> You obviously can't evaluate by the outcomes, because the reevaluation is still in process

Things are always "in the process" or "being reevaluated" around nuclear. Meanwhile, global warming is on the way and faster here than a single nuclear reactor is constructed, even if you start building today.

Meanwhile, renewables are already there, build in 1–2 years and are getting better and cheaper every year.

> On the other hand, 22 countries just pledged to triple nuclear output by 2050 at COP28, so just a little over a month ago

Are there any repercussions if they don't deliver, or how is this relevant?

Let's take a closer look at your links there:

> Speaking of Italy, they aren't there yet, but have just made getting back into nuclear official government policy.

Italy doesn't have the funds for any significant nuclear project. The nuclear meme the ruling parties spread is highly popular within the right wing parties throughout Europe and, just like Poland (where the meme goes back to the time of Socialism), every serious person knows: nothing at all will come of it.

> Germany, of course, remains a basket case, even though a majority of its citizens now oppose the "Atomausstieg".

No they don't.

There was a rush around the time the last one closed. With the biggest tabloid BILD and the opposition (which consist mainly of the party which is responsible for the shutdown) shouting useless claims to fire up people who are unhappy with the Government. Today, just like before: nobody cares about nuclear anymore and the only polls suggesting that there might be some kind of support for the cause come from Civey and are being paid by Nuklearia. A small lobby club of former nuclear engineers and their Twitter-friends from the right-wing AfD bubble.

> The UK government just announced a massive (to 4x) nuclear expansion this month (January 2024).

I'm sure that after the elections and with the complete mess that is HPC, there will be not a single new reactor being build in the UK.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/cost-of-uks-flagship-nuclear-pro...

> France removed its legal requirement to reduce nuclear to less than 50% last year, and just committed to building 14 new reactors (up from only 6 just 2 months ago).

I wonder where the money for that might come from especially after the failure of EDF and the fact that despite subsidizing every single watt of nuclear energy by taxpayer money (tarif bleu) they now even have to rise the prices https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/france-fin...

But sure, something has to be done since their existing fleet is rotting away and they have not diversified anything. Let's hope those old reactors will hold up for another decade because we all know: France can't build faster.

> Unlike what some people think, France was not very pro-nuclear the last few decades, in fact nuclear was being actively sabotaged.

Yeah...no. That's bs.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/750035/france-opinion-su...

> That has changed. A lot has changed since the Ukraine war revealed the dirty little secret of Germany's "Energiewende", also known nowadays as the Gazprom-Wende.

What secret is this supposed to be? Because Germany got rid of Russian gas and gas prices went down again?

Or do you mean the secret that France still supports the invasion in Ukraine through their nuclear deals?

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2023/03/12/french...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-023-01228-5

> Yes, China is going for renewables. That's because China goes for everything. Including more coal. Yes, they are building out renewables, but that's because they have little to none at present

They expand it REALLY fast though https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-sol...

Faster than anyone on this planet. Meanwhile, their nuclear expansion is negligible. If your argument of putting all of them in one basket would be right, they'd have to build much more nuclear than they do and plan to do. But just like any reasonable investor, they're not stupid. Nuclear is a waste of money.

> India is also planning (and on track) to triple their nuclear generating capacity, though not by 2050, but by 2031.

I wonder how well this will go in the future...

https://www.rosatom.ru/en/press-centre/opinion/alexey-zhukov...

Quite funny that in the nuclear bubble Rosatom is good while Gazprom is bad.

> Ukraine is in talks with Rolls Royce to upgrade existing coal-fired power stations with nuclear reactors. The ones Rolls Royce is planning to build in a factory.

People dare to talk about SMRs after the Nuscale debacle? And especially in Ukraine where the fate of the whole country isn't even clear? Interesting. How many of those did RR build already or is their plan to test the whole thing in Ukraine because they're used to nuclear fallouts?

> Things are always "in the process" or "being reevaluated" around nuclear.

Well, that was a quick turnaround! Just a post ago there was no evidence for this, now you claim it is "always" the case. Which is it? Or both at the same time? Is it in a quantum superposition?

>> The world is currently in the process of reevaluating its past rejection of nuclear power

> I would love to see a source on that since the statistics don't show that

But glad you don't deny the obvious evidence.

[Germany]

> No they don't. [oppose the Atomausstieg]

You're a bit behind the times.

2011: "Breiter Rückhalt für Atomausstieg"

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlan...

2023: "Mehrheit ist gegen Atomausstieg"

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlan...

