6 ms·

This sheer ignorance around nuclear energy is the main reason I'm happy it already peaked in the Western World and is replaced by safe and clean renewable energ

This sheer ignorance around nuclear energy is the main reason I'm happy it already peaked in the Western World and is replaced by safe and clean renewable energies. I mean, you don't even have to look far these days. It's Finland. You know...the country just around the corner of our old and new arch enemy, Russia. And you want to create an additional target for sabotage? Also, you're talking about wasting money? Reprocessing is hilariously expensive, and they don't even have a facility. No country in the Western World will ever build one again because it's not worth it. You're still producing a bit less radioactive material in this expensive process, which has to be stored. The end product is more expensive than new fuel. It's a completely useless circle. Especially for Finland, which has a hole dug up already. The whole nuclear energy project is a waste of money. Especially taxpayer money. The technology is overdue. New ones are here already. They are cheaper, faster to build, and they are actually getting better all the time. Unlike nuclear, which Finland had to shut down recently because it just wasn't worth the money to keep it running...

paavope 3y ago
> Unlike nuclear, which Finland had to shut down recently because it just wasn't worth the money to keep it running... What are you referring to here? Nuclear power has not been shut down here in Finland to my knowledge. There have been times when production has been scaled down because there is temporarily excess energy available, when it is windy (turbines produce more) and warm (warming uses less), but that is a temporary situation.
- Krasnol 3y ago
  > There have been times when production has been scaled down because there is temporarily excess energy available, when it is windy (turbines produce more) and warm (warming uses less), but that is a temporary situation. This is what I meant, excuse my wrong wording, implying that you could shut down a reactor just like that only because the prices for energy doesn't justify to keep it running at all. Something which is quite nice to have these days with all those cheap renewable energies producing that "excess" energy.
panick21_ 3y ago
This has to be repeated again and again. Civilian nuclear waste isn't really a good great target for sabotage. There are 1000 places to attack that are far cheaper and have higher effect. > Reprocessing is hilariously expensive, and they don't even have a facility. So you know about every form of re-procession that will ever be invented and already know the associated costs. > No country in the Western World will ever build one again Canada is planning one right now to reprocess spend CANDU fuel. > The end product is more expensive than new fuel. This equation changes if you add the cost of storage facility the new fuel as well. > Especially taxpayer money. Finnland even with its very expensive new reactor now produces stable green energy and this reactor captial investment will pay off 80-100 years. > Finland had to shut down Funny how Finalnd with lots of nuclear has far greener energy with less money investment then Germany. Finland didn't make a 20 year propaganda campaign to claim they are so great and green, they just build a reactor and are fine now. If you shit on a nuclear reactor for being turned off, boy I have news for you about wind and solar. Lets actually look at data rather then what lives in your imagination: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map https://app.electricitymaps.com/map Mhh look at that Finland has green energy thanks to nuclear power. You can do the math. Had Germany started building nuclear reactors, even with conservative cost estimate. Nuclear would have been a far better deal then the 'Energiewende' they actually did. Starting in 2000 building nuclear reactors at rates like France did in the 70/80s would have lead to a far, far greener grid then they have now. My calculation result in about 4-5% of debt to GDP increase for a full build-out to 100% nuclear energy starting in 2020. And those reactors would last 60-100 years. Unlike the investments they actually did, lots of wind turbines and solar that have to be replaced 2 times over until then. Nuclear for France has been on of the best public investments ever done. Minimal impact on taxes and cheap long term stable fuel prices for literally half a century.
