sad state of affairs for the West all things considered. We had first mover advantage in all of those fields and pissed it away for a few decades of investors profits and executive bonuses.
    - lispm 3y ago
      China especially leads the deployment of coal power plants. Two new blocks of coal power plants are getting online every week.
      - jpgvm 3y ago
        Sure but -also- all the other things. The fact they are still building coal because they literally can't build everything else fast enough doesn't invalidate their leadership in all the more advanced technology.
        lispm 3y ago
        Is it leadership or just lower requirements, no rule of law and suppression of any opposition (political or technological)? It's easier to build reactors when there are no environmental/safety/security concerns voiced, because those voice end up in prisons. China also builds up its coal power plants with high speed, while knowing that its air is already extremely polluted. Environmental concerns generally don't seem to be a priority. Each reactor built inside the country will heat up or dry the rivers, due to cooling requirements. Such a number of thermal power plants (coal and nuclear) will kill life in these rivers, when they return warm water into the rivers. Is safety of these reactors also on this level of environmental neglect?
- option 3y ago
  Finland seems to have no issues launching nuclear without russians. But you are right, Russia is big on nuclear. They are authoritarian but are not stupid.
  - lispm 3y ago
    If they were 'not stupid' they wouldn't have invaded Ukraine and caused a massive reaction in Europe for independence of Russian energy. If they were 'not stupid' and 'not evil', they wouldn't attack a nuclear power plant in the Ukraine. Russia is both stupid and evil with its current invasion of its neighbor country. The amount of environmental damage caused by this war is extremely high. Russian nuclear technology also does not take care of the environment and the population. Problematic reactors are being built near large cities.
    - option 3y ago
      you are making a stupid mistake 99% of Westerners make when dealing with Russia. You are projecting your values and rationality on them. I am actually from Ukraine, my family is still there and I now leave in USA. I hate russian gov just as much or more as any normal human being. The Western view is that West and Ukraine are winning because of costs russian people and army are suffering. But another view, closer to ru gov values is that ru gained significant territory while Ukraine lost it since Feb 22. You make think it is stupid and is definitely below their original goal, but it is non-trivial “gain” towards what they care about.
      - lispm 3y ago
        I don't talk about winning. Russia lost almost all political influence in Europe. In exchange for small parts of the Ukraine which are now minefields. > their original goal Their original goal was to conquer the whole of the Ukraine in a few days. What happened was that the parts they have conquered are destroyed. They lost >100k soldiers (dead or wounded). They exposed their military capabilities to be way worse than claimed. They exposed their intelligence service, the military and the government to be even more incompetent than thought. They gave NATO a welcome boost with lots of investments, new members, a common enemy. They lost large parts of the European market for import and export. Russia beamed itself twenty years backwards. How stupid is that?

by option 3y ago

mdp2021 3y ago

It seems Uranium has varied sources: Kazakhstan (dominantly), then Namibia, Canada, Australia, Uzbekistan, Russia, Niger, China, India. The USA also have it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Uranium_Mining_Production_2021.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Uranium_Mining_Prod... I am not sure what other "consumables" are involved.

lispm 3y ago

Europe has a large dependence on Russia for nuclear technology. There are also Russian reactors in Europe. The countries who currently lead the deployment of nuclear technology are China and Russia, two authoritarian countries. https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-just-cant-quit-russia-for-nuclear-power/ https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-just-cant-quit-russia...