59% against. 34% for. Almost 2:1 against.

Conducted by infratest dimap.

[UK]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-expansion-of-nucl...

>I'm sure that after the elections and with the complete mess that is HPC, there will be not a single new reactor being build in the UK.

The new policy was announced in January of 2024, less than a month ago. They probably knew about Hinkley Point. But what does the UK government know about energy policy in the UK? They should have asked you!

Anyway: how about a friendly wager? Since you are "sure", that means you should take any odds I'd be willing to give you. How about a million to one? Or maybe 100:1? The UK timeframe is 2050. If the UK does not build a single nuclear reactor by 2050, I owe you € 100,- If they do, you owe me € 10.000,-

Deal?

> Italy doesn't have the funds for any significant nuclear project.

LOL. Interesting claim you plucked out of thin air. Any evidence for this? Certainly the Italian government appears to disagree with you. But what do they know about their country? Oh, and nuclear is cheaper than renewables. See France vs. Germany.

[France nuclear renaissance]

> I wonder where the money for that might come from

Very simple: from the massive profits the current nuclear fleet generates operationally, which the state no longer requires EDF to forego in oder to finance massive renewable expansion.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ePZUamAzNA4IzdR1dlkE2wtl...

> Yeah...no. That's bs.

Oh, evidence for your claim? The statista link (paywalled, not accessible) appears to be something on the widespread support of nuclear by the French public. The article was not about the public, specifically:

"Our nuclear industry has been weakened by a war waged for decades by a cabal of green politicians, civil servants, and activists."

So there is no relation whatsoever. But what does the "former president of the French House of Representatives" know about the politics of his country? They should have interviewed you!

Of course, the reason the French public likes their nuclear is because it's been providing cheap, reliable and green electricity for decades now. But what do they know about the benefits of nuclear power, they just have those benefits. Oh and it only took them 10 years to do it. The German Energiewende has been ongoing for 20+ years now, and our electricity is ~7x dirtier and more expensive.

> Germany got rid of Russian gas and gas prices went down again?

Look up "reversion to mean". Of course gas prices will go down somewhat after they spike to record levels. And we fired up more of our coal power stations. Why are we doing all this again? Oh right, to lower CO2 emissions. Our electricity is 7x dirtier than French electricity. And more expensive.

[But China is building out renewables fast!]

Nobody said anything about that. It ain't a competition. China has one of the largest deserts in the world, including apparently the sunniest spots on earth. It would be insane for them to not build out solar and wind, particularly after the German electricity consumers financed their solar industry for them. Which now owns 80% of the world market, with slave labor and cheap coal power.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/12/clean-energy-china-xinj...

However, they are smart enough not to remove their nuclear fleet. Instead, they are expanding it. Massively. Because they know that you need reliable baseload power to replace baseload coal plants.

Now maybe in your book a tripling of capacity is somehow "negligible" or a "rejection". In the real world it's a massive expansion and the opposite of a rejection. Or in other words: please "reject" me by "negligibly" tripling my pay!

India has nuclear supply deals with France, the USA and Japan. And also an old one with Russia, from 1988. What the fact that India is not participating in the sanctions against Russia has to do with their nuclear expansion is a bit unclear.

The Gazprom-Energiewende was problematic completely separately from the geopolitical problems due to the simple fact that gas is a fossil fuel and emits a lot of greenhouse gases when you burn it. Well, even more potent greenhouse gases when you don't burn it, but you get the idea.

> People dare to talk about SMRs after the Nuscale debacle

What does Nuscale have to with anything? Somehow for the anti-nukies, any time any nuclear project in the world doesn't work out, it means the whole technology is kaputt.

Nuscale got regulatory approval for their design, are still in business and are still pursuing other projects than the one that got cancelled. There are at least 10 competitors in the SMR space.

Question for you: did we get out of hydropower after the Banqiao dam disaster in China? More than 150K dead, over 4 million homes destroyed, 11M people displaced. Did we get out of the chemical industry after Bhopal? Did we get out of trains after Eschede? Did we get out of commercial aviation after BER? Or after Tenerife? Did we get out of classical music after the Elbphilharmonie?

> Well, that was a quick turnaround! Just a post ago there was no evidence for this, now you claim it is "always" the case. Which is it? Or both at the same time? Is it in a quantum superposition?

What I meant was that there are always excuses. Not that there is growth.

> But glad you don't deny the obvious evidence.

There was no evidence. There were wishes, pledges, political propaganda. Nothing that would outweigh the whole trend.

