5 ms·

> All left leaning parties and greens parties are strongly against nuclear. It's crazy that the left and green parties are against cheap, sustainable and clean

> All left leaning parties and greens parties are strongly against nuclear. It's crazy that the left and green parties are against cheap, sustainable and clean energy for the masses.

somedude895 4mo ago
If it wasn‘t for the European Greens’ (partially oil lobby funded) anti-nuclear propaganda starting in the 60s, carbon emissions today would be much lower than they are.
Gareth321 4mo ago
I've become increasingly disillusioned with the modern environmental movement. I support efforts to reduce CO2 production, and nuclear is one of the best ways to do that. This is an absolute no-brainer. Instead, when I talk with activists, they have a much greater focus on people using less energy. As though that will have no human impact.
ViewTrick1002 4mo ago
Well. It is not cheap. Each new built large scale reactor needs tens of billions in subsidies. Money which could have multiple times larger effect, in a fraction of the time, if invested in renewables and storage.
- Moldoteck 4mo ago
  But ren also require gas firming expansion(see germany). And Germany spends in ren subsidies about equivalent of 1 failed french nuclear project, each year... to have far worse emissions
  - ViewTrick1002 4mo ago
    Always the laser focus on Germany. Are you suggesting that Germany would be better off by keeping their current emissions until the mid ~2040s waiting for horrifyingly expensive new built nuclear power to come online? Who cares if the emergency reserves are fossil gas when we still need to decarbonize agriculture, construction, aviation, industry, maritime shipping and so on? When those emergency reserve emissions matter on the scale of the entire economy then force them to be zero carbon fuel, if still necessary. You’re trying to blow up potential what if’s 15 years from now as the end of the world. Followed by looking backwards. What you are complaining about is that 2010 solar was expensive and still get paid that expensive price. What’s the relevance when it comes to choosing what the most efficient spending of money is in 2026?
    - Moldoteck 4mo ago
      Germany is just a prime example. Germany was better off to not shut down existing plants and invest in ren+nuclear to retire leftover fossils. It's also fascinating to hear the "horrifyingly expensive" statement. Germany spends on EEG equivalent of one failed french nuclear project each year. It also spends the same on transmission to acomodate distributed generation. And also plans to expand gas. Anyone suggesting German path is sane/correct and expanding nuclear is the worst decision ever loves fossils more than nuclear - as simple as that. "Who cares if the emergency reserves are fossil gas when we still need to decarbonize agriculture, construction, aviation, industry, maritime shipping and so on?" - many. German EEG/y spending is about to increase because it's paid more frequently despite most expensive contracts being over. And for offshore this already didn't pan out well. Solar has the advantage of lower capex but will be hit too.
      - ViewTrick1002 4mo ago
        Why are you unable to look forward? I see a wall of text complaining about the past. Again. Are you suggesting that Germany would be better off by keeping their current emissions until the mid ~2040s waiting for horrifyingly expensive new built nuclear power to come online?
        Moldoteck 4mo ago
        I'm complaining that Germany also plans gas expansion into _future_ instead of either refurbing some of existing units for cheap or build new nuclear. Germany doesn't need to wait for it to come online. It needs to keep building ren while building nuclear and erase all fossils infrastructure entirely. No stupid parallel gas/coal firming. Nor cheap green hydrogen pipedreams. France doesn't have parallel gas network so it's possible and should be done.
        ViewTrick1002 4mo ago
        Ahhh. The magical, ”just restart”, handwaving away all issues. You do realize that the nuclear lobby group found the easiest reactors to restart were in the north? Which is already constrained by an oversupply of renewables and limited transmission infrastructure. How will that help? Also. Why get less decarbonization by wasting money and opportunity on new built nuclear power when we still need to decarbonize construction, agriculture, shipping, showroom, industry? Do you think we have infinite money?
Moldoteck 4mo ago
I mean the situation was clear when Germany dropped nuclear before coal and gas... I can understand simping for gas, but having coal on the grid and dismantling nuclear in parallel is peak insanity

> All left leaning parties and greens parties are strongly against nuclear. It's crazy that the left and green parties are against cheap, sustainable and clean energy for the masses.

somedude895 4mo ago

If it wasn‘t for the European Greens’ (partially oil lobby funded) anti-nuclear propaganda starting in the 60s, carbon emissions today would be much lower than they are.

