tfourb

A nuclear reactor can load-follow (increase or decrease their output) by up to 5% of their rated capacity per minute in normal operation: https://snetp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SNETP-Factsheet-...

For power plants, this is glacial. A power grid has to balanced perfectly on a sub-second level. Also, you can only do this down to about 50% of rated capacity. Below that you have to switch it off completely.

If you combine this with renewable generation, it all falls apart. A cloud passing over a large PV installation will drop generation much faster than nuclear plants will ever be able to follow (by increasing generation). So if you want to have a substantial share of renewable generation (which, remember, is the cheap stuff), you can't have more than a token nuclear capacity, because you need to invest the money you might want to spend on nuclear on battery and hydro storage.

The other aspect is the economics of nuclear itself. Nuclear power plants are the most capital intensive generation capacity you can build. Even when driving them at the maximum of their rated capacity, the have a levelized cost of electricity several times that of PV and Wind per kwh. Requiring routine load following for nuclear would basically guarantee that no one ever builds a nuclear reactor again.

There are reasons to build new nuclear, but it's not cheap/reliable power generation. You build it to have access to a nuclear industrial base, as well as the research and professional community to run a military nuclear program. Or you actually succeed in creating a Small Modular Reactor, which might be suitable for niche applications (i.e. power isolated communities in extreme remote locations). Or you are simply fascinated by the technology and want to invest a ton of money on the off chance that it will produce some unforeseen technological breakthrough (though arguably you'd do better with investing in nuclear fusion from my limited understanding of the research).

You mean like 27 Gwh of yearly installed capacity kind of scale? https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-report-e...

You export more to Norway + Finnland than to Denmark + Germany: https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subje...

And my guess would be that it would be much more expensive for you to build out (and hold in reserve) enough generation capacity to satisfy your theoretical peak demand than it costs to have interconnected grids and a large efficient market, even if you are a net exporter.

Wind and solar are not "dependent" on natural gas plants. You can observe this quite well by simply building a wind or solar plant, connect a battery and a load. It works and it works well.

Many national grids do not have enough renewable generation capacity to satisfy 100% demand at all times yet. When renewable generation is not sufficient, the difference is made up with generation from fossil-fueled thermal plants. But the existence of thermal power plants shouldn't be confused with any form of technical reliance on them. 100% renewable grids are inherently possible. If only, because you can simply enlarge grids geographically to the point that wind and solar production averages out. In combination with planned overcapacity (you can simply "switch off" wind and solar if you don't need generation), you strictly speaking don't even need batteries. It's just much more economical.

> Strategic mix

Nuclear doesn't vibe well with a grid that is supposed to be dominated by renewable electricity generation. You can't simply increase or decrease nuclear generation and even if you could, it would make the economics even worse, if you wouldn't keep their utilization at maximum capacity.

So if nuclear is supposed to have a "strategic" effect on your electricity mix, you have a substantial (20-40%) block of your electricity generation that is essentially static. That in turn requires you to have static demand. But static demand is poison for a renewable generation. You actually want demand to be highly dynamic via grid-tied batteries and dynamic loads (i.e. electric car charging, scheduled appliances and heating, cost-dependent production) so that it can be tailored to supply and keep the grid stable.

> I'm not saying its a good or bad idea, but nuclear can be used as a tool with batteries to make wind much more reliable.

I doubt that this is a requirement for Denmark. There is tremendous hydro capacity in northern Scandinavia and the country is tied into the EU and UK grid.

Depending on the public charging infrastructure in your area, it is already quite feasible to own an electric car without your own wall box. Modern BEVs can charge basically to full within 20 minutes. If your supermarket has a public charger and your driving and shopping cycles are matching (or can be aligned depending on your daily driving distance), you can simply plug in while you shop for your groceries.

Also, you can check if there is someone else on your street who has a charger and who might be willing to let you charge in exchange for a little surcharge on the electricity you consume.

But doesn't nuclear power present a complication when designing a power grid for renewable energy? It is basically very expensive caseload energy that needs permanent demand, when the entire proposition of a renewable-focused grid is that you manage a non-certain production with dynamic demand (via batteries and price-sensitive usage).

Why would you invest in nuclear power, which is several times more expensive per kwh than wind + battery in Denmark, which also has excellent links to reliable hydropower from Norway and Sweden? Especially when your greatest external security threat is Russia which has openly threatened targeting nuclear reactors of a country they are trying to invade?

