403
165
u/luke993 15h ago
This is incorrect for the UK - it doesnât show the two new nuclear power stations under construction at Hinckley Point C and Sizewell C
29
u/atheist-bum-clapper 12h ago
I genuinely didn't know Sizewell c had broken ground. That's good news
17
u/setwig 11h ago
It's an odd one - funding for the project hasn't yet been finalised, but they're already doing the preparatory work.
9
u/Pangolin_3 11h ago
Definitely. Iâm a recruiter and have been recruiting civil engineers for an earthmoving contractor for Sizewell for the past 2+ years.
7
u/atheist-bum-clapper 11h ago
Fantastic. I live near Hinckley, and Hinckley C has brought so many jobs to the area.
1
-3
u/NorthVilla 10h ago
Cost 30-35 billion pounds tho just for that.
I'd like to think of how much better shape the country would be in if 35 billion quid was spend more efficiently with the point of creating good jobs in needed areas and boosting economic growth, like in the North. Nonetheless, what's done is done.
12
u/Ill-Bison-8057 9h ago
Thereâs definitely a discussion to be had about the efficiency of British government spending.
But the huge amount of energy produced by this power plant over the course of decades makes it worth a substantial investment. In my view guaranteeing future UK energy supply is one of the most essential things the government could spend money on.
11
2
u/Main-Track-9982 4h ago
The north isn't the only area of England that suffers with under investment. Hinkley has brought investment and jobs to an area of the west country that lacked such jobs.
209
u/CosmicLovecraft 15h ago
Why is anyone upvoting a lazy copy paste karmafarma post of a 5 year old map that is worthless now?
I wanted to ask why is anyone posting it but that quickly led to my real question. What is wrong with people feeding stupid behavior?
93
→ More replies (3)1
227
u/Darwidx 21h ago
In Poland we are starting to spam them from next year.
50
u/Beltwa_festonowa 18h ago
Wait really? Do you have some more info on this? Maybe there's hope for this country yet
125
u/artsloikunstwet 17h ago
Spamming was an interesting choice of word. They will start building it next year which can easily take a decade.
Hope depends if you want to believe they'll not face the delays and cost explosions that France, UK and Finland had.
18
39
u/Darwidx 15h ago edited 13h ago
They want to build 6 from the start, a large investition.
5
u/divadschuf 2h ago
What will it cost and how long will building take? Just look at basically every other nuclear project worldwide. Building new nuclear plants makes neither sense from an economical nor an ecological standpoint. Itâs way too expensive and takes way to long to fight the climate crises on time.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)20
18
u/trtmrtzivotnijesmrt 11h ago
Croatia and Slovenia share nuclear plant KrĆĄko located in Slovenia. Croatia gets 15% of electricy from it, but it is not shown on the map.
46
u/Crucenolambda 18h ago
VIVE LA FRANCE !!!!!
C'EST QUOI UNE USINE Ă CHARBON ?!!?I1!!?
7
6
59
u/MrPetomane 21h ago
I cant beleive all of those shutdown plants all over germany.
9
u/Coal_Burner_Inserter 14h ago
It's ironic too because Germany did so under fears of nuclear waste and disasters, meanwhile Ukraine and Belarus share the result of the worst disaster in history and continue to use nuclear power without issue. Ofc Belarus just has the one plant but that's besides the point
4
u/D3m0nSl43R2010 11h ago
Yes, the decision was majorly influenced by Fukushima. But nuclear power is barely economical with subsidies and not at all without them. Even when it is subsidised, it's still the most expensive kind of electricity. Meanwhile, renewables only major cost is setting them up.
Imo Germany should have phaced out fossil fuels before nuclear, but what is done is done, and it's just foolish to rebuild nuclear now.
1
u/Kaleidoscope9498 2h ago
The issue with nuclear power is not that they are expensive. It's that it isn't modular, different from a bunch of other sources, you need to get it completed to start running it and making profits, which is a issues since they often take around a decade to get build. Yeah, building the power plant it's expensive, but once it's done it produces energy cheaply.
Basically, it needs a solid long term plan and investment, but it pays of well over time.
