Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 263 billion, and rising.

[Embattle]

I do support Nuclear in the mix myself but you kind of imply with your positives that it is almost without issues, which anyone knows is utter bollocks. They are both expensive to build and often suffer massive time delays and cost overruns, this on top of the fact they still produce the most dangerous waste product that requires careful management and once the plant has come to the end of its life it takes oddles more cash and time to decommission. Also while onshore wind has generally always been cheaper than Nuclear and offshore wind has now joined it, in fact some predictions put both forms of wind power being cheaper than Gas in the next few years.

 

[Job]

Strange that shutting down the world only took carbon emissions back to 2006.
Global CO2 emissions 'fell to lowest level in 14 years' during coronavirus lockdowns

Probably because taking planes and half the cars out isnt really that much

 

[Scouse]

Strange that shutting down the world only took carbon emissions back to 2006.
Global CO2 emissions 'fell to lowest level in 14 years' during coronavirus lockdowns

Probably because taking planes and half the cars out isnt really that much

No. It just shows the efficiency of capitalism of growing economies - really very powerful system

It's clear it needs fundamentally reforming because permanent dirty growth is literally killing us.

This is the whole reason you hear the word sustainable all the time - because if we continue growing in this fashion we're fucked.

What boggles my mind is that we've been talking about this for so long and people still don't get what that means fundamentally.

 

[Embattle]

The story of cheaper batteries, from smartphones to Teslas

 

[Embattle]

Planning application for nuclear plant submitted

 

[Scouse]

Planning application for nuclear plant submitted

Is the taxpayer still picking up the cost for 100,000 years storage of nuclear waste?

But for that, I think it'd be "OK". Maybe.

 

[Embattle]

Three pioneers who predicted climate change - BBC Ideas

 

[Embattle]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC_BCz0pzMw

 

[Embattle]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc8SJqAPVaM

 

[Scouse]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC_BCz0pzMw

Got as far as the France vs Germany comparison and stopped because it was a terrible comparison to make - because of what is going on very differently in both countries.

France and Germany - have historically had very different models and Germany is undergoing base changes with massive investment (France, on the other hand, has huge costs to come).

It's so obvious that those figures/comparison shouldn't be there - and the fact they were means you can't possibly trust the rest...

 

[Scouse]

Why the facepalm @Wij? Their cost analysis/comparison per market is crap.

 

[Wij]

Why the facepalm @Wij? Their cost analysis/comparison per market is crap.

It wasn't cost it was carbon and it specifically said that onshore wind is slightly lower CO2 per kWh than nuclear just after but you stopped watching?

 

[Scouse]

It wasn't cost it was carbon and it specifically said that onshore wind is slightly lower CO2 per kWh than nuclear just after but you stopped watching?

They'd made a statement on investment in renewable investments, followed by a flawed market carbon cost per kwh between france and germany that gives the impression they're comparing like for like - in the context of "why not nuclear" - when they really shouldn't.

But I was in a meeting - so will take the time later to look again.

 

[Wij]

But also, Germany loves coal.

 

[Scouse]

But also, Germany loves coal.

This is why my initial post...

Anyway, rewatched and still think they're out on calcs, assumptions and omissions but ultimately they're correct: nuclear is too fucking expensive by far.

 

[Wij]

This is why my initial post...

Anyway, rewatched and still think they're out on calcs, assumptions and omissions but ultimately they're correct: nuclear is too fucking expensive by far.

But a nuclear-heavy system puts out far less CO2 than a wind backed up by fossil fuels one which is what the market dictates. But you're a big capitalist I guess.

 

[Job]

Well the obvious difference between wind and nuclear is...oh let me see...

Nuclear doesnt stop working for 4 months every year.

 

[Scouse]

But a nuclear-heavy system puts out far less CO2 than a wind backed up by fossil fuels one which is what the market dictates. But you're a big capitalist I guess.

European super grid, battery storage, distributed generation and (hopefully) CCS. Should be cheaper, safer and more cost effective.

In the meantime the pragmatist says we need a base load to plug the technology gap. Long term the above is a no-brainer, given nuclear's unsolveable and expensive shortcomings.

