4 ms·

No grid is sized for the 100 year catastrophe. Then we need to make the same calculation for when half the French nuclear fleet was offline. Consider an even w

No grid is sized for the 100 year catastrophe. Then we need to make the same calculation for when half the French nuclear fleet was offline. Consider an even worse issue and expect 80% to be offline for the 100 year catastrophe. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr... In reality we work with statistics. In for example Sweden the “reliability guarantee” is at most one hour of demand exceeding production per year. That’s a reliability of 99.8%. Building nuclear power plants would mean locking in enormously more expensive energy costs for everyone, stalling the green revolution in terms of electrification of industry. This is the problem with nukebros, there’s no logic to the suggestions. Only a complete fixation on nuclear power as the solution to everything. Which means widespread continued fossil use and energy crisis power cost for the general public. But that’s a price you’re willing to pay as long as we spend trillions of dollars on subsidies of nuclear power.

cyberax 2y ago
> No grid is sized for the 100 year catastrophe. Utterly wrong. Grids _are_ sized for that. > Then we need to make the same calculation for when half the French nuclear fleet was offline. French shutdowns were _planned_. Nobody died as a result, and it only cost more money than planned as a result of unlucky confluence of events. > In reality we work with statistics. In for example Sweden the “reliability guarantee” is at most one hour of demand exceeding production per year. You have it backwards. Sweden is ready to accept one hour of outage per year. Not more than that. The failure scenario for Germany is not an hour of outage, but a month without energy. Leading to millions of people dead and a total economic collapse. > This is the problem with nukebros, there’s no logic to the suggestions. Only a complete fixation on nuclear power as the solution to everything. There's no fucking shame and zero self-reflection with you greenies. Germany _wasted_ close to $500B on useless Energiewende and is still directly _subsidizing_ _new_ _gas_ _powerplants_. And it'll need to spend even more than that to have even a _hope_ of carbon neutrality, contingent on multiple speculative bets coming true. Instead they could have used the same amount of money to build a completely carbon-neutral nuclear-powered grid. That would have been available by now. Using technology that was tried and tested in 2000-s.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  They’re not. When considering the resilience of the Swedish grid a 10-year winter is used. So maybe stop with the hyperboles? Then a ton of post-fact reasoning for why it was actually fine that half the French nuclear supply was offline during the largest energy crisis in a generation. Please get back to reality. Wasted? For the first time since the Industrial Revolution we have found a new cheapest near infinitely scalable energy source: renewables. Nuclear power was the last attempt, it never delivered on the promises. I love how you say that it would be “available now” when Flamaville 3 started at the same time currently is 6x over budget and 12 year late on a 5 year planned construction timeline. Germany would have had massive cumulative emissions when still waiting for nuclear power to come online. But that’s the problem with you guys. You don’t care about emissions. It’s completely fine locking in fossil fuels for 20 years as we wait for nuclear power to come online. And then in the next sentence you turn around denigrating even a single percentage of fossil fuels as we transition into a renewable grid, before said nuclear would come online. It’s simply completely senseless. You’re making ridicule of yourself.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > Wasted? For the first time since the Industrial Revolution we have found a new cheapest near infinitely scalable energy source: renewables. For the _second_ time. The first time was with the nuclear power. Keep forgetting that, yes? > Nuclear power was the last attempt, it never delivered on the promises. France has an 8 _times_ less carbon-intensive grid than Germany. RIGHT NOW. Keep forgetting that, yes? They can go to carbon-neutral with fairly minimal changes. > I love how you say that it would be “available now” when Flamaville 3 started at the same time currently is 6x over budget and 12 year late on a 5 year planned construction timeline. Russia is finishing the Bangladesh nuclear power plant. On time and within budget. 2 reactors completely built within 10 years. If Russia can do that, other countries can certainly replicate that. > Germany would have had massive cumulative emissions when still waiting for nuclear power to come online. Germany is right now already _locked_ into future emissions for more than 20 years. Even freaking _coal_ (!) is not being phased out until 2038: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-government-says-no-new-law-planned-ensure-coal-exit-earlier-2038 https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-government-says-... > And then in the next sentence you turn around denigrating even a single percentage of fossil fuels as we transition into a renewable grid, before said nuclear would come online. Again, zero reflection from your side. Zero contrition, zero knowledge, and endless excuses. France is literally the next door. Their carbon intensity for energy production is just 12% of Germany's. Right now. Germany in the best possible case won't be able to match that until 2040-s. In reality, it won't happen unless something magical occurs.

