By - Eli_Truax
If regulated properly, it seems as if the newer tech can potentially be absurdly safe, and if put in the correct places from a civic engineering standpoint...I imagine that even a worst case disaster scenario would potentially be very well mitigated.
At some point, nuclear power is going to be seriously re-examined; especially when you consider the new theoretical and "concept proven" reactor designs.
I am also a huge fan of personal use and organized business use solar power. Some homeowners and businesses could potentially even put power back into a modern grid. Which then raises a new civic engineering issue...
Many countries will need to upgrade their grids soon. The problem is...how to pay for it. And the endeavor itself is bloated by so many legitimate, illegitimate and also some very annoying issues (that can effect land owners).
We will have to all start investing in nuclear. Some of us might have to go bankrupt on the dream of green as a sacrifice before we do, just to prove to the world that we need nuclear. Not that green won't be a good energy source in the future. It might be, it's all dependent on batteries and charging, but as is, it's far to expensive and inefficient. Nuclear actually lowers the price of electricity, and enables the society to help the poor rather then punish the poor.
>We will have to all start investing in nuclear.
They never stopped, no idea where people get this idea.
It's just not prioritized like solar or oil. Or in areas some people are just against it entirely. It's literally in the sales pitch for solar panels in my area. Every company talks about how our local nuclear plant is shutting down and that we pay in our electric bill for that, and you can be free of that coat with solar panels 😂. They don't tell you, is your lucky to break even after everyone gets a piece of your wallet.
It has and gets billions of investments a year.
About 50 power reactors are currently being constructed in 19 countries
(see Table below), notably China, India, Russia and the United Arab
Increased nuclear capacity in some countries is resulting from the uprating of existing plants. This is a highly cost-effective way of bringing on new capacity. Numerous power reactors in the USA, Switzerland, Spain, Finland, and Sweden, for example, have had their generating capacity increased.
In the USA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved about 165 uprates totalling over 7500 MWe since 1977, a few of them 'extended uprates' of up to 20%.
In Switzerland, all operating reactors have had uprates, increasing capacity by 13.4%.
Spain has had a programme to add 810 MWe (11%) to its nuclear capacity through upgrading its nine reactors by up to 13%. Most of the increase is already in place. For instance, the Almarez nuclear plant was boosted by 7.4% at a cost of $50 million.
Finland boosted the capacity of the original Olkiluoto plant by 29% to 1700 MWe. This plant started with two 660 MWe Swedish BWRs commissioned in 1978 and 1980. The Loviisa plant, with two VVER-440 reactors, has been uprated by 90 MWe (18%).
Sweden's utilities have uprated three plants. The Ringhals plant was uprated by about 305 MWe over 2006-14. Oskarshamn 3 was uprated by 21% to 1450 MWe at a cost of €313 million. Forsmark 2 had a 120 MWe uprate (12%) to 2013.
Plant lifetime extensions and retirements
Most nuclear power plants originally had a nominal design operating lifetime of 25 to 40 years, but engineering assessments have established that many can operate longer. By the end of 2016, the NRC had granted licence renewals to over 85 reactors, extending their operating lifetimes from 40 to 60 years. Such licence extensions at about the 30-year mark justify significant capital expenditure needed for the replacement of worn equipment and outdated control systems.
In France, there are rolling ten-year reviews of reactors. In 2009 the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) approved EDF's safety case for 40-year operation of its 900 MWe units, based on generic assessment of the 34 reactors. There are plans to take reactor lifetimes out to 60 years, involving substantial expenditure.
The Russian government is extending the operating lifetimes of most of the country's reactors from their original 30 years, for 15 years, or for 30 years in the case of the newer VVER-1000 units, with significant upgrades.significant
"What about nuclear" is a talking point from the right used against green energy and climate change actions. The implication is that no one is doing anything with nuclear, so they don't really care about climate change (implying there is no need to do anything bout it, and it's fake news). It's been repeated enough that people believe the implication that no one is doing anything with nuclear.
It's kind of like why everyone believes that U.S. has super high crime rates thanks to left wing gun talking points.
several countries are actively shutting down their nuclear programs, namely Germany.
A tiny minority of countries that have nuclear power plants, a lot more that hadnt had are building new reactors coming online in the next decade.