> Oh, and nuclear is cheaper than renewables. See France vs. Germany.

Last time I looked, Germany wouldn't have to support every Watt of their energy with taxpayer money the way France does with tarif bleu. Did you even know about this because that claim is ridiculous. Nuclear energy is nowhere on this planet cheaper than renewables.

> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ePZUamAzNA4IzdR1dlkE2wtl...

I don't understand why you keep on linking to some conspiracy op-ed on google docs. How is someone supposed to take that seriously? Don't you have anything serious?

> Oh, evidence for your claim? The statista link (paywalled, not accessible) appears to be something on the widespread support of nuclear by the French public. The article was not about the public, specifically: Our nuclear industry has been weakened by a war waged for decades by a cabal of green politicians, civil servants, and activists."

This "article" is nothing but unsourced conspiracies and opinions. The fact that this seems to you more credible than actual facts speaks for itself.

> Of course, the reason the French public likes their nuclear is because it's been providing cheap, reliable and green electricity for decades now.

They've actually been lying to their population by spending their taxpayer money to simulate a cheap energy price. Linke Tasche, Rechte Tasche. ...and the only green thing about nuclear is the glow on Simpsons.

> . Oh and it only took them 10 years to do it. The German Energiewende has been ongoing for 20+ years now, and our electricity is ~7x dirtier and more expensive.

Turns out: if you plan to nuke the world, money flows faster. Today, it takes them 10+ years to build a single reactor. Much success. PS. the reason Germany still produces "dirt" is related to jobs in areas which are already struck with unemployment and the fact that the previous Government did nothing for 16 years. Other than that, Germany is well off. Thank you. We replaced what we lost with nuclear years ago with renewables. Despite the previous Government.

> And we fired up more of our coal power stations.

We shut them down after a few weeks already and continued to shut down even more of them. We're still on plan to phase out coal completely.

> However, they are smart enough not to remove their nuclear fleet. Instead, they are expanding it. Massively.

Of course, they're not removing their nuclear fleet. They need that for a coming war....and no, they're not expanding massively. I've shown you that with my links which you didn't read, as you have shown several times over here.

> And also an old one with Russia, from 1988.

You are not reading my links...what is this?

> The Gazprom-Energiewende was problematic completely separately from the geopolitical problems due to the simple fact that gas is a fossil fuel and emits a lot of greenhouse gases

So do you think I might forget that Rosatom vs. Gazprom thing now with that?

> What does Nuscale have to with anything?

You might know if you'd have read anything around that debacle. Instead, you are not reading anything which might even smell like it would make nuclear look bad, even in a discussion here. Instead, you keep on parroting statements you caught on social and leave everything out where you don't have a statement ready. This is not a discussion. You are preaching, and I don't pay Kirchensteuer anymore, so I don't need that.

Please come back when you've actually read what I wrote in the comment above. Including my sources.

> Not that there is growth.

There was no claim of current growth. There was a claim of reevaluation. Which you first denied, and then claimed was "always" happening.

> unsourced conspiracies and opinions.

The article is an interview with the former president of the French parliament. Or as you call it "unsourced". And the former president of the French parliament obviously knows less about French politics than you do. Gotcha.

By the way, what's your source? Apart from "I made it up"?

> They've actually been lying to their population by spending their taxpayer money to simulate a cheap energy price.

False.

> Today, it takes them 10+ years to build a single reactor.

It takes them 10+ years to build a prototype of a brand new reactor design that has been deemed too complex and has already been simplified, with an industrial base that no longer has experience building nuclear reactors due to chronic under-investment the last 20+ years.

However, outliers have always existed, but the time to build a nuclear power plant has remained fairly constant the last 50 years, at 6-8 years. With a lot being built in 5 years and a few in 3 years. Alas, we are not building that design, we are building more complicated ones.

https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi...

[coal power]

> We shut them down after a few weeks already

False. Coal burning increased in 2021 and 2022. Went down a little in 2023 due to the recession-induced reduction in consumption. Recession caused by high energy prices. The irony!

> We replaced what we lost with nuclear years ago with renewables.

Sorry, that's silly. Had we kept nuclear, that renewable capacity would instead have replaced coal. Had we expanded nuclear, we would be long done with our Energiewende. The Frenchies did it in 10 years. Bavaria had 70% green energy, decades ago. We decided to get of CO2 reliably, cheap, CO2-free energy during a climate crisis caused by CO2 emissions.

The rest of the world is laughing at us.

[China]

> no, they're not expanding massively.

