2 ms·

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 lar

by 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?

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
Incredible how every single reactor we have attempted to build in the west in the past 20 years are "individual cases" when you have to find a way to rationalize your own stand point. Both the French and the American large-scale efforts ended in tears. Scale did not solve it. > The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... > By the mid-1970s, it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as quickly as once believed. Cost overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost overruns averaged 207 percent. > [...] > The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale … only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States#Over-commitment_and_cancellations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St... > 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. Love how your link says "Continues rapid growth" about the Chinese nuclear program while the curve obviously is stagnating. > 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. So now we just ignore basic economics. You don't get anything for free in the world. Someone paid. In the case of OL3 the French paid for the majority of the cost. Do you think anyone will sign a contract like OL3 again where the supplier is certain to make a loss? Lets have a look at Denmark and South Australia then? 150 gCO2/kWh and rapidly declining. Why accept being stuck at 450 gCO2/kWh like South Korea simply because they build nuclear? Because you don't really care about nuclear plants but understands that the discussion has shifted and now promote nuclear to prolong our reliance on fossil fuels.
- Herz 2y ago
  > Because you don't really care about nuclear plants but understands that the discussion has shifted and now promote nuclear to prolong our reliance on fossil fuels. This shows all your intellectual dishonesty. I'm for any effective way to break down our dependency on fossil fuels. I support research and investment in any type of technology that can effectively help us achieve net-zero emissions. Unlike you, I don't ideologically exclude one technology over another. Excluding a technology only complicates things. I am well aware of the limitations of both nuclear and renewable energy sources, but this is not a sensible reason to exclude either from the mix. There has never been a single solution to our energy problems, but rather a need for a balanced mix and compromises. Best of luck with your ideological rigidity.

by Herz 2y ago

ViewTrick1002 2y ago

Incredible how every single reactor we have attempted to build in the west in the past 20 years are "individual cases" when you have to find a way to rationalize your own stand point. Both the French and the American large-scale efforts ended in tears. Scale did not solve it. > The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... > By the mid-1970s, it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as quickly as once believed. Cost overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost overruns averaged 207 percent. > [...] > The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale … only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States#Over-commitment_and_cancellations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St... > 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. Love how your link says "Continues rapid growth" about the Chinese nuclear program while the curve obviously is stagnating. > 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. So now we just ignore basic economics. You don't get anything for free in the world. Someone paid. In the case of OL3 the French paid for the majority of the cost. Do you think anyone will sign a contract like OL3 again where the supplier is certain to make a loss? Lets have a look at Denmark and South Australia then? 150 gCO2/kWh and rapidly declining. Why accept being stuck at 450 gCO2/kWh like South Korea simply because they build nuclear? Because you don't really care about nuclear plants but understands that the discussion has shifted and now promote nuclear to prolong our reliance on fossil fuels.

Herz 2y ago
> Because you don't really care about nuclear plants but understands that the discussion has shifted and now promote nuclear to prolong our reliance on fossil fuels. This shows all your intellectual dishonesty. I'm for any effective way to break down our dependency on fossil fuels. I support research and investment in any type of technology that can effectively help us achieve net-zero emissions. Unlike you, I don't ideologically exclude one technology over another. Excluding a technology only complicates things. I am well aware of the limitations of both nuclear and renewable energy sources, but this is not a sensible reason to exclude either from the mix. There has never been a single solution to our energy problems, but rather a need for a balanced mix and compromises. Best of luck with your ideological rigidity.