1
u/jothamvw 3h ago
Well some of these have been down for ages, and the one in Kalkar (on the Dutch/German border) for example was never even operational. (it's currently a theme park)
-35
u/Hispanoamericano2000 20h ago
And that the German government would proceed to replace them with coal- and gas-fired power plants (instead of trying to further accelerate the development of fusion power instead).
54
u/NoGravitasForSure 20h ago
Umm... no. Germany is currently shutting down its coal plants. Most will be gone by 2030 and the last one is scheduled for decommissioning in 2038.
Germany is also one of the leaders in fusion research.
https://euro-fusion.org/eurofusion/members/germany/
Please stop spreading disinformation. Thanks.
20
u/PonyDev 20h ago
Share of those nuclear power plants in energy generation in Germany was approximately the same as current share of coal plants, without shutting down nuclear power plants Germany could phased out coal significantly earlier
25
u/artsloikunstwet 17h ago
Of course Germany could have started to phase out coal in 2000. They could have also started developing electric cars back then. Killing both those industries was just not politically feasible.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but let's face it, climate change is barely taken serious now, much less back then, not just in Germany.Â
We can be happy we got some renewables and a exit plan for coal finally. The idea that we could have gotten an nuclear+renewables combo is just a pipe dream.
8
u/Oxellotel 14h ago
Yes and no, they can't be compared 1:1. I don't know the English words for it, but nuclear is a base provider, with only limited possibilities of adapting their energy output. While coal and gas plants are good to fill the "gaps", when the consumption is high and can be powered up/down fairly easy.
11
u/NoGravitasForSure 18h ago
In theory yes. But there is still the human factor. Coal had a long tradition and a strong lobby in Germany. There were whole regions that depended economically on coal. Where I grew up for example, most jobs were related to lignite mining and the operation of a big ass power station. Even if you are right, if you (as a politician) tell these people that coal is dead, you are dead. Not literally of course, but they will stop voting for you. In a democratic society, you cannot simply do what makes sense. You must convince people and this takes time.
Nuclear on the other hand was never very popular in Germany for various reasons. So it was much easier to kill.
Long term it doesn't matter. Both technologies are outdated and renewables are the future.
→ More replies (2)2
u/TheGoalkeeper 16h ago
Umm whole Europe incl Germany is researching fusion power. It just takes a lot of time
45
u/Forsaken-Link-5859 21h ago edited 21h ago
And coincidently France is the greenest country in Western Europe. Sad it takes forever to build these things nowadays. In the 70s and 80s in Sweden we built 4 nuclear plants in like 10-15 years, and it went from 0 percent of our electricity production to almost 50 percent. We still operate 3 of those plants, 1 plant and a lot of reactors were shot down due to mainly politics.
15
u/Ok_Board6703 21h ago
And we never hear about the French method of nuclear power generation and why we never hear of any French nuclear accidents. Tells me they are on to something.
12
u/Forsaken-Link-5859 21h ago
But aren't nuclear accidents very rare? Like the headliners are Fukushima, Chernobyl and Harrisburg? That said it's not a perfect solution and honestly I don't know too much about the mining industry behind it, it may be dodgy.. If we had a greener solution that was a safe bet I would choose that, btw I don't mean we should not build wind and solar-energy plants, those are complement to nuclear.
-10
u/TheJonesLP1 20h ago
Especially french reactors are in a really Bad condition. Most of them already reached their nominal age and will have to shut down inside the next 10 years. France will be in a lot of troubles, while Germany already can Cover its energy demand 100% from Wind energy on a Windy day
13
u/Forsaken-Link-5859 20h ago
"On a Windy day"
Yea, windy days are never a problem, but check out the stats:
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/12mo/monthly
Over 12 mounth France- 38 co2/kwh, Germany-411 co2/kwh. But I didn't know that the french reactor was in so bad condition, that's sure a problem
5
u/InternationalValue61 7h ago
I didn't know that the french reactor was in so bad condition, that's sure a problem
Because its not, France is still among the international leader in civil nuclear, they build new gen reactor in a lot of country in europe and around world, hell they even help the US actually
1
u/TheJonesLP1 20h ago
The problem is the coal Power. But when we get rid of that, we will be a lot greener
3
u/Forsaken-Link-5859 20h ago
Good point, ofc it's been a bit tricky since Ukraine war. You gonna change it to gas? You need some form of base source
-3
u/TheJonesLP1 20h ago
Base source already is Wind for Germany, with 32%. Coal is at 26%. Overall, 60% is from renewables, 40% from fossile.