cyberax 2y ago

> No grid is sized for the 100 year catastrophe. Utterly wrong. Grids _are_ sized for that. > Then we need to make the same calculation for when half the French nuclear fleet was offline. French shutdowns were _planned_. Nobody died as a result, and it only cost more money than planned as a result of unlucky confluence of events. > In reality we work with statistics. In for example Sweden the “reliability guarantee” is at most one hour of demand exceeding production per year. You have it backwards. Sweden is ready to accept one hour of outage per year. Not more than that. The failure scenario for Germany is not an hour of outage, but a month without energy. Leading to millions of people dead and a total economic collapse. > This is the problem with nukebros, there’s no logic to the suggestions. Only a complete fixation on nuclear power as the solution to everything. There's no fucking shame and zero self-reflection with you greenies. Germany _wasted_ close to $500B on useless Energiewende and is still directly _subsidizing_ _new_ _gas_ _powerplants_. And it'll need to spend even more than that to have even a _hope_ of carbon neutrality, contingent on multiple speculative bets coming true. Instead they could have used the same amount of money to build a completely carbon-neutral nuclear-powered grid. That would have been available by now. Using technology that was tried and tested in 2000-s.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
They’re not. When considering the resilience of the Swedish grid a 10-year winter is used. So maybe stop with the hyperboles? Then a ton of post-fact reasoning for why it was actually fine that half the French nuclear supply was offline during the largest energy crisis in a generation. Please get back to reality. Wasted? For the first time since the Industrial Revolution we have found a new cheapest near infinitely scalable energy source: renewables. Nuclear power was the last attempt, it never delivered on the promises. I love how you say that it would be “available now” when Flamaville 3 started at the same time currently is 6x over budget and 12 year late on a 5 year planned construction timeline. Germany would have had massive cumulative emissions when still waiting for nuclear power to come online. But that’s the problem with you guys. You don’t care about emissions. It’s completely fine locking in fossil fuels for 20 years as we wait for nuclear power to come online. And then in the next sentence you turn around denigrating even a single percentage of fossil fuels as we transition into a renewable grid, before said nuclear would come online. It’s simply completely senseless. You’re making ridicule of yourself.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > Wasted? For the first time since the Industrial Revolution we have found a new cheapest near infinitely scalable energy source: renewables. For the _second_ time. The first time was with the nuclear power. Keep forgetting that, yes? > Nuclear power was the last attempt, it never delivered on the promises. France has an 8 _times_ less carbon-intensive grid than Germany. RIGHT NOW. Keep forgetting that, yes? They can go to carbon-neutral with fairly minimal changes. > I love how you say that it would be “available now” when Flamaville 3 started at the same time currently is 6x over budget and 12 year late on a 5 year planned construction timeline. Russia is finishing the Bangladesh nuclear power plant. On time and within budget. 2 reactors completely built within 10 years. If Russia can do that, other countries can certainly replicate that. > Germany would have had massive cumulative emissions when still waiting for nuclear power to come online. Germany is right now already _locked_ into future emissions for more than 20 years. Even freaking _coal_ (!) is not being phased out until 2038: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-government-says-no-new-law-planned-ensure-coal-exit-earlier-2038 https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-government-says-... > And then in the next sentence you turn around denigrating even a single percentage of fossil fuels as we transition into a renewable grid, before said nuclear would come online. Again, zero reflection from your side. Zero contrition, zero knowledge, and endless excuses. France is literally the next door. Their carbon intensity for energy production is just 12% of Germany's. Right now. Germany in the best possible case won't be able to match that until 2040-s. In reality, it won't happen unless something magical occurs.