7 ms·

> You obviously can't evaluate by the outcomes, because the reevaluation is still in process Things are always "in the process" or "being reevaluated" around n

> You obviously can't evaluate by the outcomes, because the reevaluation is still in process Things are always "in the process" or "being reevaluated" around nuclear. Meanwhile, global warming is on the way and faster here than a single nuclear reactor is constructed, even if you start building today. Meanwhile, renewables are already there, build in 1–2 years and are getting better and cheaper every year. > On the other hand, 22 countries just pledged to triple nuclear output by 2050 at COP28, so just a little over a month ago Are there any repercussions if they don't deliver, or how is this relevant? Let's take a closer look at your links there: > Speaking of Italy, they aren't there yet, but have just made getting back into nuclear official government policy. Italy doesn't have the funds for any significant nuclear project. The nuclear meme the ruling parties spread is highly popular within the right wing parties throughout Europe and, just like Poland (where the meme goes back to the time of Socialism), every serious person knows: nothing at all will come of it. > Germany, of course, remains a basket case, even though a majority of its citizens now oppose the "Atomausstieg". No they don't. There was a rush around the time the last one closed. With the biggest tabloid BILD and the opposition (which consist mainly of the party which is responsible for the shutdown) shouting useless claims to fire up people who are unhappy with the Government. Today, just like before: nobody cares about nuclear anymore and the only polls suggesting that there might be some kind of support for the cause come from Civey and are being paid by Nuklearia. A small lobby club of former nuclear engineers and their Twitter-friends from the right-wing AfD bubble. > The UK government just announced a massive (to 4x) nuclear expansion this month (January 2024). I'm sure that after the elections and with the complete mess that is HPC, there will be not a single new reactor being build in the UK. https://reneweconomy.com.au/cost-of-uks-flagship-nuclear-project-blows-out-to-more-than-a92-billion/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/cost-of-uks-flagship-nuclear-pro... > France removed its legal requirement to reduce nuclear to less than 50% last year, and just committed to building 14 new reactors (up from only 6 just 2 months ago). I wonder where the money for that might come from especially after the failure of EDF and the fact that despite subsidizing every single watt of nuclear energy by taxpayer money (tarif bleu) they now even have to rise the prices https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/france-finds-way-to-regulate-nuclear-sales-price/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/france-fin... But sure, something has to be done since their existing fleet is rotting away and they have not diversified anything. Let's hope those old reactors will hold up for another decade because we all know: France can't build faster. > Unlike what some people think, France was not very pro-nuclear the last few decades, in fact nuclear was being actively sabotaged. Yeah...no. That's bs. https://www.statista.com/statistics/750035/france-opinion-survey-nuclear-energy/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/750035/france-opinion-su... > That has changed. A lot has changed since the Ukraine war revealed the dirty little secret of Germany's "Energiewende", also known nowadays as the Gazprom-Wende. What secret is this supposed to be? Because Germany got rid of Russian gas and gas prices went down again? Or do you mean the secret that France still supports the invasion in Ukraine through their nuclear deals? https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2023/03/12/french-nuclear-industry-maintains-links-with-russian-giant-rosatom_6019019_98.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2023/03/12/french... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-023-01228-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-023-01228-5 > Yes, China is going for renewables. That's because China goes for everything. Including more coal. Yes, they are building out renewables, but that's because they have little to none at present They expand it REALLY fast though https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-solar-power-global-renewable-energy-leader https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-sol... Faster than anyone on this planet. Meanwhile, their nuclear expansion is negligible. If your argument of putting all of them in one basket would be right, they'd have to build much more nuclear than they do and plan to do. But just like any reasonable investor, they're not stupid. Nuclear is a waste of money. > India is also planning (and on track) to triple their nuclear generating capacity, though not by 2050, but by 2031. I wonder how well this will go in the future... https://www.rosatom.ru/en/press-centre/opinion/alexey-zhukov-the-nuclear-power-plant-has-become-a-symbol-of-growing-partnership-between-india-and-r/ https://www.rosatom.ru/en/press-centre/opinion/alexey-zhukov... Quite funny that in the nuclear bubble Rosatom is good while Gazprom is bad. > Ukraine is in talks with Rolls Royce to upgrade existing coal-fired power stations with nuclear reactors. The ones Rolls Royce is planning to build in a factory. People dare to talk about SMRs after the Nuscale debacle? And especially in Ukraine where the fate of the whole country isn't even clear? Interesting. How many of those did RR build already or is their plan to test the whole thing in Ukraine because they're used to nuclear fallouts?