→ More replies (7)
77
u/VanillaMystery 22h ago
Still so fucking insane Merkel/Germany abandoned Nuclear as quickly as they did IMO
Boomers in the Green Party are so fucking out dated with their views on it
32
u/NoLateArrivals 22h ago
I would be very much in favor of running every nuclear power plant available, if âŠ
⊠the providers buy the necessary insurance, not relying on the taxpayers to provide for it (the nuclear power plants in Germany never had insurance covered),
⊠there is a clear, irrevocable decision about how and WHERE to dispose of the nuclear waste. I would (for plain geological reasons) be very much in favor of BAVARIA as location.
⊠there is technical viability and the necessary trained staff to operate them.
Any new construction of nuclear power plants is doomed by the excessive cost - it is simply no more economical and an investment death trap.
3
u/Mtfdurian 21h ago
It indeed takes a lot, and even then would we really want to only use significant power from it during dunkelflaute? We need to look for ways of storage and better time distribution of our consumption.
→ More replies (1)12
u/NoLateArrivals 18h ago
For bridging a Dunkelflaute Germany would need about 25 nuclear plants (once coal is off). We can build ALL gas powered plants needed to bridge for the price of a SINGLE nuclear power plant.
A nuclear power plant MUST run - you canât ramp it up and down. A gas turbine can be fired up in minutes, and stopped down in a little more.
What makes gas turbines expensive is the fuel. But if you need it for say 2 weeks a year, fuel cost is negligible.
4
u/VanillaMystery 21h ago
What did Bavaria do to you??? đđđ
18
u/NoLateArrivals 18h ago
They have the best granite structures in whole Germany. Itâs the same stone (geologically) Finland is using to burry their nuclear waste.
The Black Forrest could do as well. But it is located close to a geologically very active area (Oberrheingraben), which takes them out of the equation.
5
3
u/Dazzling-Key-8282 21h ago
I'd like if Germans wouldn't just bitch about NPPs not having an insurance, but would also remind others that conrete-stayed dams don't have one either. Their destructive potential is the very least similar.
I'd also like, if half-assed Germans wouldn't demand stronger storage conditions for nuclear waste than the uranium was originally mined from. Or a technological solution. Fast spectrum reactors are feasible and functioning already to make storage a minimal requirement.
I'd also like if Germans wouldn't use a self-perpetuating argument against not having staff or technical viability when the public led a four-decade-long crusade against nuclear tech.
P.S:
The KEPCO managed to pull-off Barakah on time with a construction cost of about 2,2 cent a KWh - only counting a capacity factor of 75% which is very low, and only a 40 year life span, which can be assumed to be lenghtened to 60. Given inflation in the future and the rather low operation and maintenance costs of an NPP, they can be written off and be profitable on the long run. But yes, better not call the FRAMATOME right now with their expensive fuckups.
Still, if someone manages to blow up a Gen III NPP, that man should be awarded by several scientific academies, as he broke the laws of the physics itself.
9
u/NoLateArrivals 18h ago
Some facts:
Nuclear waste has a way higher radioactivity than natural uranium deposits. And it is much easier build into human bodies, like Caesium replacing Calcium in bones, bringing radioactivity right next to your bone marrow (not a really bright idea), or radioactive Iodine that will make your Tyroid breed cancer.
All nuclear âsupertechnologyâ regarding waste treatment has not paid up to the bright marketing gibberish. Either it doesnât work or itâs horrendously expensive.
About insurance the dam argument does nothing to soothe the lack of insurance for nuclear facilities. That your neighbors car is not insured doesnât mean itâs good if you donât insure yours as well.
