Moldoteck

that's nonsense. If plants are unsafe they wouldnt run. There's no such thing as "which were waved off from being properly fixed because they were going to be decommissioned". Operation would just be banned. Issues arent critical

its funny because for ren operators it's financially better if nuclear is gone and expensive gas firming is used instead which would bump merit order

"electricity prices in Europe are in some cases at the technical minimum of minus €500/MWh." - it means all citizens will pay for it through cfd's. In germany its about 18bn/y

Nuclear can increase load hours with bess buffers

UK and SA have one of the highest prices for households globally...

wouldnt be so sure about this considering northvolt. And it's irrelevant anyway, the plan is, including germany, to use gas firming

you should be very careful with 'papers' written by people that stayed at the core of Danish antinuclear movement like Henrik Lund (famous “for me, nuclear power is not a dream. It’s a nightmare. My dream is renewable energy”, but there are more interesting turns there, including EnergyPLAN which was criticized a lot for it's nonsense assumptions which I can bet is used here too. It was so severe that the issue was addressed in a peer reviewed publication https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192... ) and a paper that includes frauds like jacobson in citations. These two are famous for citation rings and both are public antinuclear activists.

I can bet they have very "optimistic" estimations for Hydrogen and gas firming on top of the most evident issues adressed in peer review

taxes are needed to fund infrastructure or pay curtailment

evacuation in Fukushima was forced. They could have stayed just as well - dose was too small. Statistically nuclear is great. Even more so considering fossil firming strategy in many countries

ah yes, green fuel like dirt cheap H2 and irrelevant emissions from multi GW of gas/coal firming... I'm not sure what you mean by a boner for nuclear, but we see France has one of the lowest emissions in EU, did teh job in under 20y, is largest net exporter in EU, and spent on this half of what DE spent on EEG alone. Germany is still one of the worst emitters in EU after 25y of ewende.

No country managed to match french emissions (without sufficient hydro firming) even now. Denmark(albeit helped by nordics), California and SA still have higher emissions

nuclear isnt fully safe, but it's fine https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

And enviromental impact is low too https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20...

water isn't an issue. You can use cooling towers, wastewater or even dry cooling

Yes, we do look at numbers https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Germany doesnt want the waste storage to be found. Otherwise it'll just allow storing in Herfa Neurode. What you think is absurd or not is irrelevant. It's up to scientists to decide, eg. ones that built Onkalo.

And to compare them with coal plants is classical whataboutism. "They can't be bad, because I found something other that's bad as well." - considering germany still has both gas & coal and no country matched french emissions, the statement is fine.

"You're right about the minable uranium. That has changed over the last years, so the current estimate is 2080 in a high demand scenario." - this is just about uranium at ± current prices. Uranium above 100ppm is sufficient to outlive the sun

The bulk of the costs stem from the decommissioning of power plants, final disposal, and accident-related expenses. 1 is paid by operators. 2- too. 3 - insurance+asset liability

"The former German vice chancellor even said, he would agree [to build a new nuclear power plant] if <political opponent> found a private operator willing to build a nuclear power plant entirely without government guarantees, subsidies, or liability coverage." - that's bullshit. German npps were built and operated without special subsidies and were insured by law + full asset liability on top.

Germany is still among worst EU polluters after 25y of ewende. France did the job in under 20 for far less money

yes, plants are cheap, yes, manageable, yes - onkalo, yes - Sweden has one of the largest deposits on the planet and mining ban got removed this year. If you are concerned about uranium you better be concerned about other materials more, since nuclear needs very little of it and it's plenty

iodine pills are given pretty much everywhere in a vicinity of npp's not just Belgium. Operating them further is sane if it's safe. Cracks were proven to not be relavant

"The average capacity factor for the French nuclear fleet has been, due to the optimised management of production," - lol, lmao even. Optimized management in france? Check out how much their refuel outages take vs in US and say that again

You talk about new projects based on Vogtle costs. You need to look at the Lazard lcoe for existing fleet which didnt have such delays.

Fukushima cleanup could have costed much less. Jp govt wanted it to be expensive.

"They dont want to build a nuke today but if their existing nuclear umbrella suddenly gets yanked away..." - again, it's unrelated. If you want weapons you can have some secret enrichemnt facility for that. Much cheaper. Npp without enrichment are pointless anyway for weapons due to parasitic isotopes.

oh we know. Chernobyl is pretty much the worst case scenario. It's impossible to replicate it in newer plants (fukushima being proof)

ironically if you talk about boars, it's not because of chernobyl but nuclear weapons tests https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66665646

it's not about belief https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

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

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

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

The question is simple, if you are afraid of nuclear, are you willing to erase any more dangerous tech? I'm not even mentioning cars which cause each 2y same nr of fatalities in Germany as Chernobyl is expected during whole lifetime per UN (or even worse if we look at updated uncsear reports)

for now its incentive for deindustrialization

and why are taxes that high. More specifically why is Germany spending 10x more than france on curtailment and transmission?))

Not quite. It's done to save fish. And it's not fixed because France is already maxing exports in the same period

Germany has highest avg household prices in EU per eurostat. How convenient of you to focus on this day. Btw, this minus 500eur translates in about 18bn/y in subsidies for EEG. DE already spent on it alone double the price of entire french fleet

you should check out TWh/y of clean power in Portugal/DK vs UAE and say this again)

not if you read fraunhofer ise decarbonization pathways report. If you dont like nuclear and have no hydro, it basically means fossils

what has fukushima to do with storing nuclear waste. I'll go further and ask how many did fukushima kill with radioation or will kill per unscear?

Better reactors were already invented (superphenix, snr300). Both killed by greens.

Belgian plants arent crumbling, they just need refurbs to have higher CF.

Uranium is sufficient to outlive the sun. Nuclear requires least amount of materials and mining. Uranium mining is nowadays mostly in situ which is environmentally fine vs say lithium mining.

"Storing safely stuff for thousands of years is just not a realistic scenario whatsoever." - so you say the same nonsense about storing arsenic/cadmium/lead waste from copper mining for eternity? Storing nuclear waste isnt much different from say Herfa Neurode. An example is onkalo. Soon others will appear, like Fosmark.

FFS you just thrown a bunch of fossil propaganda nonsense

very little supply chain is shared with weapons, dont spread nonsense. If you want weapons it's far cheaper to have just an enrichement facility exactly for that.

And nuclear is cheap. Look at lazard estimate for existing fleet. Or open swiss data. Or even german data

1 - fusion reactor in the sky is not that easy to capture 24/7 due to nights/winter. BESS can partially alleviate the problem, not solve it. 2 - geothermal has an inconvenient property to lower output over time. 3 - nuclear requires far less grid investments, far less mining/materials 4 - If we are serious about nuclear we should investigate up to smallest detail how hitachi deployed first ABWR for such a short time/low cost and do that in series, en masse. I can bet in 20y Germany will still have far worse emissions than France

it's strange you mention HPC but dont mention the costs of chinese nuclear...

British taxpayer will pay even more pr kwh for some offshore and tidal projects