5 ms·

You wrote "billions". The one billion comes from the representative of the farmer. So my hundreds of millions is probably closest to the truth. But that has not

by _ph_ 3y ago

You wrote "billions". The one billion comes from the representative of the farmer. So my hundreds of millions is probably closest to the truth. But that has nothing to do with nuclear. And the French took the reactors down because of required maintenance, part of it was unexpected after the found problems. But the main point is: they were down and France required imports to keep the grid up. You don't even comment on the cooling problems. They "are" not building new ones. They fail to finish Flammaville so far. The president talks about plans, but until they become at least a construction project, don't talk about "are building". And even then, it would take like 20 years to finish those. And once again, you are not even responding to my arguments about the Energiewende. You treat it as a failure while it is ongoing. Why it was delayed, I explained, but you ignore that. Are you really trying to tell me, that you are not an AfD supporter with your style and trail of argumentation. And I simply stated, those people who vote for Nazis are voting for Nazis and there is no way around stating that. I am not sure, why you claim I call anyone who supports nucler a Nazi, that was only said on those who vote for Nazis. I don't know who Michel Lynch votes for. His writing though has quite a few inaccuracies and I dispute some of his conclusions. But that is a factual difference. And of course, your final sentence is absolutely polemic. I have not said anything in the direction. Why are you suggesting that? By the way, your statement, that they are "turning back to nuclear" is quite inaccurate too. But the discussion so far hasn't been a very constructive one, so little reason to elaborate on that further that Finland did finish one reactor recently and at the same time cancelled the project tho bild another one...

mpweiher 3y ago
> You don't even comment on the cooling problems Hmm... "And they also saved money by building some plants near rivers without cooling towers, which most thermal plants need and virtually all thermal plants in Germany, for example, have. This is just not a problem, we know how to build plants with cooling towers." From the post you replied to. Cooling is a non-issue. Under-investment in nuclear is an issue. > I am not sure, why you claim I call anyone who supports nucler a Nazi I can tell you why: because you denounced my factual post as "right wing propaganda", and me, by extension, a right wing propagandist. And that was essentially your entire reaction. "Facts? Who cares, you are a nazi." And of course the French aren't building the new reactors, yet. Their turnaround away from their mistaken anti-nuclear policy only happened in March this year. > The president talks about plans No, the president talks about government policy. And that government policy has been voted into law. March 2023. > By the way, your statement, that they are "turning back to nuclear" is quite inaccurate too How so? > Finland "In June 2019, the government announced a new energy policy with the objective of achieving carbon neutrality by 2035. The policy would see a complete phase-out of coal power by May 2029. In addition to the commissioning of two nuclear power reactors, the policy is supportive of operating lifetime extensions for existing reactors." Hmm... > cancelled the project tho bild another one... You mean they cancelled their plans to build a reactor with Russia's Rossatom? Now what might the reason for this be? Can't possibly have anything to do with, dunno, Russia? Always the disingenuous arguments. And of course the new nuclear reactor they just turned on is already providing 40% of Finland's electricity. How many more of those do you reckon' they need?
- _ph_ 3y ago
  Oh, I missed that one line in a rather busy post. If you claim that cooling is a non-issue, you are lying. Some had to reduce power and also the maximum allowed river temperatures had to be adjusted. (https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/energie-trockenheit-und-fehlende-energie-alternativen-frankreichs-atomkraftwerke-ueberhitzen-fluesse/28588994.html https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/energie-t...) I never called you a Nazi. Why misrepresent the facts? I only stated that your text reads like some right wing propaganda. Which it does. And not every right-wing person is a Nazi. And wrt. to Finland I was talking about Block 4 of Olkiluoto. Block 3 went online this year. And yes, it delivers a significant part of the grid in Finland, which already has caused issues. Because Block 3 had to be pulled of the net several times - which immediately removes a large fraction of the grid power in an instant. That is why they currently keep a nearby coal power plant in hot standby to ensure grid stability.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    > If you claim that cooling is a non-issue, you are lying. No I am not. And please stop it with the personal attacks. It is non-issue for nuclear. Because. We. Know. How. To. Build. Cooling. Towers. If you cheap out and don't build a cooling tower, heat can become an issue. If you build a car with an insufficient radiator, heat can also become an issue. This is not an issue with cars in general, this is an issue with having a radiator that is too small. Because we know how to build cars that have large enough radiators. And no, you did not write that what I wrote "reads like" right wing propaganda. You wrote that I was "repeating right wing propaganda". Ergo a right wing propagandist, ergo a nazi. Or someone who reads and listens to right wing propaganda and repeats it. Which is probably worse, because stupid and still a nazi. Wrt. Finland: they hadn't even decided what type of reactor to build for Block 4, and due to the "special operation" those plans are now being given new priority, but not urgency (not needed yet). And, if I read you correctly, you consider a power plant delivering lots of power a problem. Whatever. For a country that size, I personally also would have chosen a larger number of smaller reactors rather than one huge one. But that's their choice.
    - 3y ago