Not to speak of the inconvenient fact that Uranium is not a resource found in sufficient quantity in Europe and current European nuclear reactors get their fuel from Russia and Niger, not exactly reliable havens of stability.

Nuclear power makes certain sense for nations that want a military nuclear arsenal and are willing to subsidize nuclear reactors to retain the required workforce and research base. For everyone else it is a money sink and a complication when designing their grid for renewable energy.

Brick and mortar stores, as well as service oriented businesses do exist and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Tech is not the entirety of business.

Wrong. First of all only 25% of the natural gas inserted into the reactor are converted (with the rest presumably resulting in emissions) and natural gas also produces emissions during exploration and exploitation

I’ve literally transported dishwashers in a Renault Twingo. And the „small car + trailer“ combo will always carry more than a pickup. Pickups are pure lifestyle.

Renewable energy is literally available everywhere and solar and wind are now cheaper than hydro in many places.

„Economic development“ can mean many things and there is a scenario where it supports the concept of „well being“ rather than actively undermining it, as it is happening in many places currently.

My father’s decidedly non-nerdy logistics consulting business with roughly 20 employees ran (and runs) on Mac OS since the founding of the company in the mid 1990s with my mom being the „IT team“. There are some situations where companies rely on certain compatibilities requiring windows. But most could do completely fine without, especially nowadays.

This. Apples execs have choices on how to keep making profits. Enshitification is a choice, not a requirement by some force of nature. Tim Cook could just as well sell his shareholders on the idea that really good and user friendly products can be sold for a lot of money.

What doesn't? You can check all of this with a simple web search.

For consumer spending and disposable income, as for gdp per capita, averages are irrelevant as they can (and are) skewed by high earners/spenders and tell us little about the experience of the other 70% of the population.

Air conditioning is simply not necessary in many places in Europe. Either because of climate or building standards (ie proper insulation and/or traditional building styles with a lot of thermal mass).

The size of housing is more due to limitations on development permits designed to limit urban sprawl, as well as differing traditions and preferences.

Having top universities is nice, but won’t help you if the rest of your education system sucks, because 99% of people do not visit the top universities.

Same with wealth and quality of life: the strength of a society is probably measured best by asking where you’d rather be poor, than where you’d rather be rich.

The average wholesale price for electricity in 2024 was close to 0.09 €/kwh.

The consumer price is about 0.3 €/kwh currently, depending on the deals you are getting. The difference between wholesale and consumer price is made up of transmission costs, taxes and markups of various middlemen.

Shutting down nuclear power had 0 impact on electricity prices, as wholesale prices are set by the most expensive producer needed to satisfy demand. That is usually a natural gas turbine. All producers get paid the rate that this marginal producer demands.

You don’t need surveillance if you have relationships and trust. Bullying is intractable because traditional schooling is essentially and structurally exactly that: the bullying of kids by adults. It’s only logical that it results in the bullying of kids by kids.

Make teachers (and parents) people of trust, not only of arbitrary authority, and you create options to address bullying between kids as well.

80% of buildings in Gaza are destroyed. There are well documented cases of arbitrary killings of civilians and attacks on hospitals. IDF is routinely demanding entire cities to be evacuated, knowing that not all people can comply with such an order. Multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity investigations have been opened by national and international prosecutors.

It is very obvious that the only restraint that the IDF is showing is that they do not kill every single civilian on sight.

What you are writing is demonstrably untrue and you would recognize that if you’d spend even a few minutes researching the actual facts. Rehabilitation works, if done according to established best practices.

You are committing the same fallacy that you are prescribing to others. If rehabilitation is taken seriously and provided the required resources, recidivism is a „statistical minority“.

As with many social issues, the US happens to be very bad at this currently, with recidivism rates double those of the UK, for example. UK prisons are notoriously bad by European standards and they have plenty of violent crime. But criminals are in the vast majority of cases not criminal by nature. Most people want to live a socially conforming life, given half a chance.

Why? There are tons of reports of individuals getting stuck in detention for weeks for extremely minor or even no actual immigration offenses. I’ve traveled extensively across africa including some pretty shady countries and I now feel that I have to put the US in the same bucket: avoid, if not absolutely necessary, due to risks outside of my own control.

