Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better a potential bad outcome than directly measurable and ongoing harm, though Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution#/media/File:How-... with the different energy mixes at https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/ . I know which european country's energy mix I'd choose if I could just pick one at will (with the caveat that running flat countries on hydro is not going to work, so that's sadly not ubiquitous…
It is a really bad idea to half-ass this. A nuclear disaster in Europe would likely kill off any positive sentiment the public has for nuclear power. And that’s ignoring all the physical effects of the disaster.
Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants
861–870 of 1001 posts
Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants
#862Believing we're in a climate crisis and also being anti-nuclear are mutually exclusive positions in my mind, and opposition to nuclear from environmentalist orgs should be viewed as a massive historical mistake as it set us back decades in moving the needle on carbon emissions. The engineering side of running reactors safely is a solved problem, the US navy has > 7500 reactor-years with a perfect safety record.
"carbon emissions" LOL. Just lookup what's happening In Tuapse, and in other war zones. And we are penalising some poor bugger burning wood to warm his house at winter ...
Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants
#863Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants
#864Believing we're in a climate crisis and also being anti-nuclear are mutually exclusive positions in my mind, and opposition to nuclear from environmentalist orgs should be viewed as a massive historical mistake as it set us back decades in moving the needle on carbon emissions. The engineering side of running reactors safely is a solved problem, the US navy has > 7500 reactor-years with a perfect safety record.
If you believe in a climate crisis and are serious about it you probably want to run the numbers on different options and policies to see what works rather than saying yay this boo that. Running numbers on producing energy in say 15 years time which is roughly how long it takes to approve and build nuclear, and comparing it with projected solar+wind+battery costs for 15 years hence you tend to come with much better f…
It needs the PR because it is so unconscionably expensive. The public needs to be primed to consent to indirect and direct subsidies.
The reason China, US, France, it is because it shares a skills base and supply chain with nukes.
The reason Sweden, Poland, Iran, etc. build a few plants is because it shares a skills base and supply chain with a nuclear weapons program they might want in a hurry one day. It's always obvious for those countries who the existential threat is.
Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants
#865But but solar had a 90% reduction in cost between 2010 and 2026, and is projected to decrease between 50% to 80% again by 2035. So once again, it's just numbers, and some people are being emotional again. Further evidence is that China added 70x as much solar as it did nuclear in 2025.
Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants
#866Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The #1 problem leading to humans not having enough to live comfortably is that we have an enormous number of humans and limited resources. It really isn't. The raw materials in our lives are a tiny fraction of our living costs in the west. 200 tons of concrete, steel, and plastic etc. in appropriate proportions is enough for a very nice house, yet it would cost less than a tenth of the sale price of that house: wha…
The sale price of a house has little to do with labour. It's mostly about the number of humans competing to live in an area vs. how easy it is to get land in that area so that a new house can be built. I.e. the ratio of how many humans are involved vs the most limiting resource for producing the thing in question. There is the point that how wealthy the competing humans are is also a major factor. But you're trying t…
What attracts people to a place is often all the other people there. The actual land area is not close to being a limiting factor, we only build on about 1% of it.
> why everyone doesn't just get a house (if someone can't afford a house, why not just upskill and learn how to build one? It isn't that hard
You've not followed Colin Furze, I see. Even his basic concrete and steel tunnel and bunker isn't "just upskill" and done alone, he's got a team.
Clearly you've also never gotten a line by line price estimate for a house where you could save €50k by doing the plastering yourself, like I have turned down.
Some rough estimates for the time it takes to learn the necessay trades; if you think these are unreasonable, ask yourself how come e.g. plumbers cost so much on callout, or how long after graduating you were still a noob at whatever your day job is:
* Basic construction literacy (plans, codes, sequencing): ~1-2 years (or 3-6 months intensive self-study + mentoring)
* Site preparation & surveying basics: ~3-6 months
* Excavation & earthworks operation: ~6-12 months
* Concrete work (formwork, rebar, pouring, curing): ~1-2 years
* Masonry (brick/block work): ~1-2 years
* Carpentry (structural framing): ~2-4 years to solid competence
* Roofing (structure, waterproofing): ~1-2 years
* Plumbing (rough-in + fixtures): ~2-4 years
* Electrical (wiring, panels, code compliance): ~3-5 years
* HVAC installation: ~2-4 years
* Insulation & air sealing: ~3–6 months
* Drywall installation & finishing: ~6-12 months
* Interior carpentry (doors, trim, cabinetry basics): ~1-2 years
* Flooring (tile, wood, laminate): ~6-12 months
* Painting & finishing: ~3-6 months
* Window & door installation: ~6-12 months
* Exterior finishes (siding, stucco, cladding): ~1-2 years
* Project management (budgeting, scheduling, subcontractors): ~2-5 years practical experience
* Health & safety compliance: ~3-6 months initial + continuous practice
Becoming individually competent in all trades needed to build a house to a professional standard is roughly a 10-15 year path.A single person can reach "good enough to build a simple house" faster (perhaps 5 years if you skip the optional bits and keep the process count as low as possible), but quality, speed, and compliance will be limiting factors. And you'd need some person or people with all that knowledge to tell you which processes you could get away with not using, otherwise you'd end up with the house equivalent of vibe coded software.