Gareth321 4mo ago

I've become increasingly disillusioned with the modern environmental movement. I support efforts to reduce CO2 production, and nuclear is one of the best ways to do that. This is an absolute no-brainer. Instead, when I talk with activists, they have a much greater focus on people using less energy. As though that will have no human impact.

ViewTrick1002 4mo ago

Well. It is not cheap. Each new built large scale reactor needs tens of billions in subsidies. Money which could have multiple times larger effect, in a fraction of the time, if invested in renewables and storage.

Moldoteck 4mo ago
But ren also require gas firming expansion(see germany). And Germany spends in ren subsidies about equivalent of 1 failed french nuclear project, each year... to have far worse emissions
- ViewTrick1002 4mo ago
  Always the laser focus on Germany. Are you suggesting that Germany would be better off by keeping their current emissions until the mid ~2040s waiting for horrifyingly expensive new built nuclear power to come online? Who cares if the emergency reserves are fossil gas when we still need to decarbonize agriculture, construction, aviation, industry, maritime shipping and so on? When those emergency reserve emissions matter on the scale of the entire economy then force them to be zero carbon fuel, if still necessary. You’re trying to blow up potential what if’s 15 years from now as the end of the world. Followed by looking backwards. What you are complaining about is that 2010 solar was expensive and still get paid that expensive price. What’s the relevance when it comes to choosing what the most efficient spending of money is in 2026?
  - Moldoteck 4mo ago
    Germany is just a prime example. Germany was better off to not shut down existing plants and invest in ren+nuclear to retire leftover fossils. It's also fascinating to hear the "horrifyingly expensive" statement. Germany spends on EEG equivalent of one failed french nuclear project each year. It also spends the same on transmission to acomodate distributed generation. And also plans to expand gas. Anyone suggesting German path is sane/correct and expanding nuclear is the worst decision ever loves fossils more than nuclear - as simple as that. "Who cares if the emergency reserves are fossil gas when we still need to decarbonize agriculture, construction, aviation, industry, maritime shipping and so on?" - many. German EEG/y spending is about to increase because it's paid more frequently despite most expensive contracts being over. And for offshore this already didn't pan out well. Solar has the advantage of lower capex but will be hit too.
    - ViewTrick1002 4mo ago
      Why are you unable to look forward? I see a wall of text complaining about the past. Again. Are you suggesting that Germany would be better off by keeping their current emissions until the mid ~2040s waiting for horrifyingly expensive new built nuclear power to come online?
      - Moldoteck 4mo ago
        I'm complaining that Germany also plans gas expansion into _future_ instead of either refurbing some of existing units for cheap or build new nuclear. Germany doesn't need to wait for it to come online. It needs to keep building ren while building nuclear and erase all fossils infrastructure entirely. No stupid parallel gas/coal firming. Nor cheap green hydrogen pipedreams. France doesn't have parallel gas network so it's possible and should be done.
        ViewTrick1002 4mo ago
        Ahhh. The magical, ”just restart”, handwaving away all issues. You do realize that the nuclear lobby group found the easiest reactors to restart were in the north? Which is already constrained by an oversupply of renewables and limited transmission infrastructure. How will that help? Also. Why get less decarbonization by wasting money and opportunity on new built nuclear power when we still need to decarbonize construction, agriculture, shipping, showroom, industry? Do you think we have infinite money?

Moldoteck 4mo ago

I mean the situation was clear when Germany dropped nuclear before coal and gas... I can understand simping for gas, but having coal on the grid and dismantling nuclear in parallel is peak insanity