3 ms·

Mostly based on the huge payouts for forest fires and bankruptcy of PG&E. Until they had the highest rates in Europe when their nuclear energy did not deliver.

• Herz 2y ago
  > Until they had the highest rates in Europe when their nuclear energy did not deliver. [1] Currently they are completely unable to construct any new nuclear power given the outcome of Flamanville 3 [2] and cost escalations of their upcoming reactors [3], before they have even started building, the future for the French nuclear industry is looking incredibly bleak. You are cherry-picking examples to support your argument, which is intellectually dishonest. For instance, if I took the construction time of the slowest wind farm and presented it as the norm, it would be equally misleading. I provide average and mean construction times, which are more representative of the overall picture. > Have a look at all projects in the west in the past 20 years. They've either been cancelled or taken 20+ years from announcement until commercial operation. This is another example of cherry-picking. Western countries have not invested in nuclear power on a large scale in recent decades. However, countries like South Korea and China, which have heavily invested in nuclear energy, have achieved much shorter construction times. You mention statistics but fail to explain how building one nuclear plant per decade in the West represents any meaningful statistical evidence. It is misleading to generalize from such a small sample size. > Given the extreme costs and lengthy construction timelines of modern nuclear power, investing in it today prolongs climate change. Germany's Energiewende, which has cost 600 billion euros over 20 years, has not achieved significant decarbonization. Renewables remain the most heavily subsidized energy source in Europe. To understand your position better, do you prioritize excluding nuclear power or achieving decarbonization?
  • ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    South Korea was building until their corruptions scandals blew up the industry. They haven't been able to sign a single export agreement since. [1] China has for every single passing year been reducing their nuclear targets in favor of renewables. They keep a toe in the nuclear business but it is not core to their energy strategy anymore. [2] We can have a look at all reactors we have tried to construct in the past 20 years in the west. The French examples are the pretty picture. Finished: - Olkiluoto 3: Took 20 years. - Flamanville 3: Incredible cost blow-out and delays. - Vogtle: Laughably delayed and expensive. Under construction: - Hinkley Point C: Laughably delayed and expensive. Cancelled after investment decision: - Virgil C. Summer: The ratepayers are going to pay for this chaotic project for decades to come. - Hanhikivi: Was apparently hard to certify a Russian reactor for western standards. Cancelled before investment decision: - NuScale: In the end it cost more than Vogtle in $/kW. Planning limbo because no one can agree on the costs: - Wylfa-Newydd - Sizewell C - Oldbury B - Bradwell B - Moorside Early stage planning: - 6 new EPR2s by EDF in France: Continuously getting more expensive. Given this horrific outcome taking statistics from the 70s and saying and saying it has any relevance to the costs and timelines of nuclear power construction in modern advanced economies is just sticking your head in the sand. Please compare Germany and South Korea then. South Korea, the modern poster child for nuclear power held up as the paragon to emulate. Stuck at 450 gCO2/kWh which is worse than even Germany. 21st century nuclear power does not deliver decarbonization. Renewables do. [1]: https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/22/136020/how-greed-and-corruption-blew-up-south-koreas-nuclear-industry/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/22/136020/how-greed... [2]: https://reneweconomy.com.au/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-the-switch-from-nuclear-to-renewable-energy/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-t...
    • Herz 2y ago
      What you report proves exactly what I said. You are citing individual cases that don't reflect the broader picture. The reactors you listed don't represent large-scale construction efforts like those seen decades ago. Additionally, you mention costs as if they are the final cost to consumers. While Olkiluoto 3 was expensive to build, electricity bills in Finland are now stable and relatively low because of it. Over the long term, once the construction costs are repaid, it will be even more economical. Regarding China, your point isn't clear. The fact remains that China is demonstrating the effectiveness of building multiple reactors in parallel, which is faster and cheaper. Building reactors sporadically, as France is doing with new technologies, is indeed slow and costly. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61927 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61927 As for Korea, your argument seems unrelated. I advocate for a mix of nuclear and renewables. Korea's current strategy lacks sufficient renewable energy, which is not ideal. I mentioned Korea specifically to highlight their nuclear power capabilities, not their overall decarbonization strategy. Both Korea and Germany show that decarbonization requires a mix of nuclear and renewable energy sources. So, is your priority to exclude nuclear power, or to achieve decarbonization?