4 ms·

The west tried building nuclear power 20 years ago. If it had delivered we would be building more now. It did not deliver. It is time to leave nuclear power to

The west tried building nuclear power 20 years ago. If it had delivered we would be building more now. It did not deliver. It is time to leave nuclear power to the past just like we have done with the steam engine. It had its heyday but better cheaper technology replaced it.

exe34 2y ago
what does it mean that "the west tried" - was it a technical failure or was it that people didn't want it in their backyard? just because people hate something doesn't mean that they don't need it. children hate spinach.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  There was talk of an ongoing nuclear renaissance in the early 2000s. [1] American companies and utilities announced 30 reactors. Britain announced ~14. We went ahead and started construction on 7 reactors in Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer, Flamanville, Olkiluoto and Hanhikivi to rekindle the industry. We didn't believe renewables would cut it. The end result of what we broke ground on is 3 cancelled reactors, 3 reactors which entered commercial operation in the 2020s and 1 still under construction. The rest are in different states of trouble with financing with only Hinkley Point C slowly moving forward. In the meantime renewables went from barely existing to dominating new capacity (TWh) in the energy sector. Today renewables make up 2/3rds of global investment in the energy sector. The failure of nuclear power is that it is horrifically expensive and the timelines are insane compared to the competition. Steam locomotives technically work, but are like nuclear power uncompetitive. Lately nuclear power has caught the imagination of conservative politicians as a method to delay the renewable disruption of the fossil industry and have an answer to climate change. When their plans, like in Australia, get presented they don’t care the slightest about nuclear power and it is only a method to prolong the life of the coal and gas assets. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance_in_the_Uni...
  - Eisenstein 2y ago
    > American companies and utilities announced 30 reactors. Britain announced ~14. Lots of projects get announced, they aren't meant to be promises. > The end result of what we broke ground on is 3 cancelled reactors, 3 reactors which entered commercial operation in the 2020s and 1 still under construction. So there are three operational reactors and another one almost ready. I'm surprised we got that after Fukushima. > Today renewables make up 2/3rds of global investment in the energy sector. So we should not invest in anything else? > Steam locomotives technically work, but are like nuclear power uncompetitive. This is a terrible analogy. > Lately nuclear power has caught the imagination of conservative politicians as a method to delay the renewable disruption of the fossil industry and have an answer to climate change. People who have been advocating for more nuclear power should stop because it is a conservative issue now?
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      Which would have moved forward towards completion if the economic calculus made sense. We should of course continue with basic research. But, without some incredible breakthrough nuclear power will only serve climate change deniers agenda in delaying the renewable buildout. This is what you sign up for when proposing investing in nuclear power in 2024: > The opposition last week released modelling of its “coal-to-nuclear” plan that would slow the rollout of renewable energy and batteries and instead rely on more fossil fuel generation until a nuclear industry could be developed, mostly after 2040. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/dec/16/coalition-nuclear-plan-will-hit-earth-with-1bn-extra-tonnes-of-co2-before-2050-experts-warn https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/dec/16/coali...
      - exe34 2y ago
        in other words, it's too late to build nuclear, let's bury our heads in the sand and hope somehow we have enough renewable in 20 years and we're not still using the coal/gas.
        ViewTrick1002 2y ago

exe34 2y ago

what does it mean that "the west tried" - was it a technical failure or was it that people didn't want it in their backyard? just because people hate something doesn't mean that they don't need it. children hate spinach.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
There was talk of an ongoing nuclear renaissance in the early 2000s. [1] American companies and utilities announced 30 reactors. Britain announced ~14. We went ahead and started construction on 7 reactors in Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer, Flamanville, Olkiluoto and Hanhikivi to rekindle the industry. We didn't believe renewables would cut it. The end result of what we broke ground on is 3 cancelled reactors, 3 reactors which entered commercial operation in the 2020s and 1 still under construction. The rest are in different states of trouble with financing with only Hinkley Point C slowly moving forward. In the meantime renewables went from barely existing to dominating new capacity (TWh) in the energy sector. Today renewables make up 2/3rds of global investment in the energy sector. The failure of nuclear power is that it is horrifically expensive and the timelines are insane compared to the competition. Steam locomotives technically work, but are like nuclear power uncompetitive. Lately nuclear power has caught the imagination of conservative politicians as a method to delay the renewable disruption of the fossil industry and have an answer to climate change. When their plans, like in Australia, get presented they don’t care the slightest about nuclear power and it is only a method to prolong the life of the coal and gas assets. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance_in_the_Uni...
- Eisenstein 2y ago
  > American companies and utilities announced 30 reactors. Britain announced ~14. Lots of projects get announced, they aren't meant to be promises. > The end result of what we broke ground on is 3 cancelled reactors, 3 reactors which entered commercial operation in the 2020s and 1 still under construction. So there are three operational reactors and another one almost ready. I'm surprised we got that after Fukushima. > Today renewables make up 2/3rds of global investment in the energy sector. So we should not invest in anything else? > Steam locomotives technically work, but are like nuclear power uncompetitive. This is a terrible analogy. > Lately nuclear power has caught the imagination of conservative politicians as a method to delay the renewable disruption of the fossil industry and have an answer to climate change. People who have been advocating for more nuclear power should stop because it is a conservative issue now?
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    Which would have moved forward towards completion if the economic calculus made sense. We should of course continue with basic research. But, without some incredible breakthrough nuclear power will only serve climate change deniers agenda in delaying the renewable buildout. This is what you sign up for when proposing investing in nuclear power in 2024: > The opposition last week released modelling of its “coal-to-nuclear” plan that would slow the rollout of renewable energy and batteries and instead rely on more fossil fuel generation until a nuclear industry could be developed, mostly after 2040. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/dec/16/coalition-nuclear-plan-will-hit-earth-with-1bn-extra-tonnes-of-co2-before-2050-experts-warn https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/dec/16/coali...
    - exe34 2y ago
      in other words, it's too late to build nuclear, let's bury our heads in the sand and hope somehow we have enough renewable in 20 years and we're not still using the coal/gas.
      - ViewTrick1002 2y ago