This is also why houses in need of significant maintenence go for so little, sometimes even less than the land they're on.
Heck, if even just *insulation* from that list was as easy as you seem to think an entire house is, the UK would halve its heating bills as fast as its factories could make (or ports could import) foam.
Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants
#867Earlier quoted context omitted.
NIMBY != Nuance
Reducing every personal reason to oppose every specific project to "NIMBY" is not nuance.
Happy for other examples that would demonstrate nuance, but that isn't it.
Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants
#868Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying gas has relatively little emissions reminds me of the joke german car manufacturers are making about their latest combustion cars using relatively little fuel ('hocheffizienzverbrenner'). It's marginal gains. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-dioxide-emissions-... Gas is 200gCO2e/kWh, plain old diesel is 260. Better than nothing but not going to make a big dent Maybe if you happen to live in a country…
GP is saying gas has relatively little emissions in this scenario because we wont use it much total in a year. Not because its cleaner.
edit: got curious how much this would amount to, also since the peak demand is usually after sunset. The article (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/we.2554) which wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dunkelflaute&oldi...) cites on this topic says in appendix A
> all the three renewable power generation sources drop below 10% of their capacities for a substantial period of time (approximately ranging from 30% to 50%). Typically, offshore wind power production has a higher capacity factor in comparison to its onshore counterpart. On average, the Dunkelflaute events account for around 7%–8% of the time per year. These numbers do not vary much across the years.
That's a heck of a lot of gas still, and that's ignoring the "intermittency" part (that might mean every day after sunset, not a rare sequence of weather events). But yeah I guess they didn't mean it as an either-or that replaces other storage options
Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants
#869Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are they unmanageable? They are only expensive because externalities of other solutions are not captures or are subsidised. Wind and solar are expensive if battery storage is included in most of the world. Waste is mostly a solved problem. Much more solved that waste management for coal plants in any case (whom also produce a lot of radioactive waste in addition to producing tons and tons of co2) We have more tha…
> Why are they unmanageable? Just look at the statistics. E. g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and... To say that they're _potentially_ safe by waving at the US Navy is a fallacy for several reasons. 1. It's p-hacking. E. g. with the same technology the Soviets destroyed five of their reactors. 2. The world of civilian operators is completely incomparable. 3. Civilian power plants use differ…
> 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."
I disagree, I am saying we should replace coal with something that is orders of magnitude safer. Nation who will disregard nuclear will be stuck with coal/nat gas for a very long time. For most of the world there aren't even theoretical models for getting to 100% wind/solar if stable grid is required with CURRENT demand, let alone future demand.
I don't have a source handy but I disagree we only have supply until 2080. Maybe with current known reserves and without reprocessing.
Germany won't find a story site because they don't want to find one. They are looking for something perfect, that is guaranteed to last 1000s of years. Meanwhile, waste water from mining and refining is just dumped in old quarries, lakes, the ocean. PFAS just gets dumped everywhere. All kinds of toxic waste that lasts forever, just dumped no one cares. But when its about nuclear waste suddenly everything has to be secured against the apocalypse.
Look we can argue about this forever, meanwhile China is building more plants that whole west combined and in a few decades they will be energy independent using 100% clean energy.
Re: Belgium stops decommissioning nuclear power plants
#870Believing we're in a climate crisis and also being anti-nuclear are mutually exclusive positions in my mind, and opposition to nuclear from environmentalist orgs should be viewed as a massive historical mistake as it set us back decades in moving the needle on carbon emissions. The engineering side of running reactors safely is a solved problem, the US navy has > 7500 reactor-years with a perfect safety record.
If you believe in a climate crisis and are serious about it you probably want to run the numbers on different options and policies to see what works rather than saying yay this boo that. Running numbers on producing energy in say 15 years time which is roughly how long it takes to approve and build nuclear, and comparing it with projected solar+wind+battery costs for 15 years hence you tend to come with much better f…