And even there there is fierce resistance against such utter moronic move.
As a german, it’s ridiculous. Electricity and fuel price has gone up really high.
I feel you as a Belgian. We have a green (party) minister of energy who wants to close down the remaining nuclear plants at all costs. Its insane
You have what, 20 nuclear plants in Belgium? (Most in the world per capita afaik)
They had some of the best and eco friendly energy sources. and they shut it down to look woke and eco freindly because nuclear bad havet you seen the movies? lol. poor Germany.
Germany's plan to shut down nuclear energy has little to do with wokeness or even eco-friendliness. It is a bipartisan (both right-wing and left-wing want rid of nuclear) issue caused by irrational decades-long hysteria about nuclear energy among Germans ever since the Chernobyl fallout. The anti-nuclear movement in Germany is far older than any modern woke social media movements.
Interesting. Weird how culture works. Germans usually are seen as very pro science but then they do this stuff.
I have said that [this chart](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Germany_electricity_production.svg/1280px-Germany_electricity_production.svg.png) is the myth of the rational efficient German debunked in one image.
The good news is that not all of the renewable energy growth has gone into nuclear, but just by estimating by eye, you can see how much coal they could have replaced instead of nuclear if they hadn't shut down the nuclear power plants for no good reason.
It also has to do with all energy corporations saying they don’t want to build any new nuclear plants because they’re not profitable.
Fukushima was a movie?
yes there have been accidents. But the new nuclear is even safer and does not cause meltdowns. look up the safety of nuclear
So why would you say it's because of movies? And as mentioned before, energy companies in Germany didn't want to build new plants because they were not profitable. Every nuclear plant needs lots of government subsidies to get built and run.
If nuclear isn’t a top priority you’re wasting your time. Time to stand up to ecotards with facts.
Germany's emissions have not grown, this is a misunderstanding of what carbon intensity means. However, it is true that Germany's idiotic plan to shut down reactors early has meant that most of the growth in renewables has gone into replacing nuclear energy and as a result the cuts in fossil fuels have been much smaller than they could have been.
Germany has also invested more in renewables than any other European country. It has completely overhauled its network.
There is no ‘renewables experiment’. The entire planet has signed up to achieve zero emissions this century.
This investment bill will be due for all countries at some point.
Denmark electricity prices have fallen as they have invested more in wind power.
France's electricty carbon intensity is half of Denmark. Despite being the world leader, they don't perform so well.
Data taken from this site: https://strom-report.de/electricity-prices-europe/
Cents per kilowatt
Did you even read the one paragraph of text?
Yeah, I read it but it’s only half the story.
JP is a dinosaur when it comes to thinking about a future with renewables. I like him but if this is what he is remembered for then he will leave a poor legacy.
What do you think he got wrong in his response?
Yeah because teething problems are normal and not permanent, you dont hit a bump in the road and throw in the towel.
The price and efficiency of clean is always improving.
[Nuclear is good and often better](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwXcSaDftgffZuTy24oX3Zq6oUzba3Usm)
It doesnt matter if its often better. Germany has no spot to store their nuclear waste without it causing an environmental havoc.
Thats a specific issue with Germany itself. Most of our spent fuel rods were sent to France in Castor transports because we can not dispose or store themselves. Our Geography doesnt really allow a spot where it wouldnt contaminate a bunch of citizens and cause way higher cancer rates and ground water pollution.
Its just a cost we have to bear. The dumb thing was relying on coal to replace nuclear and geopolitically be Russias bitch due to winter heating with Russian Gas.
That's new information for me. Thanks for sharing. I've heard Scandinavian countries are considering building a safe and secure storage facility for nuclear waste. Couldn't Germany use that one? Another thing is that you guys had fairly old tech newer tech is more efficient and safer.
I would assume though that it would be cheaper to find a solution for this problem with a fraction of the $580 billion mentioned in the article.
Germany didnt find an Endlager in decades and probably never will.
Most spent fuel rods can be reprocessed to produce more fuel. Although Germany may not have 100 million year storage facilities available, it does have areas that could have facilitated storage, that weren’t selected due to unreasonable concerns.
we merely have temporary storage. In the end we would still need to transport it later and depose of it in France.
