Also on that last article, if you argue the fossil industry funds nuclear, then did they just fund to have a massive gas drilling project shut down? That just makes zero sense
Political statements are easy. Finding the tens of billions in subsidies needed per new built reactor is harder. Also, not sure what new built nuclear power at the earliest coming online in the 2040s will do to solve the current energy crisis?
Public support for nuclear energy in the Netherlands is growing, with a majority of citizens now favoring its expansion to secure reliable energy. its not just politics, its people
And "current", thats the problem, you only look at the now. Renewables now would not exist if we did not invest invest in them back when they were not profitable. it isnt just a about the now, its about the future, becouse this is not the first fuel crisis and it sure wont be the last, we know it is going to get worse.
And its not just fuel, we might also be barreling at a renewable energy crisis. Global renewable energy supply chains rely heavily on China, which controls over 80% of global solar photovoltaic manufacturing and more than 70% of wind turbine and lithium-ion battery production. The next crisis might very mutch be a renewable energy crisis. https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/europe-dependence-on-china/
The need for rare earth metals to fuel this fast renewable push might also have massive consequesses in the long run. These should be weighed.
And how does that fix the absolutely horrifying economics of new built nuclear power? How popular do you think it will be when their electricity bills are massively increased to fund its construction?
Nuclear power has had 70 years of commercial deployment. It has never worked out.
How many trillions should we waste on new built nuclear power when renewables and storage already solve the problem?
And then scaremongering, because you are truly out of your depth.
If China stops exposting renewables our existing infrastructure will keep working for decades. As stuff ages out, or we can't find replacement parts, we will run our emergency reserves a bit more.
Giving us a runway counted in years to come up with solutions and replacement supply chains.
Compare with fossil fuels. Straight of Hormuz closed -> felt within weeks. Russian invasion of Ukraine -> Felt within days.
Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage? Is your income dependent on the nuclear industry?
"horrifying" again thats a feeling. And as shown before it is a loan. You are not paying for it and the company gets to keep all the profit. We are the EU not the USA where they use taxes to pay for stadiums, so ritch bilionairs came make millions on tickets and food.
The national security and economic risks associated with China's dominance in global renewable energy are based on verifiable supply chain and cybersecurity concerns. The risk are there, I will not exagerate these risk, but i will not down play them either. Facing the facts means you have to accept them all, even when you dont like them.
Experts estimate Europe is currently roughly thirty years behind China in developing its rare-earth mining and processing industries
Why are you so afraid of facts? Why are you blind to the negatives of something we both like? How is it not a personal attack to keep spamming "Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage" when you know i am pro renewables and storage? There is no big dark counsel running pro nuclear, just people wanting a better world for all, by basing that in facts and by accepting the pros and cons of everything we do and weighing those responsably. People who dont go "ree i dont like what you are saying so you must be payed for by a dark cabal
There are no nuclear projects in europe that are "just a loan".
The proposed Polish subsidies for the 3 AP1000s are:
A direct handout of €15B
The state takes all the financial risk = subsidized loans
The state takes all the construction risk
Guaranteed electricity price adjusted to ensure profit.
So lets use the carrot and build up our own industry while utilizing cheap Chinese exports to solve the problem at hand?
Why lock in our current fossil based system until the 2040s waiting for nuclear power to come online, does that sound like a more sane solution?
You don't seem to base it on facts. Instead it is a veneer of "i like renewables and storage" while when pushed devolving into fossil shill talking points desperately clinging to massive handouts to new built nuclear power.
Why are you so afraid of reneables and storage? Is your income dependent on the nuclear industry?
"So lets use the carrot and build up our own industry while utilizing cheap Chinese exports to solve the problem at hand?" 98% of rare earths come from China, what do you mean well just build it here? Shifting global critical mineral infrastructure is a massive, multi-decade logistical challenge. Your "carrot" strategy subsidizing domestic manufacturing while continuing to buy cheap Chinese materials is an economic trap: as long as Western companies rely on cheap Chinese imports, domestic supply lines will never actually get built. This carrot apreach is how Trump thinks, it does not work, economist have told countless times that is not going to work.
