Moldoteck

no they dont. For military nuclear program you don't need power plants at all. You either have enrichment for uranium based warheads or a facility dedicated specifically to breed plutonium. Classic PWRs are unsuitable for that. There are ways - but it's so expensive that it's better to do it the proper way

no, weapons production is unrealated anyway - it's cheaper to do it in special facilities. Thorium was just too late to the party when most units were classic PWR's and BWR's without complicated handling

military is unrealated to plants. You are ill informed.

The statement about subsidies is false too for existing plants. IPEX data is public. There are more subsidies for new units because the west is bad at construction but the amount is still not that great. Heck, biomass in EU gets 2x the CFD's vs min profitability limit of french Flamanville...

Their estimate was somewhat justifiable. Just recently before Hitachi finished it's ABWR in Japan for 3bn in under 4y... EDF thought they are cocky and can do the same...

Ironically Finland had the option to build ABWR which got built already for cheap and fast. But it picked EDF because it decided to underbid saying it can do cheaper... The result is known...

Droughts will start impacting Switzerland just like Norway. So the summer oversupply problem will turn into an undersupply. You are right about France, especially considering EDF wants to sell excess to data centers, hence recent announcements

France and Sweden proved Renewables+Nuclear can decarbonize your electric grid almost fully and pretty damn fast - under 20y with old tech without any automatic welding and such... With proper policies the whole planet could do something similar in much less time...

The challenge still remains decarbonizing the rest/electrification

Hard doubt they can stock up so fast considering the bump was recent. They planned release anyway

So a guy that married 2 times and divorced 2 times, has 3 children, recommends that the sweet spot for productivity is 60 hours per week, which would mean about 12h/day if you work 5 days or 10h/day if you work 6 days. This means, if you start your work at 8, you finish either at 20:00 or 18:00 + 30-60min lunch break. With such a packed day I can only imagine what a stellar childhood will his kids get assuming he wants to be involved in rising them...

Sorry for ignorance, but what workflows do you have that an M3 24gb mac feels slow? I got the basic M1 air and it still works fine

Framework has it's value for ppl that are afraid dropping their laptops/ breaking the screen. Personally i still prefer macs, but I have friends that do value such "features". For the same reason they are willing to buy the Fairphone despite inferior specs/higher per spec price

Maintenance ain't free and letting one of the core elements of OS to be developed by community could lead to undesirable outcomes (ranging from battery/perf impact to introduction of some new bugs or esoteric workarounds). Consistency in codebase and software is important, especially for bigger companies.

Far too many companies aren't willing to embrace newer paradigms/toolchains/software on the principle - if it works don't touch it or inventing some wild workarounds. I think in the end it's for good

our company doesnt do compile on push on the server. It only does it when approved by a subset of ppl. The reason is we have a limited amount of servers and compile takes about 40min/variation. It's very annoying considering at prev job compile took about 10 min in total (project was organized better+ better servers) and there wasn't a limit at all-> compile at each push to gerrit.

I'm now trying to migrate from msbuild to cmake+sscache+PCH for std libraries while also trimming unnecessary includes to reduce suffering in the future - if not for me then at least for future developers. So I would say compile time is important for development. It causes other limitations too (like bugfixing becomes a huge commit with several squished fixes together to avoid recompiles, messing up git history or slower context switching when developing several features in parallel)

you can have a mix- 4gb embedded ram + 1-2 slots of slower layer

apps are less problematic... the browser though...

there's no guarantee, but if the build is mass served - it's at least possible to find out. For closed source apps you may even not know

The ones you linked too do use gas firming... And the goal there too is to sometimes replace it with hydrogen if ever possible which is more a pipedream than doing a messmer plan over entire EU today

Do both. I didn't advocate to stop renewables. I advocate to do both unlike some that have a boner for renewables and gas firming. Yes if you don't build ren now. You'll have higher emissions till nuclear is ready. If you don't build nuclear now, you'll have higher emissions when you use gas firming. The solution is expanding both, like it's done in France, Sweden, Romania and bunch of other countries

Epr2 is advancing, framatome is already manufacturing it's components. EDF will extend own units just like it was done in US so the fleet will either remain stable or grow

Because you can't have Chernobyl by design. Like physically.