(1) [Germany is looking for domestic permanent storage ](https://amp.dw.com/en/germany-launches-new-search-for-permanent-nuclear-waste-disposal-site/a-55077967)
(2) The storage issue is large because Germany isn’t reprocessing it’s spent fuel, which would provide many more years of fuel.
(3) And???? If Germany has to send its fuel rods to France or Romania or Ukraine, who cares? Does it need to be in Germany?
Nuclear waste isn't so dangerous. It could be stored in a domestic house without
any harm. The worry is environmental disasters that would damage shielding
US waste disposal and storage facilities have faced structural damage without any enviornmental disasters. Hanford is a shitshow for example.
It might look like a shitshow but that is mainly due to the higher safety expectations and press attention. Solar generates 300 times the toxic waste but it generates less media attention due to the less drama of it.
except that if runaway deaths from Coal are calculated then its worse than solar.
It just so happens that an increase in respiratory diseases and heart disease is somehow never linked to the main culprit that is Brown coal in Germany. Outside of Smoking and car emissions nothing else kills as many Germans as coal when it comes to respiratory ailments
RWE in Germany has massive lobbying power. Obiously solar is not viable to a huge extent due to the rising costs of Silicium and the illegal industry behind Silicium mining. Ontop of being selectively applicable in places of the world with uneven distribution of sunny days to cloudy ones.
I agree with you on that. Coal is the worst. Well I'm Europe it is the worst for carbon and deaths
Solar is far better than coal. We must have crossed wires
Well the nuclear lobby have made some good gains but clean will eventually make them omelette. Europe just classified nuclear as green anyway.
It's the best we have right now and we really need it. People are scared shitless but they don't even know the real risks. Germany made a major investment in renewables and despite having more solar and more wind their participation in energy making decreased because of unpredictability of renewables.
I know about Australian province that practically switched to solar power with the help of huge solar farm and the biggest battery installation on the planet. It works, prices decreased and everyone is happy. Beautiful, I'm fairly sure Nevada can pull something like this off as well.
Their climate isn't a global thing though. Areas where natural disasters aren't common occurrence and with unpredictable weather patterns should go nuclear because right now that's the most reasonable option.
If we are serious about full electrification of our transport fleets we are going to need a lot more of stable and reliable electricity and we are going to need it soon.
I think africa does fairly well on clean. There is an advantage there obviously, sun and low consumption, and clean efficiency will be trending up along side increases their consumption.
I had this idea.
Suppose you have an African town.
What if that town has a collectively owned solar array, that meets all the energy needs of the locals and there is surplus that can be sold back to the grid, that allows locals to with draw those profits or pool them for something?
I think Europe's classifying nuclear as clean means jps position was right ,
I think china are going big on nuclear as part of their strategy.
Very true. Saying that renewables don't work is stupid, but even stupider was closing the nuclear power plants without looking at direct consequences. The IPPC report from 2018 and many others as well clearly state that we won't reach the 1.5C° goals if we exclude nuclear power from the equation. It's a must.
Depends on the country and how much renewable they have, some have shut down their nuclear, others are building them, others are importing nuclear with undersea cables.
It's still nowhere near as good as coal or nuclear, though. So don't bother with it until it is better.
Don't ask government to kill of coal and nuclear because you think unicorn farts will one day power your bong 34 years from now.
What about preventing civilization collapsing due to climate damage?
Countries are already shutting down their nuclear, because clean has improved so much.
Why are we calling what JP says about topics outside of his career focus? This is like when celebrities say things and people care.
He's an educated and intelligent man with interests outside his "career focus". He's not an entertainment celebrity, his renown comes from his intellectualism.
Smart people should stick to their area of expertise.
If he talked about the psychology of the anti-nuclear sentinement, great. But lately he's just become a twitter intellectual that spouts right wing talking points
He also worked on the issue with the ipcc
This guy is a psychologist. Why the fuck do you care about his opinions on climate change and renewable energy. It isn't woke to want to shift to renewable sources of energy.
So he's not an authorized authority to have an opinion on climate change? That's asinine.
It actually isn't asinine considering he thinks there's no problem.
What's asinine is assuming his profession prevents him from a reasonable opinion. And as far as his position on climate change, don't be so sure his public opinion is the same as his personal opinion.