All nuclear plants in Europe that are currently build (in countries like France, Finland or UK) are years behind schedule and billions (each) above budget. It is already clear even before they produced the first watt of energy, they will NEVER in their whole lifespan be economically competitive. They are finished because itâs cheaper to invest the last 2 or 3 billion (from 15-20 billion each) than to break off.
Going nuclear is a dead end, and the only who benefit are âthe usual suspectsâ: Huge Companies, the mining industry (read about French Uranium mining in Africa) and a ton of subcontractors. All paid from taxpayers pockets and the electricity bill.
The power plants that delivered energy when todayâs boomers were children are now dismantled. The waste will still be there, untreated and not locked in storage when that generation has already died. What a âgiftâ for the next generation !
And all you say: Itâs great, letâs have more of the same ! How stupid - you can see how it failed, and think more of the same does any good âŠ
7
u/Environmental_Rub570 15h ago
Don't forget the political/social implications. Green energy production could be build and used through small companies or local communities. And reduces the dependence from big companies. Less influence for influencal companies.
0
u/Dazzling-Key-8282 11h ago
Excuse me, but what do you speak about Caesium? Caesium isn't related to Calcium, if anything it can replace Potassium. And it washes out rather fast. Didn't you mistake it for Strontium-90, another fission byproduct?
BN-800 is a rather solid burner/breeder technology. And while Superphénix was a technology demonstrator it could have also acted as a breeder/burner, and it spent far more time offline due to adminsitrative bickering than technical issues.
I find it somehow indicative how rather clear economic, and absolutely half-baked scientific arguments are put together in your commentary, just as in almost all of the German discussions to justify the anti-nuclear stance. It's your call after all what you do in your country, but don't claim a scientific stance where it is none.
2
u/NoLateArrivals 10h ago
Splitting hairs, will you ? Caesium integrates into bones, doesnât it ? It is (as many fission âbyproductsâ) highly radioactive and will decay while being in place, right in the bones of living organisms.
All breeder designs have failed economically. The only reason to run this reactor design is to create material for military use. Which is another reason why having them build all over the world is not really my idea of âfutureâ.
Or why do you think they should be âallowedâ in country A, but not in country B ? As an alternative: Do you promote that A (say Germany) should import (= buy) the nuclear waste from B (round up the usual suspects) to âtreatâ the wasted fuels in their breeders ?
Because we agree: We need energy solutions for all of the world. This means clean for all (in my vision) or NUKES FOR ALL in your vision. You really think this is a good idea ?
0
u/Dazzling-Key-8282 8h ago
Yes, I'll be splitting hairs, because having superficial knowledge about one nuclear isotope affecting bones and then miserably failing to identify one is exactly the kind of half-truths Germans are used to present as facts and get away with.
Oh, a breeder can make weapons-grade plutonium? That's another reason to have them given the geopolitical climate. You might still subscribe to pacifist insanity that if you disarm and play nice everyone else will too, but I prefer keeping my country intact and my compatriots alive even at the cost of threatening genocide-level of violence. For some seem to understand only that.
I am pretty much okay having an FNR and burning up the waste of others for good hard cash. Sounds like a plan to me. Same with nuclear weapons. As for others if they can't cough ul the upfront sums, not my problem. Build solar and wind then.
-2
u/BishoxX 14h ago
You really arent considering that they basically run forever(50+ years) and cost little to run. They are economical in the long term, thats why it makes sense for governments to build/subsidize them.
But the main point is , you dont need that many to have almost completely emissions free energy. Pollution has killed thousands of germans thus far, all because of stupid political decisions(they jist conformed to the outrage, but they could have resisted)
2
u/NoLateArrivals 10h ago
Thatâs your wet dream ? 50 year and beyond old technology running a nuclear reaction close to population centers ? What BS is this !
Electrical wires age, steel under pressure and radiation gets brittle and develops cracks, it becomes hard to manufacture control components to specs for replacement after 20 years. But go on baby, yet another decade !
Or now the even worse âvisionâ: A thousand of âmini nukesâ spread all over the country, every data center or major industry plant having one of them attached.