 

[Wij]

European super grid, battery storage, distributed generation and (hopefully) CCS. Should be cheaper, safer and more cost effective.

Stuff that doesn't exist yet will solve the problem. How do you propose that will happen when gas or coal backing up wind is the cheapest way to supply the grid? There's no incentive to develop them.

 

[Scouse]

Stop ignoring half my post @Wij

In the meantime the pragmatist says we need a base load to plug the technology gap.

It's clear, though, that fission has no long-term future.

 

[Wij]

Stop ignoring half my post @wij:
It's clear, though, that fission has no long-term future.

China and South Korea disagree.

 

[Scouse]

China and South Korea disagree.

China needs a solution right now to the fact they were bringing on two coal fired power stations a week at one point.

China also has different economic models and drivers and perhaps different attitudes to safety than to the capitalist democratic west.

Can't speak to South Korea but nobody's perfect.

Either way: Fuck China - most of the rest of the world agrees with me.

 

[Job]

Fusion seems to be impossible to work out.

Its such a perfect dream, we just need a name to stop the tinhattertreehuggers losing their shit.

Magic unicorn plasma power

 

[Scouse]

(As can be seen by hardly anyone replacing their aging fleets in anger, instead preferring renewables that cost half as much and don't have 100,000 year ongoing operational costs, the bill for which must be footed by the public.)

 

[Scouse]

Fusion seems to be impossible to work out.

Its such a perfect dream, we just need a name to stop the tinhattertreehuggers losing their shit.

Magic unicorn plasma power

Tinhattertreehuggers losing their shit over fusion?

When? Where?

 

[Job]

Because someone will say radiation and theyll say 5G?
Then theyll all get braintumours and blame 5G powered nuclear bird killing wind turbines that are racist.

 

[Scouse]

Because someone will say radiation and theyll say 5G?
Then theyll all get braintumours and blame 5G powered nuclear bird killing wind turbines that are racist.

Not falling for your distraction-waffle.

You said treehuggers were losing their shit over fusion.

Please provide evidence to back up your statement.

 

[Bodhi]

China needs a solution right now to the fact they were bringing on two coal fired power stations a week at one point.

China also has different economic models and drivers and perhaps different attitudes to safety than to the capitalist democratic west.

Can't speak to South Korea but nobody's perfect.

Either way: Fuck China - most of the rest of the world agrees with me.

No, the rest of the world are currently working on Gen IV reactors which will address some of the shortcomings we see with current designs, including the potential ability to feed them with nuclear waste.

 

[Scouse]

No, the rest of the world are currently working on Gen IV reactors which will address some of the shortcomings we see with current designs, including the potential ability to feed them with nuclear waste.

The non-existent tech like CCS right there @Bodhi...

Edit: Fingers cross they manage to do it though - it'll be the only chance we have to reduce our waste stockpile.

But I'll tell you right now - with the R&D and actually building new plant (which is one of Nuclear's long-standing proven problems - they've never been able to make construction cheaper because of complexity and development (like in this case)) - it's going to be f00king expensive.

Maybe we can reduce our waste stockpiles with Gen IV reactors, if they actually get there, meanwhile - wind is cheap as chips, we know how to make turbines, it's getting cheaper and doesn't have expensive, pesky, waste issues.

 

[Wij]

The non-existent tech like CCS right there @Bodhi...

Maybe we can reduce our waste stockpiles with Gen IV reactors, if they actually get there, meanwhile - wind is cheap as chips, we know how to make turbines, it's getting cheaper and doesn't have expensive, pesky, waste issues.

But it makes the grid reliant on fossil fuels as backup.

 

[Scouse]

But it makes the grid reliant on fossil fuels as backup.

I've already addressed this point twice now @Wij.

Maybe I'm not clear - I'm a pragmatist and can see the need for limited fleet rebuild, but it's fucking expensive and we should be pushing battery storage and pan-continental grid balancing much harder than we are, whilst investing in CCS R&D.

Yes, Gen IV might come online at some point - but that's guaranteed expensive and, at best, could potentially help with the waste issue. And by the time they hit proper widespread commercial application there's a good chance that battery, grid and renewables applications will be able to do the job cheaper and more safely.