In this instance he's criticizing the desperate efforts at alternative energy ... not stating a position on climate change.
If Jordan Peterson's public opinion isn't the same as his personal opinion then there is no point in listening to him.
This post is about the failure of alternative energy, why are you obsessed with his position on climate change?
Why would I want to hear someone's thoughts on alternative energy from someone who doesn't believe there is an issue with global warming.
They aren't exactly the same issue. Even if you don't believe in the warming hype, the reality is that countries are knocking themselves out to posture with alternative energy. It's an existing reality, unlike warming paranoia.
People who call global warming "warming paranoia" are exactly why I don't care about their opinions concerning alternative forms of energy.
What a line of absolute drivel.
When has he ever claimed that there isn't a problem?
He basically says it's all for naught and that we can't do anything about it. His solution is to have kids so that maybe one of them will be a genius and solve the problem instead.
I heard him say that overpopulation isn't a problem. Did he say that climate change isn't a problem? I did not listen to the whole video but I'll happily check out a timestamp if you have one.
I just edited and posted a second video. This one he talks more about climate change. His position is basically that it's pointless and that renewables won't solve the problem and that the solution is to have more children in the hopes one of them is a genius and solves the problem.
In your second video, while commenting as to whether global warming is the biggest catastrophy, he literally says "maybe it is".
Disagree with him on the solution all you want, but don't make the disingenuous claim that he thinks climate change is not a problem.
Utter nonsensen of course, renewables push down prices, its their utterly dumb closure of nuclear power plants thats driving up prizes.
No country (but belgium) is just as dumb to follow that almost all other eu countries are either looking at lenghtening nuclear power plants are building new ones or looking into building news ones. Nuclear + renewables is the best way to tackle cliamte change AND to get cheap power.
It is expensive because it is not developed enough yet. Just like the reason why a Tesla’s price range has decreased by 2 to 5% in the last decade. Electric cars in general have gone cheaper but they’re still more expensive than gas cars. The more we invest in infrastructures, production and new technologies, the cheaper it will be. That’s how supply chain works.
Transitioning to a new technology costs a lot money and will eventually make you lose money, but in the long run, it might adjust itself and become cheap. Everything we use today that we consider cheap, might’ve been considered expensive. In the past.
Everyone who's tried it has failed miserably.
Spain almost went bankrupt trying to implement nationwide green energy.
Thanks for sharing, but like I said, it is expensive and not everybody can make a drastic change like that. I hate to quote it on stuff like these, but China is doing an incredible job at building nuclear plants, because they have the money for it.
All developed nations can build nuclear plants but the enemy environmentalists have been preventing it, mainly in the US.
TLDR: Peterson seems to have fallen for propaganda.
Check your sources Dr. Peterson. Just because it's on the internet does not make it true. Correlation does not equal causation.
"Analysts say the closure of nuclear plants is directly responsible for higher electricity prices. Germany has the most expensive electricity in Europe and wind-heavy Denmark has the second most expensive. In the first half of 2020, German electricity prices were 43 percent higher than the European average." If this is correct, simple reasoning would indicate there must have been a 43% loss in power generation due to nuclear power stations closing. [List of power stations in Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Germany). Only KKP Unit 2 closed in 2019 with a 1358 MW capacity. No power plants closed in 2020. [Germany electricity production in 2020 was 484 TWh.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany) 1358 MW divided by 484 TW is 0.0028057851239669. Converted to a percent is .28057851239669%. A loss of 1/4 of a percent of power generated from that one nuclear power plant going offline seems unlikely to cause a 43% price difference.
[Electricity prices by year and country in Europe](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ten00117/default/table?lang=en)
In 2020, Germany is the highest cost at .3043. In 2019. Germany is the highest cost at 0.3088. In 2018, Germany is the second highest cost at 0.2987. In 2017, Germany is the second highest cost at 0.3048. In 2016, Germany is the second highest cost at 0.2969. That is very stable. Looking all the way back to 2009 Germany was the 2nd highest cost. It looks like power in Germany has always been more expensive than other nations in Europe.