by _ph_ 3y ago

mpweiher 3y ago

> You don't even comment on the cooling problems Hmm... "And they also saved money by building some plants near rivers without cooling towers, which most thermal plants need and virtually all thermal plants in Germany, for example, have. This is just not a problem, we know how to build plants with cooling towers." From the post you replied to. Cooling is a non-issue. Under-investment in nuclear is an issue. > I am not sure, why you claim I call anyone who supports nucler a Nazi I can tell you why: because you denounced my factual post as "right wing propaganda", and me, by extension, a right wing propagandist. And that was essentially your entire reaction. "Facts? Who cares, you are a nazi." And of course the French aren't building the new reactors, yet. Their turnaround away from their mistaken anti-nuclear policy only happened in March this year. > The president talks about plans No, the president talks about government policy. And that government policy has been voted into law. March 2023. > By the way, your statement, that they are "turning back to nuclear" is quite inaccurate too How so? > Finland "In June 2019, the government announced a new energy policy with the objective of achieving carbon neutrality by 2035. The policy would see a complete phase-out of coal power by May 2029. In addition to the commissioning of two nuclear power reactors, the policy is supportive of operating lifetime extensions for existing reactors." Hmm... > cancelled the project tho bild another one... You mean they cancelled their plans to build a reactor with Russia's Rossatom? Now what might the reason for this be? Can't possibly have anything to do with, dunno, Russia? Always the disingenuous arguments. And of course the new nuclear reactor they just turned on is already providing 40% of Finland's electricity. How many more of those do you reckon' they need?

_ph_ 3y ago
Oh, I missed that one line in a rather busy post. If you claim that cooling is a non-issue, you are lying. Some had to reduce power and also the maximum allowed river temperatures had to be adjusted. (https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/energie-trockenheit-und-fehlende-energie-alternativen-frankreichs-atomkraftwerke-ueberhitzen-fluesse/28588994.html https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/energie-t...) I never called you a Nazi. Why misrepresent the facts? I only stated that your text reads like some right wing propaganda. Which it does. And not every right-wing person is a Nazi. And wrt. to Finland I was talking about Block 4 of Olkiluoto. Block 3 went online this year. And yes, it delivers a significant part of the grid in Finland, which already has caused issues. Because Block 3 had to be pulled of the net several times - which immediately removes a large fraction of the grid power in an instant. That is why they currently keep a nearby coal power plant in hot standby to ensure grid stability.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  > If you claim that cooling is a non-issue, you are lying. No I am not. And please stop it with the personal attacks. It is non-issue for nuclear. Because. We. Know. How. To. Build. Cooling. Towers. If you cheap out and don't build a cooling tower, heat can become an issue. If you build a car with an insufficient radiator, heat can also become an issue. This is not an issue with cars in general, this is an issue with having a radiator that is too small. Because we know how to build cars that have large enough radiators. And no, you did not write that what I wrote "reads like" right wing propaganda. You wrote that I was "repeating right wing propaganda". Ergo a right wing propagandist, ergo a nazi. Or someone who reads and listens to right wing propaganda and repeats it. Which is probably worse, because stupid and still a nazi. Wrt. Finland: they hadn't even decided what type of reactor to build for Block 4, and due to the "special operation" those plans are now being given new priority, but not urgency (not needed yet). And, if I read you correctly, you consider a power plant delivering lots of power a problem. Whatever. For a country that size, I personally also would have chosen a larger number of smaller reactors rather than one huge one. But that's their choice.
  - 3y ago