51–60 of 131 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear was stopped? Look at France.
The nuclear programme was effectively stopped in France and it is struggling to be revived. As things stand now it won't be able to compensate for the closure of older reactors.
You're describing France from 2010 to 2020, not today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nuclear takes like 15 years to build 6-7 years. France built 40 its nuclear reactors in a decade, at 6-7 years per reactor. Right now China is building reactors at 6-7 years per reactor. --- start quote --- Nearly every Chinese nuclear project that has entered service since 2010 has achieved construction in 7 years or less. Every single conventional commercial-scale reactor project in Chinese history has achieved c…
> Right now China is building reactors at 6-7 years per reactor. Thats China. In Europe, this building speed isnt going to happen anytime soon. The knowledge to build nuclear at that scale isn't in the coutry/continent anymore. You'd have to reteach an entire generation of engineers. Besides that, part of the point of switching away from oil and gas is at least some independence. Europe isnt known for its nuclear fue…
It wasn't going to happen in China either. China also disn't have the knowledge. And yet...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear takes like 15 years to build, it's being worked on but it won't be much more relevant soon. Green energy isn't very useful for heating in winter.
Google "Messmer Plan". France built 65 reactors in 15 years as a reaction to the 70s oil crisis, and now the majority of electricity in France comes from nuclear without any significant dependency on fossil fuels. The only thing that we're lacking is political will to change things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NATO is a defensive pact, it can't expand. Countries can and want to join it willingly. > and of not stopping (well documented) US political meddling in Ukraine Assuming that's true, and it's a big if, let's turn this around: Russia has been messing with Ukraine politics since the collapse of the USSR. Why shouldn't US be allowed to? > Europe because it thought it was beneath itself to seriously engage with Russia. B…
> Countries can and want to join it willingly. It's up to the current members to decide who can join and who can't. That should also include considerations of opportunity. > Russia has been messing with Ukraine politics since the collapse of the USSR. Why shouldn't US be allowed to? The US is allowed to do whatever its military and economic power allows it to. Then actions have consequences. The consequences had been…
And as history showed, they did the right choice. Or war in Ukraine would be war in Ukraine + Baltics + Romania.
> The US is allowed to do whatever its military and economic power allows it to. Then actions have consequences. The consequences had been stated clearly.
So US is messing with Ukraine, which Russia doesn't like, therefore Russia attacks Ukraine, because it can't compete using its whip with the Wests cookie. Logic checks out.
> Here, check the history of sanctions of the EU to Russia. It goes back to 2014.
So pretty much ignored Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008. The only sanctions Russia understands is boots on the ground and rockets (now drones) attacking their military and refineries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The nuclear programme was effectively stopped in France and it is struggling to be revived. As things stand now it won't be able to compensate for the closure of older reactors.
> The nuclear programme was effectively stopped in France and it is struggling to be revived. You're describing France from 2010 to 2020, not today.
New operational reactor in 2024 was the first in 25 years so hardly "since 2010"...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of Belgium’s electricity comes from nuclear, wind and solar. They have been greatly expanding wind parks in the north sea, and they’re in the early stages of deploying SMRs. But the reality is that Belgium still needs a lot of natural gas for electricity production and its large chemical industry, and that all of this gas has to be imported. Long term there is the European hydrogen strategy which aims to…
What about heating?
"China's Haiyang nuclear power plant in Shandong province has begun its sixth heating season, covering an area of nearly 13 million square metres - 500,000 square metres more than last year."
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/chinas-first-com...
Similar plans exist for Finnland. https://thinkatom.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/rauli-parta...
In Switzerland both Beznau and Gösgen nuclear power plant produce district heating in addition to power. Beznau makes available 80 MW of heat to industry and homes over a 130 km network serving 11 towns https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...
