3 ms·

> Though it has to be said that solar/wind and nuclear are all extremely safe Who said that? What are you talking about? How is a solar panel even on the same

by Krasnol 4mo ago

> Though it has to be said that solar/wind and nuclear are all extremely safe Who said that? What are you talking about? How is a solar panel even on the same safety-shelf with nuclear material?? What are you talking about?? > A 2013 paper by NASA showed that nuclear power had saved around 1.84 million lives by 2011. Which is again related to the Astroturf tactic of playing nuclear vs. coal and is not related to today's calculations where it is renewables vs. nuclear. Would you please stop derailing the discussion with this? Nuclear peaked in the 90 and is being overtaken by renewables in certain countries as well as probably worldwide this year: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by-source https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by... It is actually renewables which lead to coal being removed from the mix. Not nuclear: https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix

mpweiher 4mo ago
> Who said [that solar/wind and nuclear are all extremely safe]? Not "who". "What". And the answer is "the data". The data say that. Empirically. Completely independent of whether you understand how. And nuclear did not peak in the 90s. 2024 was a record production year, 2025 was another record production year, the number of states adopting nuclear power is rising, the number of reactors is rising, the number of builds is rising, the rate of the increase in number of builds is rising. Empirically. And intermittent renewables are ... intermittent ... and therefore cannot actually completely replace fossil fuels. Which is why almost all industrialized nations are doing nuclear AND renewables. Only in the renewbro-bubble are nuclear and renewables mutually exclusive. In the real world they are complementary. Here's the Finnish environment minister: "If we consider the [consumption] growth figures, the question isn't whether it's wind or nuclear power. We need both," Mykkänen said at a press conference on Tuesday morning. He added that Finland's newest nuclear reactor, Olkiluoto 3, enabled the expansion of the country's wind power infrastructure. Nuclear power, he said, is needed to counterbalance output fluctuations of wind turbines. https://yle.fi/a/74-20136905 https://yle.fi/a/74-20136905
- Krasnol 4mo ago
  > Not "who". "What". And the answer is "the data". The data say that. Why don't you link to "the data" then? > And nuclear did not peak in the 90s. 2024 was a record production year, I just gave you a source which proves my statement and shows that yours is a lie. Just like everything else you added to it. > And intermittent renewables are ... intermittent ... and therefore cannot actually completely replace fossil fuels. Weird how they can't but already do. Must be some kind of magic eh? > Only in the renewbro-bubble are nuclear and renewables mutually exclusive. Nope. This is a lie also :) Nuclear clogs up transmission ways when it's not necessary. This is a fact and happens today. > Here's the Finnish environment minister: Why not add the French environment minister also? You can add as many ministers as you want, the world doesn't care. The money goes into renewables and they're the future. Here is the source again: https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix
  - mpweiher 4mo ago
    Good grief. Your source shows exactly that what I said is the truth, and that you are lying. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by-source https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by... The highest number for nuclear electricity production are 2024 and 2025, with 2025 being slightly higher than 2024. 1965 25.539724 1966 34.43329 1967 41.006016 1968 52.113163 1969 61.783413 1970 78.87466 1971 109.70418 1972 152.17516 1973 203.90158 1974 266.6001 1975 369.8482 1976 432.67142 1977 538.5478 1978 625.7944 1979 650.8599 1980 711.9242 1981 840.75073 1982 912.17755 1983 1033.8127 1984 1254.5685 1985 1488.9216 1986 1594.7357 1987 1734.7332 1988 1891.2493 1989 1945.0106 1990 2000.596 1991 2096.3098 1992 2112.223 1993 2184.9646 1994 2225.9788 1995 2322.5298 1996 2406.615 1997 2390.0642 1998 2431.1948 1999 2523.7056 2000 2540.46 2001 2613.17 2002 2654.78 2003 2601.05 2004 2719.41 2005 2726.97 2006 2761.59 2007 2703.49 2008 2694.72 2009 2656.76 2010 2725.91 2011 2610.34 2012 2432.22 2013 2448.52 2014 2498.73 2015 2532.93 2016 2571.05 2017 2594.23 2018 2658.7 2019 2754.08 2020 2648.33 2021 2762.44 2022 2639.64 2023 2697.74 2024 2777.11 2025 2811.57 Well presumably you are not aware that you are spreading falsehoods, so it's not technically a lie. Though it's so egregious that it might just be. > Nuclear clogs up transmission ways when it's not necessary. Haven't heard that joke in a long time. Good one!

