3 ms·

It's pointless arguing whether it could have been economically successful, we'll largely never know because people got scared.

pfdietz 2y ago
It's also pointless then to make a claim that (as you state) cannot be demonstrated. Airy unjustifiable nothing.
rnhmjoj 2y ago
> pfdietz: It's also pointless then to make a claim that (as you state) cannot be demonstrated. Airy unjustifiable nothing. I said my country effectively banned nuclear power with a popular referendum that was completely biased by the aftermath of Chernobyl [1], economics hardly played any role in it. This is a fact. Similar referenda were also held (or tried to be held) in other countries like Switzerland, Austria and Slovenia, and if you look you'll find the concerns were not economical, but about the safety and waste management. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Italian_referendums https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Italian_referendums
- pfdietz 2y ago
  The unjustifiable part is the connection of this ban to any consequence. The assumption you try to pass off without justification is that without the ban, nuclear would have triumphed. But then you admitted this conclusion cannot be justified. So, your pointing to the ban is just dishonestly trying to connect the dots without actually connecting any dots. Me, I think the raw cost figures speak for themselves. Even if nuclear had not been banned, it would have failed, although perhaps lots of money would have been wasted trying to maintain the pretense it wasn't a failure.
  - rnhmjoj 2y ago
    > The assumption you try to pass off without justification is that without the ban, nuclear would have triumphed I never said that, I said I think economics have little to do with the downfall of nuclear power. At least in most european countries, nuclear was banned or phased out for other reasons.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      You said: > I don't think fission is loosing because it's too expensive: it has acquired a reputation of being dangerous and it's probably too late to convience people otherwise, maybe younger generations. That is, you are claiming that the CAUSE of nuclear's state is the public reaction, not economics. If nuclear would have failed anyway, how can that "because" be valid?
  - dialup_sounds 2y ago
    Nuclear seems to have worked out well for France over the last 50 years.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      But not cost-effectively, afaik ?
      - rnhmjoj 2y ago
        It depends what you consider as costs. France power generation (and consumption as well) is one of the very few with reliably low carbon intensity. You can play around with https://app.electricitymaps.com/map https://app.electricitymaps.com/map and see how bad the emissions are in the rest of Europe.
        mmooss 2y ago
        So not cost-effectively in the universally understood meaning. I think carbon should be taxed and the externality should be moved to balance sheets, but that's another discussion. France didn't solve the problem of cost-effective nuclear power.

pfdietz 2y ago

It's also pointless then to make a claim that (as you state) cannot be demonstrated. Airy unjustifiable nothing.

rnhmjoj 2y ago

> pfdietz: It's also pointless then to make a claim that (as you state) cannot be demonstrated. Airy unjustifiable nothing. I said my country effectively banned nuclear power with a popular referendum that was completely biased by the aftermath of Chernobyl [1], economics hardly played any role in it. This is a fact. Similar referenda were also held (or tried to be held) in other countries like Switzerland, Austria and Slovenia, and if you look you'll find the concerns were not economical, but about the safety and waste management. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Italian_referendums https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Italian_referendums

pfdietz 2y ago
The unjustifiable part is the connection of this ban to any consequence. The assumption you try to pass off without justification is that without the ban, nuclear would have triumphed. But then you admitted this conclusion cannot be justified. So, your pointing to the ban is just dishonestly trying to connect the dots without actually connecting any dots. Me, I think the raw cost figures speak for themselves. Even if nuclear had not been banned, it would have failed, although perhaps lots of money would have been wasted trying to maintain the pretense it wasn't a failure.
- rnhmjoj 2y ago
  > The assumption you try to pass off without justification is that without the ban, nuclear would have triumphed I never said that, I said I think economics have little to do with the downfall of nuclear power. At least in most european countries, nuclear was banned or phased out for other reasons.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    You said: > I don't think fission is loosing because it's too expensive: it has acquired a reputation of being dangerous and it's probably too late to convience people otherwise, maybe younger generations. That is, you are claiming that the CAUSE of nuclear's state is the public reaction, not economics. If nuclear would have failed anyway, how can that "because" be valid?
- dialup_sounds 2y ago
  Nuclear seems to have worked out well for France over the last 50 years.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    But not cost-effectively, afaik ?
    - rnhmjoj 2y ago
      It depends what you consider as costs. France power generation (and consumption as well) is one of the very few with reliably low carbon intensity. You can play around with https://app.electricitymaps.com/map https://app.electricitymaps.com/map and see how bad the emissions are in the rest of Europe.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        So not cost-effectively in the universally understood meaning. I think carbon should be taxed and the externality should be moved to balance sheets, but that's another discussion. France didn't solve the problem of cost-effective nuclear power.