mpweiher 3y ago
> Things are always "in the process" or "being reevaluated" around nuclear. Well, that was a quick turnaround! Just a post ago there was no evidence for this, now you claim it is "always" the case. Which is it? Or both at the same time? Is it in a quantum superposition? >> The world is currently in the process of reevaluating its past rejection of nuclear power > I would love to see a source on that since the statistics don't show that But glad you don't deny the obvious evidence. [Germany] > No they don't. [oppose the Atomausstieg] You're a bit behind the times. 2011: "Breiter Rückhalt für Atomausstieg" https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlandtrend-ts-726.html https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlan... 2023: "Mehrheit ist gegen Atomausstieg" https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlandtrend-3357.html https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlan... 59% against. 34% for. Almost 2:1 against. Conducted by infratest dimap. [UK] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-expansion-of-nuclear-power-for-70-years-to-create-jobs-reduce-bills-and-strengthen-britains-energy-security https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-expansion-of-nucl... >I'm sure that after the elections and with the complete mess that is HPC, there will be not a single new reactor being build in the UK. The new policy was announced in January of 2024, less than a month ago. They probably knew about Hinkley Point. But what does the UK government know about energy policy in the UK? They should have asked you! Anyway: how about a friendly wager? Since you are "sure", that means you should take any odds I'd be willing to give you. How about a million to one? Or maybe 100:1? The UK timeframe is 2050. If the UK does not build a single nuclear reactor by 2050, I owe you € 100,- If they do, you owe me € 10.000,- Deal? > Italy doesn't have the funds for any significant nuclear project. LOL. Interesting claim you plucked out of thin air. Any evidence for this? Certainly the Italian government appears to disagree with you. But what do they know about their country? Oh, and nuclear is cheaper than renewables. See France vs. Germany. [France nuclear renaissance] > I wonder where the money for that might come from Very simple: from the massive profits the current nuclear fleet generates operationally, which the state no longer requires EDF to forego in oder to finance massive renewable expansion. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ePZUamAzNA4IzdR1dlkE2wtlCZjgzsbRCzfZYY3EQbs https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ePZUamAzNA4IzdR1dlkE2wtl... > Yeah...no. That's bs. Oh, evidence for your claim? The statista link (paywalled, not accessible) appears to be something on the widespread support of nuclear by the French public. The article was not about the public, specifically: "Our nuclear industry has been weakened by a war waged for decades by a cabal of green politicians, civil servants, and activists." So there is no relation whatsoever. But what does the "former president of the French House of Representatives" know about the politics of his country? They should have interviewed you! Of course, the reason the French public likes their nuclear is because it's been providing cheap, reliable and green electricity for decades now. But what do they know about the benefits of nuclear power, they just have those benefits. Oh and it only took them 10 years to do it. The German Energiewende has been ongoing for 20+ years now, and our electricity is ~7x dirtier and more expensive. > Germany got rid of Russian gas and gas prices went down again? Look up "reversion to mean". Of course gas prices will go down somewhat after they spike to record levels. And we fired up more of our coal power stations. Why are we doing all this again? Oh right, to lower CO2 emissions. Our electricity is 7x dirtier than French electricity. And more expensive. [But China is building out renewables fast!] Nobody said anything about that. It ain't a competition. China has one of the largest deserts in the world, including apparently the sunniest spots on earth. It would be insane for them to not build out solar and wind, particularly after the German electricity consumers financed their solar industry for them. Which now owns 80% of the world market, with slave labor and cheap coal power. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/12/clean-energy-china-xinjiang-uyghur-labor/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/12/clean-energy-china-xinj... However, they are smart enough not to remove their nuclear fleet. Instead, they are expanding it. Massively. Because they know that you need reliable baseload power to replace baseload coal plants. Now maybe in your book a tripling of capacity is somehow "negligible" or a "rejection". In the real world it's a massive expansion and the opposite of a rejection. Or in other words: please "reject" me by "negligibly" tripling my pay! India has nuclear supply deals with France, the USA and Japan. And also an old one with Russia, from 1988. What the fact that India is not participating in the sanctions against Russia has to do with their nuclear expansion is a bit unclear. The Gazprom-Energiewende was problematic completely separately from the geopolitical problems due to the simple fact that gas is a fossil fuel and emits a lot of greenhouse gases when you burn it. Well, even more potent greenhouse gases when you don't burn it, but you get the idea. > People dare to talk about SMRs after the Nuscale debacle What does Nuscale have to with anything? Somehow for the anti-nukies, any time any nuclear project in the world doesn't work out, it means the whole technology is kaputt. Nuscale got regulatory approval for their design, are still in business and are still pursuing other projects than the one that got cancelled. There are at least 10 competitors in the SMR space. Question for you: did we get out of hydropower after the Banqiao dam disaster in China? More than 150K dead, over 4 million homes destroyed, 11M people displaced. Did we get out of the chemical industry after Bhopal? Did we get out of trains after Eschede? Did we get out of commercial aviation after BER? Or after Tenerife? Did we get out of classical music after the Elbphilharmonie?