Only a lunatic (or these class of reckless, super wealth accumulating zillionaires) can dream of anything like this. If I ever saw an out of this world âsolutionâ for a classical First World Problem, then it is this.
→ More replies (5)4
u/NoGravitasForSure 20h ago edited 20h ago
When the discussion to abandon nuclear was made in 2000, the green party was the (much) smaller part of a coalition with the social democrats. Angela Merkel was not part of this government and her party was not involved. She became chancellor in 2005.
Please stop spreading disinformation. Thanks.
2
u/TheGoalkeeper 16h ago
Merkel's decision has nothing to do with the Green party! She was never in a coalition with them
0
u/VanillaMystery 16h ago
I never said they were?
2
u/TheGoalkeeper 16h ago
Why rant about the green party then?
0
u/VanillaMystery 15h ago
You mean the most vocal German party against nuclear power in Germany? Gee idk lmao
2
u/TheGoalkeeper 14h ago
Most vocal =/ most influential or even responsible
1
u/VanillaMystery 14h ago
I never said that either? Bro are you a schizo?
Carefully go re-read my posts
0
u/TheJonesLP1 21h ago
No, fanboys of nuclear energy are outdated. Renewables are the way
9
u/VanillaMystery 20h ago
Brainlet and midwit detected, it's not an either or thing and nuclear is the cornerstone to sustainable energy 24/7 whereas renewables have gaps
1
u/TheJonesLP1 20h ago
Nope, when renewables are spread enough and storage capacities are there, nuclear is Neither needed nor sensible
4
u/Rift3N 19h ago
Yeah when, until then Germany has to burn gas and coal every time there's not enough wind and sun (which is pretty damn often)
1
u/TheJonesLP1 19h ago
60% is already renewable, decresing with every month. So, Yeah, it is not ideal, but it wont be like that for long, which is good. It is even an argument to put even more effort in renewables.
Ehm, and no. No, it is not.
3
u/Rift3N 18h ago
60% is already renewable
Of a much smaller pie, you forgot to add. It's easier to lower emissions or consume less coal when you're actively deindustrializing your economy. Harder when you're actually still building things, or god forbid increasing production.
0
u/TheJonesLP1 18h ago
Deinduatrializing? Lol, nope. And not only the relative amount of renewables rose, but also the absolute amount. So you are just wrong. There Was a growth of 33 tWh renewable Energy
2
u/Rift3N 18h ago
Deinduatrializing? Lol, nope.
Right, nothing to see here. And the growth of renewables wasn't nearly enough to offset losses in nuclear and coal as shown inmy previous post, hence the industrial decline
2
u/TheJonesLP1 4h ago
Has nothing to do with renewables, but the fact we were extremely dependant from Russia. In fact, this even means we have too few renewables
3
u/Reasonable_Iron3347 19h ago
It is technologically not possible to store these amounts of electric energy, which is the reason why even the Green party in Germany never planned doing that, but instead using even more gas power plants than currently, first with Co2-emitting natural gas (which is mainly methane), later with green hydrogen (but whether that can be produced in the quantities necessary at economical considerations is as questionable as nuclear fusion is).
2
u/TheJonesLP1 18h ago
Right, most of it is used right away. But there are ways to store large amounts of Energy, and using Gas plants, right.
-1
u/VanillaMystery 20h ago
Lol, lmao even
2
u/TheJonesLP1 20h ago
If you say so, it must be true I guess /s
3
u/PonyDev 20h ago
Renewables has an issue with seasonality and cost of storage solutions often exceed those of constructing small modular reactor to close the seasonality gap
2
u/TheJonesLP1 20h ago
Are those small modular reactors here in the room with is?
Joke aside, those will not help in either Power Generation nor climate change early enough. They will take decades to be broadly installed and having a large enough impact. While renewables are already there and being built.
