Arcturus

In theory, when it’s working, yes it will. Only after being over a decade late and being everal times over budget. They’ll probably keep it going for as long as humanly possible, until the cost of maintaining it is no longer economically feasible. They’ll try to claw back as much of that investment as possible. But as we know with nuclear projects, they never will. It’s why China is betting big on renewables.

You think nuclear powerplants don’t require parts replacements, maintenance, or shut down over the weather either? France, US, and Finland had to delay the opening of their latest plants because they already had to replace parts before they even started. This isn’t Finland’s first nuclear reactor. Their next one has been cancelled because of the war in Ukraine (Rosatom) The others are being throttled down for maintenance, and it won’t be long until this new one also requires it. As it is, they’re already understaffed.

This one? In what universe would, planning to build nuclear, and then later finding out how impractical it is, or eventually building a plant, only for it to take nearly two decades, be cheaper, quicker, or less polluting?

It’s not profitable. For example, in Sweden, the companies involved aren’t interested. There was talk of EDF being restructured a couple of years back separating the unprofitable nuclear away from their other businesses (until state bailout and investment). Their CFO resigned over their decision to carry on building UK’s latest nuclear powerplant. The Conservatives only pushed through the UK’s next nuclear powerplant only after giving EDF assurances and ability to start taking in profits before the completion of the project.

This is what it takes to build nuclear. A lot of state money… Whereas renewables are cheaper, easier, and faster to decarbonise.

Overall, probably cheaper, as it requires less tax to help pay for the cost of nuclear infrastructure.

But it’s not the general public who is averse to nuclear, they’re as a whole, probably more in favour of it. The current Swedish governmrnt campaigned on it. It’s nuclear companies themselves who don’t want it. Which is partially why Sweden suddenly and quietly scrapped their plans.

It’s still overall, a small part of their grid. They don’t have plans to expand their nuclear fleet all too much. A good chunk are experimental, and for military research.

Renewables?

Sweden’s approach is over.

They have no targets, the industry isn’t interested, and the government’s analysis has been based on nothing.

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/Q70mzQ/regeringen-svanger-om-karnkraftsreaktorerna

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-01/uniper-dents-swedish-nuclear-hopes-with-firm-no-to-new-plants

So, you’re going to build a powerplant, that people don’t want to fund, that governments are reluctant to build? You’ll need to create a government agency responsible for the design and planning, another responsible for training new powerplant workers, another one for the decommissioning process, and another for insurance, and another as a safety watchdog, which might come online in a decade if you’re lucky, or closer to two decades if you’re not, only for it to not be as effective as renewables, be a constant drain on taxpayers, not be entirely reliable, and be more expensive as an energy source than renewables. Sure, good luck with that plan. I wish you well garnering political and academic support with that. In the meantime, universities, companies, and governments will generally avoid it like the plague. Unless or course, there’s a nuclear industry that already exists and needs to be subsidised, or a military nuclear requirement to keep the talent and designs ongoing.

You’re deliberately going to build nuclear, ignore studies telling you that renewables decarbonise faster. Because you want to decarbonise. Only for your personal opinions, backed by the fossils and mining industry? You’re going to give the fossil industry a lot of money over the first 10 years of absolutely nothing happening.

I will add, the election promises the conservative Swedes have made seem to have disappeared. How convenient.

Let me pose you another question. Why do you think, the British Conservatives have invested in making HPC happen (finally agreeing to the demand to allow investing companies to turn a profit even before any energy is produced)? Why have conservatives in South Korea planned to restart a new nuclear industry despite accusations of corruption? Why is it the conservatives in Australia love the idea of nuclear? Is it because they can do the good old-fashioned trope of using the state to make their private company chums some money? Or is it because it’s for the goodness of their hearts, and concern for their citizens, while they dismantle the NHS and privatise it, for example?

The point of making a profit, is so that you can re-invest and allow private industries into the market.

If I made you a loaf of bread, which took 15 mins, and you could sell it for $2 profit. You would be able to sell more pieces of bread correct?