- Krasnol 3y ago
  > This has to be repeated again and again. Civilian nuclear waste isn't really a good great target for sabotage. There are 1000 places to attack that are far cheaper and have higher effect. Sure...there is the nuclear reactor around the corner... What is this sentence even based upon? Do you have some strategic study on that? Because they're investing a hell lot of money to protect that stuff. > So you know about every form of re-procession that will ever be invented and already know the associated costs. Please tell me of that magic forms of reprocessing which are somewhere even at the far horizon. > Canada is planning one right now to reprocess spend CANDU fuel. There is a lot "in planning" and has been for decades, not much came of it. Even with those reactors currently being build...besides rising costs of course. > This equation changes if you add the cost of storage facility the new fuel as well. How does it if nobody wants to buy your overpriced fuel you still have to mix with actual fresh fuel which you can get cheaper? Do you want to force them to take it after you wasted so much money on it? To what end? It doesn't go away. You'll still have to store it in the end, just like the stuff which gets created during the process. The process actually generates more stuff you have to store... > Finnland even with its very expensive new reactor now produces stable green energy and this reactor captial investment will pay off 80-100 years. The fact that they already had to reduce output because the actual price on the market is far below what they produce already shows that it will take much longer. Longer then the thing will run. > Funny how Finalnd with lots of nuclear has far greener energy with less money investment then Germany. Finland didn't make a 20 year propaganda campaign to claim they are so great and green, they just build a reactor and are fine now. The only "funny" thing about that paragraph (and the whole comment) is the use of greenwashing. Other than that: Germany has done much more for the implementation of truly green energy around the world than any of those "nuclear countries" you've mentioned here. Today, humans on the farthest corners of this planet can afford to have electricity, and it's not because of a nuclear reactor in their backyard. > If you shit on a nuclear reactor for being turned off, boy I have news for you about wind and solar. The difference between turning off wind or solar is that it works almost instantly and without creating additional costs. It's called flexibility. Flexibility in power generation is a concept from the future. You should read it up. It's cheap and clean. Unlike with nuclear, where countries like France (back when their fleet wasn't rotting around) have to sell for peanuts on the EEX because it's too expensive and problematic to reduce power on the reactor. Not even talking about a real shut down here. > Had Germany started building nuclear reactors, even with conservative cost estimate. Nuclear would have been a far better deal then the 'Energiewende' they actually did. Starting in 2000 building nuclear reactors at rates like France did in the 70/80s would have lead to a far, far greener grid then they have now. This is hilarious. Germany replaced their nuclear fleet years ago. Why would they need to waste money on a technology from the past? Especially because not even France can build reactors at rates like France did in the 70/80s... How didn't you know that? It's a running joke for years. > My calculation Your calculations are useless if you don't even know about those astronomical cost explosions and delays around nuclear reactors in Europe... > And those reactors would last 60-100 years. This is hilarious. How did you miss all those news about the rotting fleet in France? > Nuclear for France has been on of the best public investments ever done. Minimal impact on taxes and cheap long term stable fuel prices for literally half a century. The price is fixed by the government. It's called tarif blue and the company selling the stuff had to be nationalised...again. Such a "great" business... How didn't you know that...too...? We both know why: you grabbed those talking points from the Astro Turf and their followers without checking anything of it.