Nobody is downplaying the risks- not evacuating sick people and old people would have done far less damage regardless of the incident outcome. They just wouldn't have lived enough or a very small nr would have been affected

And as said, what's worse. When incident was tackled and radiation levels known, govt didn't rush to lift the orders causing even more deaths.

I'm not afraid of renewables and bess and never said that, don't put words in my mouth. I just realize that without nuclear countries will be bound to expanding gas firming if they dont have hydro, just like Germany. We can make a bet that even in 30y German emissions per kwh will still be worse than french ones due to this firming. In other words due to antinuclear policy in 50y of energiewende Germany will still have worse emissions vs France which did the job in about 20y of Messmer

You can inspect how that paper was peer reviewed by pointing out what was wrong with it) To me it's wild how people are defending nonsense written by frauds like Lund and Jacobson, both heavy antinuclear proponents that treat hydrogen as some dirt cheap power firming option

The discussion was about speed anyway. UAE achieved higher TWh of clean power than both Denmark and Portugal in less time, as simple as that - this is undeniable

The statement about "handouts of trillions to pet technology" shows you just don't care about emissions, you hate nuclear. Per IPEX nuclear gets 15x less subsidies vs renewables in EU. Germany spent on EEG alone double the cost of entire french nuclear fleet, the gap getting wider. From this year transmission will be subsidized too because DE households have highest prices in EU, close to Denmark. But i guess subsidies for your favorite technology are fine and for the rest it's absolute evil.

Saying that UAE didn't achieve success with it's Barakah is either delusion or willingness to ignore reality.

There's no need to do such harsh rushed evacuation even if situation was much worse as Chernobyl proves. Many that died from evacuation were old or sick people that wouldn't have had symptoms even if it was as bad as Chernobyl (even though it would be physically impossible to have uranium burning into clouds there like in Chernobyl due to design difference)

What's worse, after situation was known and stabilized, government didn't cancel evacuation orders but kept them for years even though the dose was small.

I'm not shifting the discussion but telling the reality, a reality that killed many people even though they could have lived https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014919702...

I talked about current one too.

I've linked not a "typical studie" but a peer reviewed correction to the mistakes of the original paper.

Ironically we already know the answer about speed. Check out how TWh/y of clean power evolved in Denmark vs UAE with Barakah built by Korea

I'm talking about this one https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/paths-...

In pessimistic economy growth scenario about 80GW of gas are needed or more otherwise. The hope is to sometime replace it with hydrogen which looks like a gamble https://ieefa.org/resources/germanys-gas-and-hydrogen-gamble

Radiation data was known. Due to sensors outside of the plant area. Jp govt ignored it.

Even more so, after the accident when the situation was certain, evacuation orders weren't immediately cancelled to let people back into their homes despite the dose being very low, in some cases even below natural background radiation levels in other areas of Japan

Unnecessary evacuation killed over 2.3k people. That's half of waht are expected to die fron Chernobyl accident over a century per UN or about 5 times more vs nr of expected deaths per updated UNSCEAR reports. Fear of nuclear killed more people than nuclear itself ij this case

What arguments have been dealt with many times over? Because I do not see that. I've provided sources from eurostat, nrel, unece, ourworldindata or even fraunhofer about gas firming in Germany. I can support any of my statements with data

Waste problem for nuclear isn't different conceptually from waste problem of arsenic/cadmium/lead -> you need to isolate them somewhere deep underground for a long time. Eg. in Germany it's Herfa Neurode, in Finland-Onkalo, in Sweden - Fosmark, in Switzerland Terradura and in France - Cigeo. At their core concept it's just a deep hole that'll store dangerous waste forever.