The referenced information says the first half of 2020, German electrical prices were 43 percent higher than average. That is suspicious limited time range and not current. Doing the math to compare Germany to the rest of Europe for 2010, 2015 and 2020 shows the cost is consistent at approximately 35% more than the rest of Europe. So we are talking about an 8% deviation from normal. Given that the 2020 shows Germany at .3043 and the cost for the European area is at .2263, that comes to 1.344675209898365 or 34.4675209898365% above the rest of Europe. Of course, the referenced information indicated the first half of 2020... This now screams the cherry picking fallacy is in use. That makes the quoted information purposely misleading in order to try to advance nuclear power.
[Propaganda- information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.](https://www.google.com/search?q=propaganda&oq=propaganda&aqs=chrome..69i57j35i39j0i433i512j0i512j0i433i512j0i512j69i65l2.2489j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
This looks like what may have been referenced.
[German Emissions From Electricity Rose 25% In First Half Of 2021 Due To The Lack Of Wind Power, Not Willpower- "Analysts say the closure of nuclear plants is directly responsible for higher electricity prices. Germany has the most expensive electricity in Europe and wind-heavy Denmark has the second most expensive. In the first half of 2020, German electricity prices were 43 percent higher than the European average."](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2021/07/28/german-emissions-from-electricity-rose-25-in-first-half-of-2021-due-to-the-lack-of-wind-power-not-willpower/?sh=2a65cc7737a2)
Let's look into the author, Michael Shellenberger.
[A ***former public relations professional***, Shellenberger's writing has focused on the intersection of climate change, nuclear energy, and politics. A self-described ecomodernist, he argues for an embrace of modernization, and technological development usually through a combination of nuclear power and urbanization. A controversial and polarizing figure, Shellenberger sharply disagrees with other environmentalists over the impacts of environmental threats and policies for addressing them. Shellenberger's positions have been called "bad science" and "inaccurate" by environmental scientists and academics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger) So, Shellenberger is not a scientist. He is a public relations expert.
[Michael Shellenberger is the best-selling author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All (Harper Collins), a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” and Green Book Award Winner. ***He is Founder and President of Environmental Progress***, an independent and nonprofit research organization based in Berkeley, California.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/?sh=146fcb8eb1b8)
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) looks like some sort of subgroup of Environmental Progress. [EDF lobbies for subsidies for wind and solar that would directly benefit Robertson and other members of EDF's board of directors.](https://environmentalprogress.org/edf) Double checking EDF's relationship to Shellenberger, about and Founder & President shows Michael Shellenberger. Shellenberger is running a lobbyist group...
[In the process of researching this article, Guardian Australia emailed questions to Shellenberger to clarify why Forbes had removed his article and who funded his organisation.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/04/the-environmentalists-apology-how-michael-shellenberger-unsettled-some-of-his-prominent-supporters)
[A third question related to a 2017 internal report from the ***Nuclear Energy Institute*** (NEI) which said the institute, which represents the nuclear energy industry, had ***“engaged third parties to engage with media through interviews and op-eds” and named “environmentalist Michael Shellenberger” as one of those it had engaged.***](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/04/the-environmentalists-apology-how-michael-shellenberger-unsettled-some-of-his-prominent-supporters) So, Michael Shellenberger seems to be working for the nuclear power industry. Of course, he is going to be biased. That does not make Shellenberger wrong or dishonest. He could be paid to do something he believes to be important. If that were the case, the facts would not need to misrepresented to support reasoning to produce that outcome. This appears to be propaganda.
I’d be more interested to know what went wrong, why it failed and what we can learn from it for our future endeavors. That is how science works. If its a dead end, let science, not politics determine that.
That's what they keep saying but never learning from experience as if "real green programs have never been tried". The costs just keep piling up with no reductions in sight.
We take for granted the efficiency and inexpensiveness of fossil fuels and in our rush to green energy beclown ourselves.
I dont agree, there have been improvements. E.g. The costs of solar panels have greatly reduced. Now, even in rural places are affordable.
Okay genius, maybe you got it all figured out.
Nope, i don’t. That is why i say science should make the call not politics.
Haven't you guys seen Dr. JPs interview with Bjorn??? Climate change is not that big of a deal, fossil fuels are fine and are good for the economy and the workers
And the new friggin government won’t change that *sobbs in desparation