In Slovakia since 1987, Slovak power utility Slovenské Elektrárne (SE) has been producing heat for Trnava, Leopoldov, Hlohovec and the municipality of Jaslovské Bohunice from the Jaslovské Bohunice NPP. This plant produced 429 GWh of heat in 2023. The high ten-kilometre hot water pipe between the Jaslovské Bohunice power plant and the Trnava heating plant began construction in 1983 and was put into operation at the end of 1987. Heat project for Mochovce NPP is also planed.
https://www.neimagazine.com/news/mochovce-npp-heat-project-u...
There are many plans and ideas for advanced uses of nuclear heat for industrial applications.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nucl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> starting from the US arrogance that led to the war in Ukraine What arrogance would this be?
Like this: "It's not that you refrain from doing something because it will offend Russia. If Russia is doing something that we don't want it to do, we should offend them."[0] And that's coming from a man who said a few minutes earlier: "There is one of the factor here that we seem to be forgetting, and we did, though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the So…
(I’ll also note that it seems very weird to use a pinky promise that the US made with a country that no longer exists as some kind of “gotcha.” You presumably don’t factor the Austro-Hungarian empire’s commitments into your geopolitics.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> starting from the US arrogance that led to the war in Ukraine What arrogance would this be?
Like this: "It's not that you refrain from doing something because it will offend Russia. If Russia is doing something that we don't want it to do, we should offend them."[0] And that's coming from a man who said a few minutes earlier: "There is one of the factor here that we seem to be forgetting, and we did, though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the So…
1. Which Gorbachev himself said never happened
2. Before 2014 almost no one in Ukraine wanted to join NATO. After 2014 almost everyone wanted to join NATO. After 2022 Sweden and Finland ran to NATO.
> it's not Russia's business if NATO decides to expand.
Countries bordering Russia literally run to NATO the moment they have a choice. I wonder why. It couldn't be Russia who's to blame, could it?
> And should I mention the US "midwifing" the coup in Ukraine in 2014?
Just like Russia is midwifing crises and elections actoss Europe and countries like Georgia and Azerbaijan? Aurely this calls for immediate invasion and hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear takes like 15 years to build, it's being worked on but it won't be much more relevant soon. Green energy isn't very useful for heating in winter.
> Nuclear takes like 15 years to build 6-7 years. France built 40 its nuclear reactors in a decade, at 6-7 years per reactor. Right now China is building reactors at 6-7 years per reactor. --- start quote --- Nearly every Chinese nuclear project that has entered service since 2010 has achieved construction in 7 years or less. Every single conventional commercial-scale reactor project in Chinese history has achieved c…
But people also forget that it still takes nuclear fuel to do any of that, which France/Europe has now also largely lost access to, due to the Niger situation along with cutting itself off from Russia/BRICS. That will at some point become an issue for France/Europe, which the “remilitarizing” EU may even make one of its first contrived America-style military adventures to “protect democracy” or some other manipulative, emotive, contrived lie by the lying Epstein, Mandelson, Brunel Class.
It sure does look like Niger really could use some democracy, don’t you? Their women can’t even show off their orifices for money on Onlyfans! Oh, they happen to have rich uranium ore, well isn’t that just an odd coincidence of doing good by sharing Our Democracy©, as decreed by the unelected EU Commission.
Fun fact: Germany blew up its nuclear energy capacity with voted approval by the current EU Commission President von der Leyen, while she was in the German government ruling coalition … she has described that her own action as a “strategic mistake”. That is who is basically the dictator of Europe, someone who makes self-described “strategic mistakes” of the highest order, multi-generational, rippling, echoing, de facto permanently consequential mistakes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m pretty confident that a large part of NATO (and all other military alliances) is the accession of new members. Candidate members have to want to accede, which goes back to my question: why are we talking about what the US and Russia want, when Ukraine’s wants are just as if not more important?
Look, the point is not what one wants. Everyone is free to make its own choices. The point is that choices have consequences, and when the consequences are very clear in advance and you still make that choice, you also take responsibility for the consequences. This attitude that "this is my will and I will pursue it, and I don't care about how others feel about it (because anyway I'm stronger)" is called arrogance.
Edit: I’ll also note that arrogance usually means something closer to “discounting the consequences of your actions,” which is not evidenced here.