mpweiher 3y ago

> Things are always "in the process" or "being reevaluated" around nuclear. Well, that was a quick turnaround! Just a post ago there was no evidence for this, now you claim it is "always" the case. Which is it? Or both at the same time? Is it in a quantum superposition? >> The world is currently in the process of reevaluating its past rejection of nuclear power > I would love to see a source on that since the statistics don't show that But glad you don't deny the obvious evidence. [Germany] > No they don't. [oppose the Atomausstieg] You're a bit behind the times. 2011: "Breiter Rückhalt für Atomausstieg" https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlandtrend-ts-726.html https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlan... 2023: "Mehrheit ist gegen Atomausstieg" https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlandtrend-3357.html https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlan... 59% against. 34% for. Almost 2:1 against. Conducted by infratest dimap. [UK] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-expansion-of-nuclear-power-for-70-years-to-create-jobs-reduce-bills-and-strengthen-britains-energy-security https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-expansion-of-nucl... >I'm sure that after the elections and with the complete mess that is HPC, there will be not a single new reactor being build in the UK. The new policy was announced in January of 2024, less than a month ago. They probably knew about Hinkley Point. But what does the UK government know about energy policy in the UK? They should have asked you! Anyway: how about a friendly wager? Since you are "sure", that means you should take any odds I'd be willing to give you. How about a million to one? Or maybe 100:1? The UK timeframe is 2050. If the UK does not build a single nuclear reactor by 2050, I owe you € 100,- If they do, you owe me € 10.000,- Deal? > Italy doesn't have the funds for any significant nuclear project. LOL. Interesting claim you plucked out of thin air. Any evidence for this? Certainly the Italian government appears to disagree with you. But what do they know about their country? Oh, and nuclear is cheaper than renewables. See France vs. Germany. [France nuclear renaissance] > I wonder where the money for that might come from Very simple: from the massive profits the current nuclear fleet generates operationally, which the state no longer requires EDF to forego in oder to finance massive renewable expansion. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ePZUamAzNA4IzdR1dlkE2wtlCZjgzsbRCzfZYY3EQbs https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ePZUamAzNA4IzdR1dlkE2wtl... > Yeah...no. That's bs. Oh, evidence for your claim? The statista link (paywalled, not accessible) appears to be something on the widespread support of nuclear by the French public. The article was not about the public, specifically: "Our nuclear industry has been weakened by a war waged for decades by a cabal of green politicians, civil servants, and activists." So there is no relation whatsoever. But what does the "former president of the French House of Representatives" know about the politics of his country? They should have interviewed you! Of course, the reason the French public likes their nuclear is because it's been providing cheap, reliable and green electricity for decades now. But what do they know about the benefits of nuclear power, they just have those benefits. Oh and it only took them 10 years to do it. The German Energiewende has been ongoing for 20+ years now, and our electricity is ~7x dirtier and more expensive. > Germany got rid of Russian gas and gas prices went down again? Look up "reversion to mean". Of course gas prices will go down somewhat after they spike to record levels. And we fired up more of our coal power stations. Why are we doing all this again? Oh right, to lower CO2 emissions. Our electricity is 7x dirtier than French electricity. And more expensive. [But China is building out renewables fast!] Nobody said anything about that. It ain't a competition. China has one of the largest deserts in the world, including apparently the sunniest spots on earth. It would be insane for them to not build out solar and wind, particularly after the German electricity consumers financed their solar industry for them. Which now owns 80% of the world market, with slave labor and cheap coal power. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/12/clean-energy-china-xinjiang-uyghur-labor/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/12/clean-energy-china-xinj... However, they are smart enough not to remove their nuclear fleet. Instead, they are expanding it. Massively. Because they know that you need reliable baseload power to replace baseload coal plants. Now maybe in your book a tripling of capacity is somehow "negligible" or a "rejection". In the real world it's a massive expansion and the opposite of a rejection. Or in other words: please "reject" me by "negligibly" tripling my pay! India has nuclear supply deals with France, the USA and Japan. And also an old one with Russia, from 1988. What the fact that India is not participating in the sanctions against Russia has to do with their nuclear expansion is a bit unclear. The Gazprom-Energiewende was problematic completely separately from the geopolitical problems due to the simple fact that gas is a fossil fuel and emits a lot of greenhouse gases when you burn it. Well, even more potent greenhouse gases when you don't burn it, but you get the idea. > People dare to talk about SMRs after the Nuscale debacle What does Nuscale have to with anything? Somehow for the anti-nukies, any time any nuclear project in the world doesn't work out, it means the whole technology is kaputt. Nuscale got regulatory approval for their design, are still in business and are still pursuing other projects than the one that got cancelled. There are at least 10 competitors in the SMR space. Question for you: did we get out of hydropower after the Banqiao dam disaster in China? More than 150K dead, over 4 million homes destroyed, 11M people displaced. Did we get out of the chemical industry after Bhopal? Did we get out of trains after Eschede? Did we get out of commercial aviation after BER? Or after Tenerife? Did we get out of classical music after the Elbphilharmonie?