I mean, there’s literally hundreds of countries, why would I go somewhere with the risk of being arbitrarily detained, if I can help it at all?

„There is no set of political body in the world with the capability to freeze consumption and lock billions of people into poverty.“

I don’t think this is actually necessary to manage climate change (see my point advice above about the decoupling of economic growth and energy use). But just for the sake of the argument: „freeze consumption and lock people into poverty“ is literally what happens when nation states go to war and we have managed to do that plenty of times, including for really stupid reasons, without much of a problem.

Governments are also quite happy to freeze consumption and lock people into poverty if they can somehow be labeled as undeserving and/or threatening. Plenty of that going around recently.

Ask and you shall receive: https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2

You will notice that the picture does not change radically if you include emissions from trade (which is what you were asking).

Turns out while China expects a lot of stuff to the us, it doesn’t have that big of an impact on net emissions.

CO2 emissions are not the driving force behind economic development. Energy is. And energy generation has been decoupled from CO2 emissions in almost every major economy, including China. Heck, in many countries economic growth has been decoupled even from energy use, with economies growing while energy use shrinks.

And while technological innovation is always nice, we always possess all the technology we need to get rid of the vast majority of emissions today. It’s just a question of implementation (ie the political will to spend some money and maybe reduce the share price of a few fossil fuel companies).

"Yet you included privileges (like getting tax-funded things) in those liberties that would be affected. That's muddying the waters."

Differentiating between abstract liberties and the economic means to actually make use of them makes no sense to me. If a government guarantees the liberty to choose your profession freely, but the overwhelming majority of the population does not have the economic means to access the education required to become i.e. a doctor, does that liberty have any practical impact whatsoever?

In that sense, a free public education (including university), public health care, public pensions and even social security are not "privileges". They are fundamental rights that form the basis for the expression of liberty. And this is exactly how i.e. the German constitution frames these things. Social security payments explicitly are not a "privilege", they are a right and no government can cut social security payments below a certain threshold (though that threshold will make for a very uncomfortable living).

"I'm sure you're well aware of the escalating utilitarian thought experiments that use the same type of argument ("but many people would benefit from doing X to Y")."

Which is why it is important to build in protections. Modern/progressive democracy is not a "dictatorship of the majority", it is a rights-based system in which certain lines can not be crossed, no matter how benefitial it would be in a utilitarian sense.

"There's a right not to be harmed, but it doesn't extend to potential abstract harm."

It totally does. Again an example from Germany: We have a general prohibition on the surveillance of public spaces by public or private actors. Governmental authorities can supersede this in certain cases, but for private actors, you can't even point a fake camera at a public space, except when everyone using that space explicitly to that (which is impossible i.e. on public roads and already very hard in the common areas of apartment buildings).

The reasoning behind this is that no one should be exposed to even the abstract feeling of being surveilled in public, as this would alter their freedom to express themselves and limit control over their private information. Even employers need to limit incidental surveillance of their employees wherever possible.

"Is expectation of risk a liberty that's infringed? I don't think so."

I completely disagree. Again, it's a matter of degrees and your rights need to be weighed against mine. Often, your concrete expression of your liberties will outweigh the abstract infringement of mine. But sometimes they won't.

I'm not defining liberties as privileges, I'm merely pointing out that your right to liberty ends where it infringes on somebody else's (and vice versa). Reasonable people can debate where exactly that line can be drawn and whose interests outweigh the other's (and this is what constitutional courts do on a daily basis). What I'm cautioning against is the narrative that just because it can be defined as "liberty" it must therefore be sacrosanct. This is doubly true for anything related to money, where most invocations of liberty on closer inspection just boil down to "don't tax the millionaires and billionaires".

"In pretty much every EU member state, you'll have to assume that random people on the street carry guns. Not everyone, not most, but some, none visibly. Would it make you more or less comfortable if the same number of people openly carried the same guns?"

You could search 10,000 random people going about their daily business in a major German city and with the exception of members of police and security services, you won't find a firearm. While a private gun ownership permit is reasonably simple to obtain, public open/concealed carry permits are not. And while criminal use of guns certainly exists, actual gun violence is so rare outside interactions between criminals that for any interaction with other members of society in public, the risk of a gun coming into it in any way is so small that in practice it can be ignored.