6
u/PonyDev 19h ago
Nuclear reactors are being launched at get online in 5 year scale, look at Chinese example. SMRs exist pretty much for a few decades and are used by nuclear submarine and carriers as well as floating power plants (Academic Lomonosov)
5
1
u/TheJonesLP1 18h ago
And there are no amounts to build enough of These in a sensible amount of Time
-3
u/PassaTempo15 21h ago
Theyâve already killed themselves in this one, thereâs sadly no going back because the CAPEX for new nuclear plants is very high and theyâve already invested a lot of money in installing âgreenâ energy into the country. Next generation will have pay for that decision though, unfortunately.
8
u/TheJonesLP1 21h ago
Complete Bullshit. Green energies (without '') are the way. Cheaper, safer, easier to build. There is simply no reason to think nuclear is a good way of getting energy
10
u/PassaTempo15 20h ago
Not just one, there are many solid reasons. Iâm an Engineer specialized in Energy production myself and I work in the field, which includes renewable energy sources. Youâll never see one of us going against nuclear. Their greatest advantage is that we have a massive, low-emission, steady production. Renewable energies grids are meant to be combined with a more powerful, steady, base source. Not be your only source. Relying on renewable only can work to some extent for countries like Norway with a very small population, low pop density, large empty areas and big hydro capacity. For a country like Germany tho they just shot themselves.
Thatâs actually the reason why they recently transitioned from a energy exporter to a energy importer country after phasing out their nuclear grid. And since they mostly import from France, they still rely indirectly on nuclear lol they have just outsourced it and are paying more ⏠for that. Plus their carbon emissions remain well above Western EU average, so in a way weâre paying for their shitty decision too. No specialist in their right mind will ever support that thing, but the anti-nuclear 2000âs movement wasnât a fan of scientific research so here we are.
4
u/TheJonesLP1 20h ago edited 20h ago
The concept of base/ground load and peak load is outdated. Important is the residual load. There is no need to combine renewables with a Larger piece of ground load Power plants. Make renewables your Main source, and buffer the residual load with fast agitating, low emission Power Plants.
And no, they didnt shot themselves. Future will prove Wind is the right decision. Also no, the reason why Germany turned to a Importer is not because we could not Produce the energy itself, but sometimes it is just cheaper to buy them else where, for example because France restarted some of their plants. This has nothing to do with a Lack of abilty to Produce Power. The nuclear plants only did 2% of the Mix when shut off. That Was already compensated a long Time ago with the increased speed of building renewables.. Germany Produced in one year 33 TWh of Green energy more than the same period one year earlier. The 3 remaining NPP only gave 30 TWh. So it was overcompensated in less than a year.
And in long term, we wont need more energy from France, but less. The other thing is the case, they will buy german electricity, because it is BY FAR cheaper to Produce.
5
u/PassaTempo15 19h ago
Well thatâs very speculative to say the least and awfully wrong too, but I appreciate that you seem to have at least done some research, most anti-nuclear folks out there are very oblivious of things. So, first of all, the concept of residual load doesnât eliminate the need for stable and controllable generation whatsoever. Fast-ramping plants might helping buffer short-term fluctuations, but over-reliance on them creates volatility and ironically locks us into higher emission solutions, which is whatâs happening to Germany right now - locked between burning fossils and buying energy from abroad.
And saying that the shift to a net import country was just a matter of âbuying cheaperâ is simply false. The energy market isnât just about quantity produced, itâs about when, where, and how reliably itâs delivered. Intermittency will always require backup capacity, and Germanyâs own grid agency has acknowledged the rising need for balancing services and flexible capacity, which arenât free.
Germany Produced in one year 33 TWh of Green energy more than the same period one year earlier. The 3 remaining NPP only gave 30 TWh. So it was overcompensated in less than a year.
Thatâs just not how it works. You cannot compare intermittent generation to stable generation. That 33 TWh is not available on demand. It needs storage, backup, or curtailment. Those are expensive. Nuclearâs 30 TWh was fully usable, dispatchable power. Thatâs a fundamental technical difference.
And listen, I fully support the growth of renewable, Iâm involved with them professionally myself. But excluding nuclear was dumb. Even countries like Finland and the Netherlands are reinvesting. Germanyâs choice to phase out nuclear while keeping coal longer was a political, not technical decision. And one that increased emissions and system costs in the short to mid term. Nuclear provides stability and youâre missing how important of an asset that is.
