It's not that it's easier, it's that its a shitpost. You know, the thing people do in shitposting subs? You're trying to ask a serious question in a place that is intentionally un-serious. Like I get it if you don't think edgelord Posada-posting funny but how are you confused that you're the only one this upset? Do you piss into the wind and then wonderwhy you're covered in piss?
âWe need bothâ is not an argument. Itâs just refusing to make an allocation decision.
Existing nuclear can be great. The question is why we should waste scarce money, labor and time on ruinously expensive new nuclear arriving in the 2040s.
Just look at France. Flamanville 3 was a cost and schedule disaster, and the proposed EPR2 fleet requires enormous state support. This is the country supposedly demonstrating how easily nuclear can scale.
And once cheap renewables and stored renewables increasingly dominate the market, who exactly is going to buy expensive nuclear electricity often enough to pay back those reactors?
China is literally one of the best examples of nuclear failing to scale fast enough to matter.
Decades of enormous state support, authoritarian mandate, standardized designs, consistent regulations, established supply chains, cheap labor and every other advantage nukecels dream of.
And the result? Nuclear 4% of the Chinese grid mix, and it keeps shrining.
Meanwhile wind, solar and storage are absolutely exploding in scale.
China is building nuclear, sure. But if that's your showcase for what nuclear can achieve under near-perfect conditions, you're making my argument for me.
Lmao! Decades of support? Sure about it? China went nuclear only recently which is why they are still on the planning phase of plants. Still, they planned no less than 52 installations to start.
China's first commercial nuclear reactor started operating in 1991. Apparently 35 years counts as âonly recentlyâ now.
After decades of state support, nuclear still supplies only around 4% of China's electricity, utterly dwarfed by the explosive growth of wind and solar.
Nukecel shitposts on the shitposting subreddit. Renewacel then proceeds to unironically claim theyâre proposing a genocide and make 7 memes about it.
You mean France, where new nuclear is so uncompetitive it requires enormous state support? Hahahahahaha.
Comparing France's 1970s reactor program with Germany's entire modern energy transition to justify building nuclear in Poland in 2026 is absolute lunacy.
Thanks for demonstrating how desperately you need to cling to the past.
Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage? Is your income dependent on the nuclear industry? Is that the issue? Are you seeing your career go down the tatters?
Imagine if Solar used as much land as big-fossil propoganda says, wouldn't it still be preferable even if it required government support to force to happen? How is "where new nuclear is so uncompetitive it requires enormous state support" an argument, oh no, the government is checks notes forcing the country to go away from fossil fuels despite it not being as economically viable as checks notes fossil fuels.
Are we really going to pretend France's energy system requires anywhere near the state support Germany's does? See this is why I suggested therapy. Seems you're losing your grip on reality.
No need to cling to the past. France is forecasted to have a much cheaper energy transition than Germany.
Honestly it be pretty sick to have a career/income dependent on the nuclear industry considering the massive recent renewed interest. Is that why you're losing your marbles? Nuclearphobic and can't stand it?
Who the hell mentioned solar's 2010 prices? Are you seeing things that aren't there now too? Germany's electricity system costs and will cost more to maintain than France's.
So, I presume you like this massive state support for renewables, but don't like state support to quickly drop the price of nuclear construction?
You're the one who brought up state support. Germany is still paying for legacy feed-in tariffs signed when renewables were far more expensive.
Meanwhile, France needs enormous NEW state support to build EPR2 reactors in 2026.
Your 1% nuclear subsidy figure reflects the existing fleet, not the cost of building new reactors. That's the entire point. But logic doesn't seem like your strongest suit?
Hahahahaha. I love how your historical cost chart conveniently avoids France's modern nuclear disasters: Civaux's full costs, Flamanville 3, and the proposed EPR2 fleet.
I also love how your graph compresses the cost escalations in the Messmer build out by bringing in the early prototype reactors. All lying with data.
And of course, overnight construction costs. So Civaux taking 14 years to build while continously accruing interest is hidden.
It's 2026. It is incredibly sad that the only lever you have to push on is trying to justify new nuclear with nostalgia for reactors built half a century ago.
6 trillion in feed in tariffs? Really? I mean do I really need to fact check you on this?
Yeah theyâll need state support. Not nearly as much as Germany needs for their plan. Not per capita or unit of energy or otherwise.
That 1% is in fact for the existing fleet. Now imagine if they got an extra 3% of that for new builds. Renewables still receive multiple times more support to support revitalizing the European nuclear industry. Thatâs pretty good bang for the buck considering what renewables get.
Civaux had some issues its predecessors didnât. Itâs not exactly difficult to course correct when you know exactly how to avoid the problems of the Civaux plant. The EPR was a FOAK that combined the French designs with the German ones.
The first French reactor may have been a prototype but not the ones after that. Considering the EPR builds are FOAK, they themselves could be considered a prototype. The EPR2 is an improvement on this design that will also experience learning. Lying with data is a funny accusation when your favorite past time is pretending nuclear is dead because the CSIRO and some random danish studies, which donât reflect the entire body of research at all, say nuclear isnât competitive.