I've also travelled extensively in the EU and lived in several countries and I haven't seen a single firearm in public with the exception of members of police and security services (though I admit that armed private security services are not uncommon in some countries). Even if concealed carry were the main practice for private gun owners, I doubt that I wouldn't have spotted a gun at some point if it were at all common in a country (I've been in countries outside the EU where gun ownership is much more widespread and where I did see both open and concealed carry).

I trust Tesla's data on this kind of stuff only as far as a Starship can travel on its return trip to Mars. Anything coming from Elon would have to be audited by an independent entity for me to give it an ounce of credence.

Generally you are comparing Apples and Oranges if you are comparing the safety records of i.e. Waymos to that of the general driving population.

Waymos drive under incredibly favorable circumstances. They also will simply stop or fall back on human intervention if they don't know what to do – failing in their fundamental purpose of driving from point A to point B. To actually get comparable data, you'd have to let Waymos or Teslas do the same type of drives that human drivers do, under the same curcumstances and without the option of simply stopping when they are unsure, which they simply are not capable of doing at the moment.

That doesn't mean that this type of technology is useless. Modern self-driving and adjacent tech can make human drivers much safer. I imagine, it would be quite easy to build some AI tech that has a decent success rate in recognizing inebriated drivers and stopping the cars until they have talked to a human to get cleared for driving. I personally love intelligent lane and distance assistance technology (if done well, which Tesla doesn't in my view). Cameras and other assistive technology are incredibly useful when parking even small cars and I'd enjoy letting a computer do every parking maneuver autonomously until the end of my days. The list could go on.

Waymos have cumulatively driven about 100 million miles without a safety driver as of July 2025 (https://fifthlevelconsulting.com/waymos-100-million-autonomo...) over a span of about 5 years. This is such a tiny fraction of miles driven by US (not to speak of worldwide) drivers during that time, that it can't usefully be expressed. And they've driven these miles under some of the most favorable conditions available to current self-driving technology (completely mapped areas, reliable and stable good weather, mostly slow, inner city driving, etc.). And Waymo themselves have repeatedly said that overcoming the limitations of their tech will be incredibly hard and not guaranteed.

You misunderstand my point. The juxtaposition is not between "individual" and "collective" liberties. That's a bit of a separate argument. It is about "your" liberty vs. "mine". You might feel that a ban on guns might limit your liberty. But giving you a gun limits my liberty, because I would feel threatened and unable to express myself fully in a society where I would have to assume that random people on the street carry guns.

It's about your individual liberties limiting someone else's personal liberties. Nothing collective about it. But in public discourse, it is always the liberties that powerful people benefit from disproportionately that are framed as "good". I.e. when there was a concerted push by black liberationists in the US to form armed militias, gun laws were tightened. Now that gun ownership is interpreted mostly as a right valued by disgruntled white people, it is expanded.

Same with equating of control over money and liberty. We live in an age of almost unparalleled wealth accumulation in the hands of the few. I'm sitting on my local council and I can tell you that if we have to increase the fees for school lunches due to low tax revenues, there is nothing "collective" about the ramifications. It will directly and forcefully impact a relatively small number of individual children, whose parents will have significantly (for them) less disposable income as a result, severely limiting their liberty to afford their children a decent start to life.

It is beside the point if I think that someone can or can't make good decisions about the use of their own money. Even if I assume that they'd make much more profit if they invest it on their own, I'd still argue that a healthy society should be based around the principle of solidarity and a wholistic view of individual freedoms, and not just advance the advantage of a select few that have the means to push for their favorite liberties to be prioritized over everyone else's.

That's actually categorically false. We also use sophisticated hearing, a well developed sense of inertia and movement, air pressure, impact, etc. And we can swivel our heads to increase our coverage of vision to near 360°, while using very dependable and simple technology like mirrors to cover the rest. Add to that that our vision is inherently 3D and we sport a quite impressive sensor suite ;-). My guess is that the fidelity and range of the sensors on a Tesla can't hold a candle to the average human driver. No idea how LIDAR changes this picture, but it sure is better than vision only.

I think there is a good chance that what we currently call "AI" is fundamentally not technologically capable of human levels of driving in diverse conditions. It can support and it can take responsibility in certain controlled (or very well known) environments, but we'll need fundamentally new technology to make the jump.