Nuclear is slow to deploy, yet France and Sweden achieved one of the fastest decarbonizations on the planet with it. Heck even UAE with Barakah recently managed to get ahead of Portugal and DK in terms of amount of clean TWh/y

I'm in favor in deployment of nuclear and renewables because without nuclear it'll be renewables and gas. Heck, even France has a mix of nuclear and renewables and wants to expand both, just like Sweden. On the other hand countries that ban nuclear or even expand their policy on higher levels (EC, World Bank) have far worse emissions than France and are planning to use gas firming.

It's interesting you are so concerned about my comments where I didnt explicitly asked to ban renewables nor stop their deployment but was arguing in favor in deploying of more nuclear on top but you are probably less concerned about comments from the people that say nuclear shouldn't be built entirely or even not extended like in case of Belgium.

Heck even you said "were waved off from being properly fixed because they were going to be decommissioned anyway" which is total nonsense - if a plant is unsafe to operate - operation wouldnt be allowed.

Your other statements like "Oh, and good chance that in the summer months (when demand is pretty high, especially in the South of France) they may have to shut down again because of a lack of cooling capacity." do show you even don't understand that npp in France are shut not because they can't cool but to save biodiversity. It's done in some npp without cooling towers and affects very little production while France is maxing exports at the same time. More details are available here https://www.vie-publique.fr/files/rapport/pdf/288726.pdf as I've already shown

Or this statement "The cost of which (besides the maintenance costs mentioned above) has not been accounted for in the electricity pricing." is nonsense too because provisions for long term waste management are described in EDF yearly financial reports and EDF made a statement that updated cigeo costs dont affect these plans https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journ... . Situation is similar in other areas, Gosgen for example having a full cost breakdown https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte...

So yes, my comments will probably not convince you, because you already have your position set, but these'll help others to see that some claims are pure nonsense

Maybe because we can also check data, like https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

https://ourworldindata.org/low-carbon-technologies-need-far-...

https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf

https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20...

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

Or just looking at the cost of entire french fleet per court of auditors vs german EEG fund alone?

Nuclear needs least amount of materials/imports per kwh https://ourworldindata.org/low-carbon-technologies-need-far-...

It's not a campaign to say nuclear is clean, it's a reality https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20... If you dont agree to it it's your problem

"uranium is imported into the EU from Russia" - here you prove again you have zero idea about the topic. Russia is ore importer itself. It exports enriched fuel (which can and IS easily done in EU too, by Orano and Urenco, even in Germany). Out of 22bn energy imports from RU last year, only 0.8bn were nuclear related, most of them spent by countries still running VVER units like Hungary because of their specific fuel elements but that will gradually be gone too with Westinghouse/Framatome help

Cost isnt externalized, it's that antinuclear people fail to inform themselves, like https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte...

Nor is safety a problem https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

">95% self-sufficiency" - oh great, and how much to get to 100% with firming, transmission and curtailment and grid forming inverters included?

If you want most flexible plants you would advocate for BWR's with BESS buffers

Idk about lobbies, but France has one of the cleanest grids in EU and did the job in under 20y. Germany, one of the most antinuclear areas is one of the worst pollutters after 25y. Austria, another antinuclear country with plenty of hydro = easy to finish the job with VRE, still has worse emissions.

nuclear is not fossil fuel. Are you from Austria/Germany? Because from what I know only there are kids told such nonsense.

reduced consumption - this sounds like sweet (post) communist times ive experienced when i was a kid.

Finland built Onkalo, Sweden started Fosmark, Switzerland approved terradura and France will have cigeo. It's not a big deal to dig a hole, except maybe for germans

It seems you are the one that doesnt understand the topic.

EDF is still making big profits each year except 2022. Cooling isn't a problem either https://www.vie-publique.fr/files/rapport/pdf/288726.pdf EDF isn't building cooling towers there because exports are already maxed out.

Waste storage isn't a problem. It'll be stored in Cigeo just like Onkalo. Over half of Cigeo cost is already reserved/covered by EDF (it includes operation till sealing). Cost was accounted in opex just like www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte.html . So please, avoid spreading nonsense