paavope 3y ago

> Unlike nuclear, which Finland had to shut down recently because it just wasn't worth the money to keep it running... What are you referring to here? Nuclear power has not been shut down here in Finland to my knowledge. There have been times when production has been scaled down because there is temporarily excess energy available, when it is windy (turbines produce more) and warm (warming uses less), but that is a temporary situation.

Krasnol 3y ago
> There have been times when production has been scaled down because there is temporarily excess energy available, when it is windy (turbines produce more) and warm (warming uses less), but that is a temporary situation. This is what I meant, excuse my wrong wording, implying that you could shut down a reactor just like that only because the prices for energy doesn't justify to keep it running at all. Something which is quite nice to have these days with all those cheap renewable energies producing that "excess" energy.

panick21_ 3y ago

This has to be repeated again and again. Civilian nuclear waste isn't really a good great target for sabotage. There are 1000 places to attack that are far cheaper and have higher effect. > Reprocessing is hilariously expensive, and they don't even have a facility. So you know about every form of re-procession that will ever be invented and already know the associated costs. > No country in the Western World will ever build one again Canada is planning one right now to reprocess spend CANDU fuel. > The end product is more expensive than new fuel. This equation changes if you add the cost of storage facility the new fuel as well. > Especially taxpayer money. Finnland even with its very expensive new reactor now produces stable green energy and this reactor captial investment will pay off 80-100 years. > Finland had to shut down Funny how Finalnd with lots of nuclear has far greener energy with less money investment then Germany. Finland didn't make a 20 year propaganda campaign to claim they are so great and green, they just build a reactor and are fine now. If you shit on a nuclear reactor for being turned off, boy I have news for you about wind and solar. Lets actually look at data rather then what lives in your imagination: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map https://app.electricitymaps.com/map Mhh look at that Finland has green energy thanks to nuclear power. You can do the math. Had Germany started building nuclear reactors, even with conservative cost estimate. Nuclear would have been a far better deal then the 'Energiewende' they actually did. Starting in 2000 building nuclear reactors at rates like France did in the 70/80s would have lead to a far, far greener grid then they have now. My calculation result in about 4-5% of debt to GDP increase for a full build-out to 100% nuclear energy starting in 2020. And those reactors would last 60-100 years. Unlike the investments they actually did, lots of wind turbines and solar that have to be replaced 2 times over until then. Nuclear for France has been on of the best public investments ever done. Minimal impact on taxes and cheap long term stable fuel prices for literally half a century.

Krasnol 3y ago
> This has to be repeated again and again. Civilian nuclear waste isn't really a good great target for sabotage. There are 1000 places to attack that are far cheaper and have higher effect. Sure...there is the nuclear reactor around the corner... What is this sentence even based upon? Do you have some strategic study on that? Because they're investing a hell lot of money to protect that stuff. > So you know about every form of re-procession that will ever be invented and already know the associated costs. Please tell me of that magic forms of reprocessing which are somewhere even at the far horizon. > Canada is planning one right now to reprocess spend CANDU fuel. There is a lot "in planning" and has been for decades, not much came of it. Even with those reactors currently being build...besides rising costs of course. > This equation changes if you add the cost of storage facility the new fuel as well. How does it if nobody wants to buy your overpriced fuel you still have to mix with actual fresh fuel which you can get cheaper? Do you want to force them to take it after you wasted so much money on it? To what end? It doesn't go away. You'll still have to store it in the end, just like the stuff which gets created during the process. The process actually generates more stuff you have to store... > Finnland even with its very expensive new reactor now produces stable green energy and this reactor captial investment will pay off 80-100 years. The fact that they already had to reduce output because the actual price on the market is far below what they produce already shows that it will take much longer. Longer then the thing will run. > Funny how Finalnd with lots of nuclear has far greener energy with less money investment then Germany. Finland didn't make a 20 year propaganda campaign to claim they are so great and green, they just build a reactor and are fine now. The only "funny" thing about that paragraph (and the whole comment) is the use of greenwashing. Other than that: Germany has done much more for the implementation of truly green energy around the world than any of those "nuclear countries" you've mentioned here. Today, humans on the farthest corners of this planet can afford to have electricity, and it's not because of a nuclear reactor in their backyard. > If you shit on a nuclear reactor for being turned off, boy I have news for you about wind and solar. The difference between turning off wind or solar is that it works almost instantly and without creating additional costs. It's called flexibility. Flexibility in power generation is a concept from the future. You should read it up. It's cheap and clean. Unlike with nuclear, where countries like France (back when their fleet wasn't rotting around) have to sell for peanuts on the EEX because it's too expensive and problematic to reduce power on the reactor. Not even talking about a real shut down here. > Had Germany started building nuclear reactors, even with conservative cost estimate. Nuclear would have been a far better deal then the 'Energiewende' they actually did. Starting in 2000 building nuclear reactors at rates like France did in the 70/80s would have lead to a far, far greener grid then they have now. This is hilarious. Germany replaced their nuclear fleet years ago. Why would they need to waste money on a technology from the past? Especially because not even France can build reactors at rates like France did in the 70/80s... How didn't you know that? It's a running joke for years. > My calculation Your calculations are useless if you don't even know about those astronomical cost explosions and delays around nuclear reactors in Europe... > And those reactors would last 60-100 years. This is hilarious. How did you miss all those news about the rotting fleet in France? > Nuclear for France has been on of the best public investments ever done. Minimal impact on taxes and cheap long term stable fuel prices for literally half a century. The price is fixed by the government. It's called tarif blue and the company selling the stuff had to be nationalised...again. Such a "great" business... How didn't you know that...too...? We both know why: you grabbed those talking points from the Astro Turf and their followers without checking anything of it.