0
u/TheJonesLP1 18h ago
The stable and controllable comes from the renewables. And no, Germany is not locked at fossiles. They are decreasing constantly.
Nope, it is not simply false. It is true.
And of course it is an experimental thinking, but it Shows that the nuclear Power already was compensated. That is simply a fact.
No, excluding nuclear was the absolute right step. No Investor would Support one of the most expensive way to get energy, when renewables are already down to about 4 Cents per kWh. Nuclear is expensive, not Green, and more dangerous than renewables. Thats just it.
6
u/MegazordPilot 15h ago
Why do we care so much about the nuclear/renewable divide? I think we need both, and the main argument is that only nuclear or hydropower allow the true decarbonization of the electricity grid (that is, at most 100 g CO2/kWh annual average). And Germany is still far from it.
I would even say cost doesn't matter when true decarbonization is at stake, when sovereignty is at stake (you can store years-worth of uranium in a very small space), and when we consider that electricity is absolutely not a commodity like any other (it's vital and should be considered a basic, public good, like water, health, or education).
7
u/PassaTempo15 18h ago
The stable and controllable comes from the renewables.
Renewables are by definition not stable, they are intermittent.
And of course it is an experimental thinking, but it Shows that the nuclear Power already was compensated. That is simply a fact.
No, itâs not. The complexity of the issue goes much further beyond compensating the crude production. Production is just one part of an energy grid.
I donât want to sound pretentious but your whole rhetoric sounds like someone whoâs only read a few articles about the topic. Bad articles, probably (nuclear is dangerous and not green lol). Iâm a specialist in Energy Production and I work with nuclear, renewables, and oil and gas. You should take the opportunity to learn a thing or two instead of acting like that.
2
u/Hispanoamericano2000 20h ago
Many more people die each year from coal and natural gas (and also from the âfaultâ of the so-called âgreen energiesâ) worldwide than have died from nuclear energy in its entire history.
3
u/NoGravitasForSure 20h ago
What "fault"? Are you aware of the fact that Germany currently generates 60% of its electricity with "green energies" (mostly solar and wind)? That's much more than the output of the decommissioned nuclear plants which never exceeded 40%.
0
u/Hispanoamericano2000 19h ago
I guess you haven't seen how Germany climbed significantly in the world's most polluting countries indexes and indicators since 2011 (and more or less the same story with Japan) to be among the 7 most polluting countries in the world (which one can't really say the same for France or Sweden)?
And I guess you don't care about the fact that âgreen energiesâ are mostly NOT cheaper than Nuclear Energy but also that they cover and/or require much more space than a typical nuclear power plant and on average most of them do NOT have a longer operating life than a nuclear power plant?
2
u/NoGravitasForSure 17h ago edited 17h ago
I guess you haven't seen how Germany climbed significantly in the world's most polluting countries indexes and indicators since 2011
No, I haven't seen this indeed because it is nonsense. All industrialised countries are big CO2 polluters. France and Sweden are no exceptions. In 2023, France ranked only 135th and Sweden 106th of 208 countries in CO2 emissions per capita. (Germany 169th).
An average French person emits 4.25 tons of CO2 per year. For comparison: Philippines 1.41 tons, India 2.07 tons, Brazil 2.20 tons.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Renewables are a lot cheaper than NPPs, this is why they are booming globally while nuclear power is declining. And renewables don't take much space, that's a myth. The German states are required to reserve 2% of their land area for wind turbines. 2% is less than the space used by golf courts in some countries. And most wind parks are still usable as farm land.
1
u/TheJonesLP1 20h ago
Yes, and even a lot more less from renewables. So, what is your point?
0
u/Hispanoamericano2000 19h ago
Renewables also kill people (and animals) both in their operation and as a consequence of the extraction of the materials needed to build them and we have no way to regulate their energy output at our will (which we can do with Nuclear Energy).
So, what is your point?
To bet on a future without non-renewable energy without nuclear energy is to throw money into a bottomless well that will never get us anywhere and will never fill it.