by Krasnol 4mo ago

mpweiher 4mo ago

> Who said [that solar/wind and nuclear are all extremely safe]? Not "who". "What". And the answer is "the data". The data say that. Empirically. Completely independent of whether you understand how. And nuclear did not peak in the 90s. 2024 was a record production year, 2025 was another record production year, the number of states adopting nuclear power is rising, the number of reactors is rising, the number of builds is rising, the rate of the increase in number of builds is rising. Empirically. And intermittent renewables are ... intermittent ... and therefore cannot actually completely replace fossil fuels. Which is why almost all industrialized nations are doing nuclear AND renewables. Only in the renewbro-bubble are nuclear and renewables mutually exclusive. In the real world they are complementary. Here's the Finnish environment minister: "If we consider the [consumption] growth figures, the question isn't whether it's wind or nuclear power. We need both," Mykkänen said at a press conference on Tuesday morning. He added that Finland's newest nuclear reactor, Olkiluoto 3, enabled the expansion of the country's wind power infrastructure. Nuclear power, he said, is needed to counterbalance output fluctuations of wind turbines. https://yle.fi/a/74-20136905 https://yle.fi/a/74-20136905

Krasnol 4mo ago
> Not "who". "What". And the answer is "the data". The data say that. Why don't you link to "the data" then? > And nuclear did not peak in the 90s. 2024 was a record production year, I just gave you a source which proves my statement and shows that yours is a lie. Just like everything else you added to it. > And intermittent renewables are ... intermittent ... and therefore cannot actually completely replace fossil fuels. Weird how they can't but already do. Must be some kind of magic eh? > Only in the renewbro-bubble are nuclear and renewables mutually exclusive. Nope. This is a lie also :) Nuclear clogs up transmission ways when it's not necessary. This is a fact and happens today. > Here's the Finnish environment minister: Why not add the French environment minister also? You can add as many ministers as you want, the world doesn't care. The money goes into renewables and they're the future. Here is the source again: https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix
- mpweiher 4mo ago
  Good grief. Your source shows exactly that what I said is the truth, and that you are lying. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by-source https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by... The highest number for nuclear electricity production are 2024 and 2025, with 2025 being slightly higher than 2024. 1965 25.539724 1966 34.43329 1967 41.006016 1968 52.113163 1969 61.783413 1970 78.87466 1971 109.70418 1972 152.17516 1973 203.90158 1974 266.6001 1975 369.8482 1976 432.67142 1977 538.5478 1978 625.7944 1979 650.8599 1980 711.9242 1981 840.75073 1982 912.17755 1983 1033.8127 1984 1254.5685 1985 1488.9216 1986 1594.7357 1987 1734.7332 1988 1891.2493 1989 1945.0106 1990 2000.596 1991 2096.3098 1992 2112.223 1993 2184.9646 1994 2225.9788 1995 2322.5298 1996 2406.615 1997 2390.0642 1998 2431.1948 1999 2523.7056 2000 2540.46 2001 2613.17 2002 2654.78 2003 2601.05 2004 2719.41 2005 2726.97 2006 2761.59 2007 2703.49 2008 2694.72 2009 2656.76 2010 2725.91 2011 2610.34 2012 2432.22 2013 2448.52 2014 2498.73 2015 2532.93 2016 2571.05 2017 2594.23 2018 2658.7 2019 2754.08 2020 2648.33 2021 2762.44 2022 2639.64 2023 2697.74 2024 2777.11 2025 2811.57 Well presumably you are not aware that you are spreading falsehoods, so it's not technically a lie. Though it's so egregious that it might just be. > Nuclear clogs up transmission ways when it's not necessary. Haven't heard that joke in a long time. Good one!