If another person made you a loaf of bread, which took three days to complete, and you make a loss of $10 with each one sold, how many more pieces of bread are you willing to sell?

One feeds your population, the other has to be bailed out by the government, and everyone loses money and investment and time.

This is why China prioritises renewables, renewables are considered superior to nuclear when decarbonising the grid, and the best case scenario for nuclear, according to scientists in academia (as opposed to pro-nuke Youtube videos), requires nuclear to be a minor player in a majority renewables grid (and also be 25% cheaper). Unfortunately making nuclear cheaper, is not ideal.

The pro-nuke argument is literally funded by the mining lobby and the fossil fuels industry. Which is why most of their resources are from lobby groups, YouTube videos, public books, and TED talks… Because they know it’s going to be ineffective, and they only need to convince the public. Much like how the whole hydrogen-powered cars narrative is going, or environmentally friendly fuels. It’s an expensive distraction.

See the RAB that the UK has for the HPC nuke plant build. Companies are allowed to make a profit even before the powerplant is completed. The government will handle insurance, and decommissioning. Which, happens over a century, at taxpayers expense, and it produces no energy. There’s also the storage of radioactive material. All of this, uses money and resources that could otherwise be used for constructing renewables (and the fossil fuels industry loves this plan, because every moneypit nuke plant that is constructed, less renewables are built, and fossils gets to remain in the game because they then become only just one of the underperformers, rather than all), decarbonising the grid (faster, see study), and on top of that, everybody makes money.

But don’t worry, renewables are also cheaper and more profitable than fossils in most applications as well, so they’ll lose out on future energy projects, besides, like in Germany’s case, being used as a backup.

Nact will ruin this for us…

This relates to China because they’re literally by far have invested the heaviest in renewable energy. A good amount of their nuclear reactors are experimental and for research, some are looking at military applications for ships. Renewables growth in China far outstrips their nuclear efforts. As per what the original article I mentioned indicates. China isn’t serious about their nuclear plans, it’s a combined research, military, national pride thing. Unlike their renewables investments, which you can see outstrips nuclear today, and in the future from sources given, backed by scientific papers also given.

So who goes around switching off the sun and turning off the wind?

Look at the industry’s growth in France though. Renewables has been growing at the expense of nuclear. This is happening in Germany as well.

Yeah, it genuinely is. Doesn’t take too long to find the lobby groups. A lot of funding comes from mining. Also, RAB funding (from the government) allows nuclear companies to earn a profit without having the plant completed yet. So there is money to be made. Ever wonder why there’s a lot of pro-nuke videos on YouTube? Rather than academic spaces? Which time and again shows you that renewables are superior in virtually every way?

Wholesale power prices are cheaper in Germany than they are in France. Last year France had to shut down half their reactors for maintenance and weather. Germany had to export to them. Before the French government bailed out the nuclear industry again, there was talk of splitting up EDF from their profitable renewables investments, away from its loss-making nuclear problem. EDF’s CEO resigned because of the vast cost of the UK’s HPC nuclear plant. And now, under agreement with the UK government, EDF can make a profit from HPC without it actually being constructed with their RAB model.

Fusion, has been a promise made by nuclear for decades, much like the car industry’s promise of green fuels. In the meantime, the university of Stanford semi-regularly updates a paper showing a transition to 100% for the world. It’s made possible now, particularly with the innovations done by renewables companies improving efficiency in production, recycling, and AI made available for demand prediction. And we have been investing in nuclear, for many decades. A small kickstart in the renewables industry has built a giant global realistic renewables push. Everyone’s happy with renewables. Governments, energy companies, insurance companies. Nuclear will remain a promise and a giant drain on resources.

The US Navy isn’t concerned about making their fleets commercially viable. Taxpayers expect to subsidise defence, and for the US, this is done at vast cost. They don’t expect to constantly be funding an expensive, loss-making powerplant. Not when alternatives are cheaper and more effective.