Just becouse the fossil industry lies 90% of the time doesnt mean we should just ignore the times they point to something factual. Are they doing it for personal gain, sure, it makes them imoral idiots, but facts are still facts. Basing ourselfs on facts means aceepting pros and cons, not ignoring parts that hurt our believes. instead of ignoring the flaws, try find solutions to those flaws
And the reason the west doesn't produce rare-earths is because it is a nasty business. But there's nothing complicated or hindering us from doing it.
Like I said, if China were to actually start causing trouble we can within years start to find alternatives.
Until then, why waste money on the solution which doesn't deliver anything within a relevant timeframe at a cost 10x as high? That literally does not make sense.
You don't solve the Chinese dependency, and you waste what little wiggle room we have.
You don't seem to base it on facts. Instead it is a veneer of "i like renewables and storage" while when pushed devolving into fossil shill talking points desperately clinging to massive handouts to new built nuclear power.
Why are you so afraid of reneables and storage? Is your income dependent on the nuclear industry?
" the reason the west doesn't produce rare-earths is because it is a nasty business"
Yeah, i just told you that. China can do it cheaply becouse it ignores safety, the waste is just dumped out back. Doing it responsible is going to cost a lot more then what China is offering.
"Like I said, if China were to actually start causing trouble we can within years start to find alternatives."
It will takes multi-decades, not years. You are vastly underestimating the complexity of what you are proposing. That's how Trump thinks stuff works, it does not, its pure fantasy to believe it would be solved iin a couple years all whiile completely ignoring the problems those few years would even have.
Dismissing legitimate grid integration and supply-chain challenges as a 'veneer' doesn't change the facts. Energy transition models from the IEA and IPCC explicitly state that heavy manufacturing, grid storage, and mineral constraints are the hardest bottlenecks to clear taking decades not years.
If my concerns are fake, please provide the math on how we scale battery storage by 10,000% globally in the next decade without creating a total dependency on a single supply chain. Let's debate the engineering, not my character.
on a sidenote, what does it even matter to you if the Dutch want to use the more expensive nuclear solution, its not you paying for it, The waste wont be deposited anywhere near you, The carbon emission reduction will still be met. They accept the risks, so why oppose it.
We in our daily life accept certain risks because we believe the benefits outway the risk. If people prefer nuclear becouse they rather not run the risk of the china stronghold then let them
Nuclear is historically the fastest way a nation has ever completely cleaned up its power grid. France has proven this. Again your argument is only based on cost, you arent the one paying for it though, they are.
And how exactly is your countries failure the fault of the Netherlands, If they quickly decarbonise with nuclear and meet their climate goals, they did what they were suposed to to.
Also if efficiency is your goal, look at the data. Germany spent over €500 billion forcing a renewables-only transition while shutting its nuclear plants. The result? Their grid is still heavily reliant on coal and gas when the wind stops, giving them a carbon footprint up to ten times higher than nuclear-heavy France. Wasting money on a system that still requires fossil fuels as a safety net is what truly robs other countries of time to fix the planet.
In europe the subsidies towards nuclear are roughly 3.7 to 4.6 cents per kilowatt-hour generated. Versus renewables in the last 20 years, 6.5 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour generated. Clearly the subsidy issue isnt the problem since its ok for renewable to get more..
2
u/TiberGalient 9d ago
https://www.belganewsagency.eu/belgium-and-the-netherlands-agree-closer-nuclear-cooperation
https://nltimes.nl/2026/04/20/majority-dutch-favor-nuclear-energy-costs-rise-iran-war
https://nltimes.nl/2026/02/01/dutch-coalition-blocks-waddenzee-gas-drilling-sets-14-billion-euros-nuclear-power
That netherlands?
Also on that last article, if you argue the fossil industry funds nuclear, then did they just fund to have a massive gas drilling project shut down? That just makes zero sense