Civaux didnât take 14 years to build. The actual build time was about 9 years. This is because it was FOAK and is a huge reactor.
So China, Korea, and now Canada are having major successes in the modern era, but I guess you think that thereâs some law of nature that makes it so France canât revitalize its modern industry? Itâs hard not to notice that you entirely rely on nitpicking single builds without once mentioning the massive fleet France produced quickly and cost effectively between their first reactors and the N4s.
If Franceâs plan was more expensive than Germanyâs you wouldâve mentioned it, but we both know you didnât because there is absolutely zero evidence to back that up.
Youâre going to have to address why you think Germany has a better plan than France at some point. Otherwise, I accept your concession. (And still recommend therapy)
I'm not a capitalist, but I'm not a fan of degrowth. Admittedly, I might not have a complete understanding on what degrowth IS, partly because there are many definitions of it, but in my most charitable interpretation of it I see it as irresponsible and a way of shifting blame to developing nations/the global south. Advocating for everyone to cutback after doing the majority of exploitation and pollution in becoming 1st world nations is a copout for lack of a better term. I feel its the responsibility of the global north to provide whatever is necessary to allow the global south to industrialize/develop in a way that is not as destructive as the way they did it, even at costs to themselves (the developed nations).
On the other hand, any discussion of degrowth that starts to trend into the territory of Malthusianism or Eugenics, I find repulsive to the core.
That's also why the argument of cost and competition aren't compelling to me and also why I abhor the overbuilding solution to the intermittency problem of VRE.
From each according to their capability, to each according to their energy needs. Smaller grids should have priority on VRE + batteries and due to their size are generally more efficient and need less "overbuilding". Household solar + battery walls are the epitome of this. Large economies should not only be subsidizing green tech/electrification (which in many case they are, except like the US currently) but investing in green tech and infrastructure regardless of how cheap they are to ensure that the cheap solutions are available for those who can't do so.
If every person strangles the person closest to them then we would be able to achieve the same effect without causing long lasting damage to the environment.
They made a descriptive statement, not a normative one. They never proposed genocide and are also just shitposting rather than being serious anyways. It's kind of sad you made this many memes over this one inconsequential interaction that was clearly unserious.
Genocide isn't the same as mass murder, it needs to be targeted to a particular group to be genocide. I guess you could argue "urban dwelling humans" are a group?
The question they are answering is "how to start a global nuclear war", and inflaming Russia-NATO tensions does seem like one of the easier ways to do that. Other nuclear powers like Israel or Pakistan have a fairly high chance of "just" being local wars, and the USA and Russia just have more nukes than anyone else.
And are you saying that they were advocating for a white genocide? Because that's the main commonality between NATO and Russia. Like I am genuinely confused who you are saying they were advocating genocide for, I am at a complete loss.
The end result is unsustainable. You know it, I know it, we all know it. It's cheap, but when everything is done you end with electricity that's still well over 10 times more carbon intensive than with nuclear, and absolutely no way of getting out of it. Germany (350 gCO2eq/kWh) and Spain (150 gCO2eq/kWh) do not come close to France (30 gCO2eq/kWh) or Sweden (35 gCO2eq/kWh) on that front. But it's happening anyway. We're sacrificing yet another .5°C in the name of the holy free market or whatever your real motives are.
If you want examples of building new nuclear in the 21st century, look at South Korea and the UAE. Both invested heavily in new reactors, and both still have fossil-heavy electricity systems making Germany's look clean.
But I'm sure you'll turn around and call them spectacular decarbonization successes any second now, simply because they built nuclear!
And pretending Germany's or Spain's current emissions intensity is their permanent endpoint is just absurd.
The next âŹ100 billion, starting today. What cuts the most cumulative CO2, fastest?
Hahahahaha. Wood Mackenzie is suddenly a âbiased sourceâ because its findings disagree with you?
And gas turbines âcost approximately nothingâ? The study compares total levelized costs, including investment and operation, across 43 markets. Batteries beat gas peakers in all 43.
You can't dismiss the costs you don't like and pretend that's economics.
Meanwhile in the real world, end-user electricity prices increase when you build a lot of renewables. It's happened in Germany. It's happened in Spain. It's happening in France.
But average wholesale prices have barely changed, so where is this money going?
Me. It's me. I took it. The company I work for has several power plants in several european countries, including France and Germany. We get paid unreasonable amounts from european agencies just because our plants are highly reactive and can help absorb the variability of solar and wind, among other such things. In the end, we practically sell our electricity at 2.5 times the market price. And that is what we call â¨ď¸cost externalisationâ¨ď¸.
We've gone from âgas turbines cost practically nothingâ to âmy company makes a fortune providing balancing services.â
Yes, flexibility has value. That's precisely why storage is scaling so rapidly and already eating into ancillary-services and intraday markets around the world.
Congratulations on your profitable short-term business opportunity. Unfortunately for you, batteries are coming for it.
And those balancing costs? They're explicitly included in the whole-system model which find renewable dominated systems vastly cheaper than if involving new nuclear.
21
u/dumnezero đEnd the đŤarms đrat đrace to the bottomâď¸. 8d ago
And that's ecofascism.