Can’t be that old when you were just born in the year of the flashback. You are getting old when you are still older than the protagonist in the flashbacks

Yeah, that’s what I meant with advances reactors we don’t yet have. Thanks :)

Glad I learned mentioning thorium prevents the downvotes ;)

Hahahaha. You didn’t even edit.

You say somebody would be lying. You source it.

Edit: too sad this propaganda was removed. Just proves nuclear isn’t the ultimate solution.

It is not. Source it or be silent.

Edit: all Responses after this were deleted as soon as you challenge them. Just proving that this is not a lie but facts.

Murica first! Peasants from 3rd world France don’t know shit, right? /s What a shitty comment…

The sources with high concentration and easy to reach spots are at capacity. With growing demand more and more „expensive“ mines have to start and the prices will go up. With „old“ reactors that means, yes, we‘d run low in a few decades or have to use very inefficient mines with all the downsides from mining.

Newer reactor types don’t use as many, other isotopes etc and the problem wouldn’t be there for „hundreds“ of years. But we don’t have many of these running so far (don’t even know if there is just one not for research purpose)

It's still WRONG. No matter if you bring wind into it or not.

Germany did not COMMIT to anything. They talked a lot about going to "100%" solar/wind but they failed. They only managed to go half way and still subsidized coal. 2.4 Billion€ in 2020 for RWE coal. And yet for example Schott Solar closed its plants during the same time coal got money, because it is not financially useful to build solar in Germany(2012).

The massive difference is, it didn't fail because of any shortcomings of renewables. It failed because NIMBY wind in Bavaria, NIMBY high voltage power lines and stupid coal/gas lobby.

I know for the current nuclear lobby it is such a beautiful image of a failing Germany because of "renewable flaws", but it is just wrong. Germany never pushed with the force towards renewables, that it would allow any considerations (like that).

Imagine Germany would have gone towards NPPs with the same mentality. Do you really think just ONE NPP would have been able to start production with all the bureaucracy and coal lobby in the last 20 years? Just look at the search for a final waste storage in Germany. 50 Years of search, and we got only one failed attempt, billions of wasted money and the "hope" to find a solution in 2032. And TONS of NIMBY in that area as well.

Neither nuclear nor renewables had a chance against the coal/gas lobby in the last 20 years. Lets just hope they learned their lesson, and in another 20 years we will see 100% nuclear in France, 100% renewable in Germany and a wonderful mixture of energy across Europe, just like it has to be to work at all, because "no" 100% solution covers all flaws.

Yeah, this is just wrong. Germany never went full solar. The proof is the now non existent solar industry in Germany that still existed 15 years ago. In the same time coal still got billions in subsidies. Germany went full sideways with some solar and wind sprinkled in. Not proofing any failure but the one of German politicians.

Just another nuclear shill jumping in a thread about a renewable success story.

>nuclear waste cost are already included in the electricity cost of any european country

that's why you land at double the cost for nuclear - invalidating all your arguments against solar.

​

>chernobyl could and have exploded, it's impossible now

Until it isn't impossible - unsinkable, unexplodeable.. same story.

​

And then you argue FOR electric cars as "society will collapse and we can't have oil anymore". Cars will for ever need energy storage. Light weight. As if there are the resources for that in Europe. Like the rare earth you mentioned from china we need for solar?

In what world is building cars with batteries more resource independent than building solar panels?

​

>we don't have a single drop of oil

Don't we? I'm pretty sure there are about 26 oil rigs around the north sea.

​

>i don't even talk about national security, you can build bomb with them, nuclear bomb, dirty bomb even poison

You don't say. Almost as if having nuclear near population could be used by terrorists or terrorist states?

​

And one last time I'll cite the reason why EDF is state owned for you:

>The government hopes nationalising the debt-laden company will help secure energy supplies in the country after the war in Ukraine left countries hunting for new sources of power to replace Russian imports.

​

And then you talk about panic and media with nuclear - but your "the oil society will crumble" view is completely sane and not panic driven? Almost as if there was some lobby behind that view as well.

Ok, maybe it is lost in translation and interim energy would have been better. Great for you, the first time your "you don't understand" argument, you start every post with was right. And you finally got the intellectual high ground you want to put yourself on. And yet you failed to EXPLAIN what the error was and explained interim and not intermittent. Good job. Not.

The fact that you say "you tell them to produce the amount of power you need an that's it" shows me, you don't understand how nuclear reactors work, neither did you address the wasted money for idle nuclear reactors. Just because something is possible, it still might not be profitable.