mdp2021 3y ago
> Europe has a large dependence on Russia for nuclear technology. There are also Russian reactors in Europe That seems to be a legacy, not a necessary constraint.
- lispm 3y ago
  That authoritarian countries are the main deployers and providers of nuclear is no surprise. The central government decides and there is no opposition. In most democratic countries nuclear is not competitive in the market anymore. For a country like Russia it's much easier to sell nuclear cheap into the market: they want to make European countries dependent on their energy delivery. Western countries have much higher technology standards and with market prices they are not competitive.
  - jpgvm 3y ago
    It can be competitive, it's not politically tenable. Because it's not politically tenable it can't be allowed to be commercially competitive, the forces raising the prices will simply increase until it's priced out - such is the way of politics.
    - lispm 3y ago
      > It can be competitive, Not without market intervention of the government. In France the nuclear industry (EDF) is state owned. > it's not politically tenable. France. Pro nuclear country with a large fleet of aging reactors. -> huge costs of maintaining the reactors, large parts of the fleet is offline in the last months, building reactors is extremely costly and takes a long time, industry had to be rescued by the government.
- jpgvm 3y ago
  Where else are you going to go though? Germany threw in the towel, nuclear has been stagnant in France and USA for decades. Maybe Sweden/Finland? They do it but slowly, expensively and are a whole generation behind. That leaves you with China. Which from an objective/technical standpoint is actually excellent because their current designs are extremely good. However it's probably not tenable for the West to procure nuclear technology from China. Not that China wouldn't sell them plants, they almost certainly would, China has no qualms sharing civilian tech but the West couldn't stomach it geopolitically. Which sadly is going to be the state of affairs for all cutting edge green energy tech. While the rest of the world was sucking off special interests in the fossil fuels industry China was taking it's pledge to be carbon neutral by 2060 extremely seriously. This means China is now leading across the board in solar, wind, batteries, hydro, EVs, high speed rail and importantly nuclear. Sad state of affairs for the West all things considered. We had first mover advantage in all of those fields and pissed it away for a few decades of investors profits and executive bonuses.
  - lispm 3y ago
    China especially leads the deployment of coal power plants. Two new blocks of coal power plants are getting online every week.
    - jpgvm 3y ago
      Sure but -also- all the other things. The fact they are still building coal because they literally can't build everything else fast enough doesn't invalidate their leadership in all the more advanced technology.
      - lispm 3y ago
        Is it leadership or just lower requirements, no rule of law and suppression of any opposition (political or technological)? It's easier to build reactors when there are no environmental/safety/security concerns voiced, because those voice end up in prisons. China also builds up its coal power plants with high speed, while knowing that its air is already extremely polluted. Environmental concerns generally don't seem to be a priority. Each reactor built inside the country will heat up or dry the rivers, due to cooling requirements. Such a number of thermal power plants (coal and nuclear) will kill life in these rivers, when they return warm water into the rivers. Is safety of these reactors also on this level of environmental neglect?
option 3y ago
Finland seems to have no issues launching nuclear without russians. But you are right, Russia is big on nuclear. They are authoritarian but are not stupid.
- lispm 3y ago
  If they were 'not stupid' they wouldn't have invaded Ukraine and caused a massive reaction in Europe for independence of Russian energy. If they were 'not stupid' and 'not evil', they wouldn't attack a nuclear power plant in the Ukraine. Russia is both stupid and evil with its current invasion of its neighbor country. The amount of environmental damage caused by this war is extremely high. Russian nuclear technology also does not take care of the environment and the population. Problematic reactors are being built near large cities.
  - option 3y ago
    you are making a stupid mistake 99% of Westerners make when dealing with Russia. You are projecting your values and rationality on them. I am actually from Ukraine, my family is still there and I now leave in USA. I hate russian gov just as much or more as any normal human being. The Western view is that West and Ukraine are winning because of costs russian people and army are suffering. But another view, closer to ru gov values is that ru gained significant territory while Ukraine lost it since Feb 22. You make think it is stupid and is definitely below their original goal, but it is non-trivial “gain” towards what they care about.
    - lispm 3y ago
      I don't talk about winning. Russia lost almost all political influence in Europe. In exchange for small parts of the Ukraine which are now minefields. > their original goal Their original goal was to conquer the whole of the Ukraine in a few days. What happened was that the parts they have conquered are destroyed. They lost >100k soldiers (dead or wounded). They exposed their military capabilities to be way worse than claimed. They exposed their intelligence service, the military and the government to be even more incompetent than thought. They gave NATO a welcome boost with lots of investments, new members, a common enemy. They lost large parts of the European market for import and export. Russia beamed itself twenty years backwards. How stupid is that?