5 ms·

> 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,

> 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?

Krasnol 3y ago
> 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? What I meant was that there are always excuses. Not that there is growth. > But glad you don't deny the obvious evidence. There was no evidence. There were wishes, pledges, political propaganda. Nothing that would outweigh the whole trend. > Oh, and nuclear is cheaper than renewables. See France vs. Germany. Last time I looked, Germany wouldn't have to support every Watt of their energy with taxpayer money the way France does with tarif bleu. Did you even know about this because that claim is ridiculous. Nuclear energy is nowhere on this planet cheaper than renewables. > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ePZUamAzNA4IzdR1dlkE2wtl https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ePZUamAzNA4IzdR1dlkE2wtl... I don't understand why you keep on linking to some conspiracy op-ed on google docs. How is someone supposed to take that seriously? Don't you have anything serious? > 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." This "article" is nothing but unsourced conspiracies and opinions. The fact that this seems to you more credible than actual facts speaks for itself. > Of course, the reason the French public likes their nuclear is because it's been providing cheap, reliable and green electricity for decades now. They've actually been lying to their population by spending their taxpayer money to simulate a cheap energy price. Linke Tasche, Rechte Tasche. ...and the only green thing about nuclear is the glow on Simpsons. > . 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. Turns out: if you plan to nuke the world, money flows faster. Today, it takes them 10+ years to build a single reactor. Much success. PS. the reason Germany still produces "dirt" is related to jobs in areas which are already struck with unemployment and the fact that the previous Government did nothing for 16 years. Other than that, Germany is well off. Thank you. We replaced what we lost with nuclear years ago with renewables. Despite the previous Government. > And we fired up more of our coal power stations. We shut them down after a few weeks already and continued to shut down even more of them. We're still on plan to phase out coal completely. > However, they are smart enough not to remove their nuclear fleet. Instead, they are expanding it. Massively. Of course, they're not removing their nuclear fleet. They need that for a coming war....and no, they're not expanding massively. I've shown you that with my links which you didn't read, as you have shown several times over here. > And also an old one with Russia, from 1988. You are not reading my links...what is this? > 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 So do you think I might forget that Rosatom vs. Gazprom thing now with that? > What does Nuscale have to with anything? You might know if you'd have read anything around that debacle. Instead, you are not reading anything which might even smell like it would make nuclear look bad, even in a discussion here. Instead, you keep on parroting statements you caught on social and leave everything out where you don't have a statement ready. This is not a discussion. You are preaching, and I don't pay Kirchensteuer anymore, so I don't need that. Please come back when you've actually read what I wrote in the comment above. Including my sources.

Krasnol 3y ago

> 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? What I meant was that there are always excuses. Not that there is growth. > But glad you don't deny the obvious evidence. There was no evidence. There were wishes, pledges, political propaganda. Nothing that would outweigh the whole trend. > Oh, and nuclear is cheaper than renewables. See France vs. Germany. Last time I looked, Germany wouldn't have to support every Watt of their energy with taxpayer money the way France does with tarif bleu. Did you even know about this because that claim is ridiculous. Nuclear energy is nowhere on this planet cheaper than renewables. > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ePZUamAzNA4IzdR1dlkE2wtl https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ePZUamAzNA4IzdR1dlkE2wtl... I don't understand why you keep on linking to some conspiracy op-ed on google docs. How is someone supposed to take that seriously? Don't you have anything serious? > 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." This "article" is nothing but unsourced conspiracies and opinions. The fact that this seems to you more credible than actual facts speaks for itself. > Of course, the reason the French public likes their nuclear is because it's been providing cheap, reliable and green electricity for decades now. They've actually been lying to their population by spending their taxpayer money to simulate a cheap energy price. Linke Tasche, Rechte Tasche. ...and the only green thing about nuclear is the glow on Simpsons. > . 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. Turns out: if you plan to nuke the world, money flows faster. Today, it takes them 10+ years to build a single reactor. Much success. PS. the reason Germany still produces "dirt" is related to jobs in areas which are already struck with unemployment and the fact that the previous Government did nothing for 16 years. Other than that, Germany is well off. Thank you. We replaced what we lost with nuclear years ago with renewables. Despite the previous Government. > And we fired up more of our coal power stations. We shut them down after a few weeks already and continued to shut down even more of them. We're still on plan to phase out coal completely. > However, they are smart enough not to remove their nuclear fleet. Instead, they are expanding it. Massively. Of course, they're not removing their nuclear fleet. They need that for a coming war....and no, they're not expanding massively. I've shown you that with my links which you didn't read, as you have shown several times over here. > And also an old one with Russia, from 1988. You are not reading my links...what is this? > 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 So do you think I might forget that Rosatom vs. Gazprom thing now with that? > What does Nuscale have to with anything? You might know if you'd have read anything around that debacle. Instead, you are not reading anything which might even smell like it would make nuclear look bad, even in a discussion here. Instead, you keep on parroting statements you caught on social and leave everything out where you don't have a statement ready. This is not a discussion. You are preaching, and I don't pay Kirchensteuer anymore, so I don't need that. Please come back when you've actually read what I wrote in the comment above. Including my sources.