And you keep telling nuclear would pay for itself - well, look back at the graph. Solar pays twice for itself in the same time and that while only running half a day. Good job, go to your boss and tell him you need only half your salary from now on, you will still make profit from your work! Just because something is profitable in the long run, it might not be the most profitable solution.

No Danger? You say active fighting in europe's biggest nuclear reactor isn't a matter of danger? A fight in a random forest would be just the same? Chernobyl costed about $700 billion in damages - not including Russian troops digging trenches in the radioactive soil as that study is from 2016.

Yes, the panic was oversold in most cases. No, you shouldn't do nothing. Otherwise seat belts above 100 miles an hour could be abandoned as well. Won't make a big difference anyways? Chernobyl exposed 10 million people to radiation, reaching as far as south Germany, where you still are not supposed to eat wild mushrooms in some regions. Lucky for you, that you are in a region that wasn't affected. Fukushima was lucky with its wind directions for example.

​

And "it don't exist anymore with our modern reactor" - you ever heard of that unsinkable ship named Titanic? Yeah, couldn't sink, because it was modern. ...

​

And to bring another topic into the game: France has 1.700.000 cubic meters of nuclear waste. How much of this is in its final storage place? Afaik Bure is not yet active. Did you factor into your calculation of profitability the decade long search for a final storage solution? Did you factor in the cost to transport that 1.700.000 cubic meters radioactive waste? Just because it was not funded by the company that is building that reactor, it still has to be payed by the people using the energy. Be it in taxes or fees.

If it was so profitable, you wouldn't need that massive lobbying you can observe in France. Why the need for state control in EDF? Why the need for 2.1bn€ subsidies for EDF? Why are you arguing for something and bashing solar in a solar based threat when nuclear was so superior and self selling?

nuclear HAS TO run 24/7.

You have to assume a worst case fluctuation per day. Quick search shows 85 to 120 MW in summer during the day(src - in thousands MW for DC in US, just for simplicity I'll leave out the thousands as only the comparison between the values matters). That means almost 50% of the "base load" need to be added during the evening hours (18:00 peak), which we actually still see significant solar production during that time. And in spring your base load is only ~61MW - you won't ever built nuclear for anything above 70MW in that case as it would mean you got significant nuclear reactor capacity "idling" and still causing the same cost as when it was running. There you get a gap of about 50MW. What is your plan for this? 50MW is 10 times the total german gas production of yesterday (peak 71t MW with gas 4.6t MW and 22t MW solar - including 18t MW overproduction for export. But as you can see in my source even in automn, the peak production of solar matches the time of peak load)

I'm not saying solar can solve all issues and is the sole solution, but at least an "idling" solar panel won't cause economic loss, and thus industries will still invest into it. Nobody wants to invest in idle nuclear plants, especially when solar is the cheaper way.

While solar needs a solution for energy storage, nuclear has its own book of issues, dangers and problems. A combination of all, is the only thing for the future. And no, solar and wind won't disappear. And when they don't disappear, they are not an intermittent solution. Nuclear will disappear when fusion is viable(some day in forever 25 years), as there is no reason to run fission when you got the other highly centralized energy production which is fusion. So, nuclear fission is the intermittent one here, right?

On top of that, my house has a planned independence from the grid of over 80% without any extra space required, just the roof (don't have actual numbers yet). Can't have that with nuclear either.

Well.. no.. you don’t know why decisions where made regarding gas as it seams. Gas is the intermittent energy source until renewables are fully built. AND it is there to take peak loads. Same is required for nuclear as well - you can’t just tune nuclear down and up on a hourly basis to match the demand. You still need something for the peaks. So nuclear is intermittent as well in your logic?

Subsidies are not included in that statistics. Solar is cheap by its own. And luckily we start to return to electricity based transportation, so no society collapse is to be expected „soon“ (at least caused by petrol scarcity)

Nuclear is getting more and more expensive as we currently mine only the high concentration ores. With higher demand we would need to tap into low concentration or deeper mines. Next gen reactors could help with that. So will next gen solar panels what this thread is about.

But yes, it is the first time I hear solar and wind being called an intermittent energy source. Bold statement considering it is the cheapest form of electricity, renewable and dezentral. With a dezentral energy source being more valuable in the future as the energy hasn’t to be transported through the whole country but can be produced where it is needed

Wrong. Nuclear is about to become the most expensive. Solar is the cheapest. You got basically everything just the wrong way around. source