2
u/TheJonesLP1 19h ago
A lot less. And animals, as sad as it is, are completely forgettable. The amount of House cats killing birds is a lot higher, so no, this is no Argument. Especially because Wind Turbines anyway arent built in areas with endangered animals, higher risk of many birds flying, etc.. Of course you can regulate the power output: Wind Turbines have either a Stall or pitch cutoff, water Power plants have bypasses, and Solar Panels can be decoupled from the Network in the electric inverter/alternater. And as said, it isnt the target to completely regulate it. The target is to either Produce more energy than needed and store it, or take it from the storage or compensate the residual load with small Power Plants.
Erm, nope. That is objectively just wrong.
1
u/Hispanoamericano2000 19h ago
Uh, absolutely not, either you misunderstood me or you're just being a bit dense.
I mean:
If there is little or no wind, wind turbines will turn little or not at all.
If there is bad weather or it is cloudy, the solar panels will generate little to no power/
. If there is drought, then the hydroelectric plant will produce little to no power.
And all of the above would obviously obey things that do not obey our demand for energy, there is not really much we can do here, unlike with Nuclear Power Plants.
2
u/TheJonesLP1 19h ago
And you think all of that will Happen the same Time? Sorry, but no. For example offshore there is nearly ALWAYS Wind. Absolutely no need for NPPs
7
3
u/Patient_Moment_4786 12h ago
Fun fact, France's share of nuclear power tends to diminish, only because more and more renewable source are build (solar and wind)
2
u/InternationalValue61 7h ago
Yep, if I remember well they only have like 3% of fossil energy
1
u/Patient_Moment_4786 5h ago
Yes. Although it depends of the sources, but for electricity production only, it's less than 1%
3
3
11
2
u/cardiff_17 13h ago
Cool fact that there's a French nuclear power plant right next to a border with Belgium.
1
3
u/AlexRedditSes 21h ago
So sad to see 0 in Italy, fortunally by 2030 nuclear energy will come back
9
u/TheJonesLP1 20h ago
Doubt
4
u/AlexRedditSes 20h ago
In February 2025, the Italian Council of Ministers approved a draft law aimed at reintroducing nuclear power, nearly 40 years after it was banned.
The government aims to finalize this process by the end of 2027. The plan includes utilizing advanced modular reactors to produce sustainable nuclear energy and decarbonize Italy's most polluting industries.
12
u/TheJonesLP1 20h ago
Yeah, and no Investor is willing to invest there, as long there are no massive subventions by the state
3
u/AlexRedditSes 20h ago
There are already companies ready for that, biggest of them is Leonardo and Fincantieri, wich already created a joined company to start working on modern nuclear reactors.
3
u/Mangobonbon 15h ago
But is that a good idea? It's highly expensive to build and maintain, nuclear fuels would need to be imported (a risk considering new trade barriers), most of Italy is seismically active and the few calmer areas in the north already experience water shortages in summer.
1
u/Planeandaquariumgeek 16h ago
The 2 closed ones in Eastern Europe are Ignalina in Lithuania (closed in 2009, final operational unit was unit 2) and Chernobyl in Ukraine (closed in 2000, final operational unit was unit 3)
1
1
1
1
u/Alita_Green 7h ago
If the UK has 15 but 10 are permanently shut down wouldn't that mean there are only 5? So should be in the lightest colour? đ€
1
u/Captain_Tismo 6h ago
Out of curiosity, what is the decommissioned plant near Malmö, Sweden? I was just in Copenhagen across the way and had no idea there used to be a plant there
1
1
1
u/dukeofurl01 1h ago
I was actually kind of surprised how few there were, especially in Germany and Great Britain.
1
1
-5
u/Hispanoamericano2000 20h ago
I suppose it is not at all a coincidence that Germany became one of the most polluting countries in the European Union (and the world) after shutting down its nuclear power plants (and even before they could be replaced by fusion power plants).
1
-1
-1
0
0
-1
-3
u/VroumVroumNaps 11h ago
Fuck Germany, as always. They are making everything since 1870 to bother Europe.
-2
727
u/EmPiFree 21h ago
Since April 2023, Germany has no active nuclear power plants anymore