Hmm...
"And they also saved money by building some plants near rivers without cooling towers, which most thermal plants need and virtually all thermal plants in Germany, for example, have. This is just not a problem, we know how to build plants with cooling towers."
From the post you replied to. Cooling is a non-issue. Under-investment in nuclear is an issue.
> I am not sure, why you claim I call anyone who supports nucler a Nazi
I can tell you why: because you denounced my factual post as "right wing propaganda", and me, by extension, a right wing propagandist. And that was essentially your entire reaction.
"Facts? Who cares, you are a nazi."
And of course the French aren't building the new reactors, yet. Their turnaround away from their mistaken anti-nuclear policy only happened in March this year.
> The president talks about plans
No, the president talks about government policy. And that government policy has been voted into law. March 2023.
> By the way, your statement, that they are "turning back to nuclear" is quite inaccurate too
How so?
> Finland
"In June 2019, the government announced a new energy policy with the objective of achieving carbon neutrality by 2035. The policy would see a complete phase-out of coal power by May 2029. In addition to the commissioning of two nuclear power reactors, the policy is supportive of operating lifetime extensions for existing reactors."
Hmm...
> cancelled the project tho bild another one...
You mean they cancelled their plans to build a reactor with Russia's Rossatom?
Now what might the reason for this be? Can't possibly have anything to do with, dunno, Russia? Always the disingenuous arguments.
And of course the new nuclear reactor they just turned on is already providing 40% of Finland's electricity.
How many more of those do you reckon' they need?
I never called you a Nazi. Why misrepresent the facts? I only stated that your text reads like some right wing propaganda. Which it does. And not every right-wing person is a Nazi.
And wrt. to Finland I was talking about Block 4 of Olkiluoto. Block 3 went online this year. And yes, it delivers a significant part of the grid in Finland, which already has caused issues. Because Block 3 had to be pulled of the net several times - which immediately removes a large fraction of the grid power in an instant. That is why they currently keep a nearby coal power plant in hot standby to ensure grid stability.
No I am not. And please stop it with the personal attacks.
It is non-issue for nuclear. Because. We. Know. How. To. Build. Cooling. Towers.
If you cheap out and don't build a cooling tower, heat can become an issue.
If you build a car with an insufficient radiator, heat can also become an issue.
This is not an issue with cars in general, this is an issue with having a radiator that is too small. Because we know how to build cars that have large enough radiators.
And no, you did not write that what I wrote "reads like" right wing propaganda. You wrote that I was "repeating right wing propaganda". Ergo a right wing propagandist, ergo a nazi. Or someone who reads and listens to right wing propaganda and repeats it. Which is probably worse, because stupid and still a nazi.
Wrt. Finland: they hadn't even decided what type of reactor to build for Block 4, and due to the "special operation" those plans are now being given new priority, but not urgency (not needed yet).
And, if I read you correctly, you consider a power plant delivering lots of power a problem. Whatever. For a country that size, I personally also would have chosen a larger number of smaller reactors rather than one huge one. But that's their choice.
Nope. I denied that this is in any way a problem of nuclear power, which is what you implied. It is not. Cooling is a problem of all thermal plants, and solved for all thermal plants by cooling towers.
This isn't that hard.
And where did I "praise them" for building power plants without cooling towers? You gotta stop making stuff up, really.
> At least not without raising river temperatures to a point where the fish get killed.
Reference for "killing fish". Or are you making things up again?
> And they also saved money by building some plants near rivers without cooling towers
I consider this a positive vote. But fine. If you didn't agree with the decision, it doesn't make a difference to the discussion. And when I was speaking about cooling problems, it was specifically about the French reactors. No where I implied that this is a fundamental problem to nuclear power. It is, however a problem of many current nuclear reactors. Never mention that of course cooling towers also require a lot of water that needs to be provide. Which might face the same problems as the river-based cooling.
With respect to the fish: basic biology. The normal limit for water temperature is like 25 degrees which is quite a lot for european rivers. Fish are very sensitive to the water temperature as high temperature reduces the oxygene content of water. Which is why there are often mass death of fishes in the summer in some places quite naturally. You cannot raise the water temperature much or you will do huge harm to those ecological systems. That is, why those limits exist. Note: the plants probably are not happy about too high temperatures either, but they won't quickly die from lack of oxygene.
So you massively interpret (and misinterpret) what I write and then, purely on the basis of your interpretation, accuse my of lying. Precious.
You might want to look up what a "lie" is.
> And when I was speaking about cooling problems, it was specifically about the French reactors.
And when I responded, I was specific about this not being a problem with nuclear reactors in general because we know how to build cooling towers.
And yet you accuse me of lying.
> With respect to the fish: basic biology. [...]
OK, so you have nothing but generalities and platitudes, thanks for confirming.
Yes, when water gets too hot, fish die. You need to be bit more specific than that. For example when the water we use to boil a fish (I prefer fried) is at a good 100ºC, that kills fish.
I have some doubts that the nuclear power plants raised the temperatures of the rivers to 100ºC.
To be relevant, you would have to have some precise figure as to what the official limits are, what the temperatures when fish (which types of fish?) actually start getting affected and how much, what temperatures the plants emit and how much those temperatures raise the temperature of the river.
And of course, all you actually have is more slander and denouncements. As usual.
"The country is part of the deregulated Nordic electricity system which faces shortages, especially in any dry years, when hydroelectric generation is curtailed. Finland is very short of power until Olkiluoto 3 is commissioned. Over 2009-2011 some two-thirds of imported electricity came from Russia, but this has decreased considerably since the completion of the Fenno-Skan 2800 MW HVDC link with Sweden."
And the French took the reactors down because of required maintenance, part of it was unexpected after the found problems. But the main point is: they were down and France required imports to keep the grid up. You don't even comment on the cooling problems.
They "are" not building new ones. They fail to finish Flammaville so far. The president talks about plans, but until they become at least a construction project, don't talk about "are building". And even then, it would take like 20 years to finish those.
And once again, you are not even responding to my arguments about the Energiewende. You treat it as a failure while it is ongoing. Why it was delayed, I explained, but you ignore that. Are you really trying to tell me, that you are not an AfD supporter with your style and trail of argumentation.
And I simply stated, those people who vote for Nazis are voting for Nazis and there is no way around stating that.
I am not sure, why you claim I call anyone who supports nucler a Nazi, that was only said on those who vote for Nazis. I don't know who Michel Lynch votes for. His writing though has quite a few inaccuracies and I dispute some of his conclusions. But that is a factual difference.
And of course, your final sentence is absolutely polemic. I have not said anything in the direction. Why are you suggesting that?
By the way, your statement, that they are "turning back to nuclear" is quite inaccurate too. But the discussion so far hasn't been a very constructive one, so little reason to elaborate on that further that Finland did finish one reactor recently and at the same time cancelled the project tho bild another one...