Yes they are. Their current plans are a tripling of capacity. A 200% expansion.

[Rosatom] >You are not reading my links...what is this?

Sadly, I am reading your links, which continue to be entirely irrelevant.

> Nuscale ... debacle.

Once again: one project by one of the many companies getting into the SMR space goes sideways, and for you, somehow, the entire field is a "debacle".

No it's not.

Come back when you are no longer blindly parroting the silly talking points of the German anti-nuclear bubble.

> There was no claim of current growth. There was a claim of reevaluation.

Of course there is. It says just after the claim of reevaluation: "is increasingly starting to view it as a reliable source of power that allows for greater energy security"

> The article is an interview with the former president of the French parliament.

The article is an interview with an obviously drunk person who talks of cabals and sects :D

> False

Wow, much crediblé. Now google tarif bleu. I've mentioned it twice. You didn't even read that or did you and you ignored it because you know I'm right?

> It takes them 10+ years to build a prototype of a brand new reactor design

As I said...there are always excuses in nuclear. HPC and Flamanville are not EPR prototypes. But you know where prototypes just deliver? In renewable tech.

> However, outliers have always existed,

Yeah, those weird, weird outliers. All of them in countries with proper safety standards. Meanwhile, in countries with corrupted ones, nuclear reactors shoot up as if it's some water tower they're building. I'm sure that's just some kind of coincidence.

Also, stretching the average measurement 70 years in the past where it's been fashionable to build reactors is ridiculous. It doesn't say anything about the present time.

Btw, it's hilarious like all the links you delivered here have already been clicked by me at some point in the past. Are you one of those Nuklearia fanboys?

> False. Coal burning increased in 2021 and 2022. Went down a little in 2023 due to the recession-induced reduction in consumption. Recession caused by high energy prices. The irony!

Everything about that is false :D

https://i.imgur.com/HjSIcbe.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/C7rUzdO.jpeg

https://www.bdew.de/service/daten-und-grafiken/bdew-strompre...

> Sorry, that's silly. Had we kept nuclear, that renewable capacity would instead have replaced coal.

There is no single factual reason why we'd have less coal today with nuclear. As I said: we replaced what we lost with nuclear years ago with renewables, and the reason we keep coal around is because of jobs. You can read that, googling the commission tasked with the phaseout. The commission's name is: "Commission on Growth, Structural Change and Employment" :D

> Yes they are. Their current plans are

The current reality is that they delivered 4% less last year, as I have shown in one more link you didn't read above. Also, they cancelled some of those planned reactors too. Even if they would triple a tiny bit, it wouldn't be MASSIVE compared to the MASSIVE expansion of renewables. You can spend every Dollar once, and China decided that it's rather worth spending it on renewables.

> Sadly, I am reading your links, which continue to be entirely irrelevant.

Funny though because I've shown you several times over that you didn't. Just above this paragraph is another one. Why are you lying?

> Once again: one project by one of the many companies getting into the SMR space goes sideways, and for you, somehow, the entire field is a "debacle". No it's not.

I can understand that wasting massive amounts of taxpayer money is no debacle for a nuclear apologist (or should I say "sectist", now that you made that fashionable with that hilarious conspiracy interview?), however for the rest of the taxpayers it is. NuScale was the poster child for SMRs within your cult, and it failed spectacularly.

Come back when you have actually read what I write.

Good grief.

"...starting to view it as..." does not mean "there is actual growth". It describe a mental state, not electrons moving in the grid. If you can't understand the difference between a shift in thinking and construction, then discussing anything with you is completely pointless.

I am not going to comment on the rest, as it is even less coherent gibberish.

> How would you "statistically show" a reevaluation that is in process?

> You obviously can't evaluate by the outcomes, because the reevaluation is still in process, and in this particular case outcomes in terms of power to grid take at least 3 years after you have finished evaluating and started building. And sometimes a bit longer. And of course you do have plants reaching their end of life during that time, so you might not see a net positive total for a bit.

> On the other hand, 22 countries just pledged to triple nuclear output by 2050 at COP28, so just a little over a month ago. That's a significant departure and includes countries that were getting out of nuclear power altogether, like Japan. It also includes all of the G7 except Germany and Italy.

> https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-decla...

Just goes to show how strong the nuclear lobby is. Building out nuclear does not make economic or environmental sense. With the price trajectories of solar, wind are on we should be investing everything into renewables and research into storage to reduce required overprovisioning.

> Yes, China is going for renewables. That's because China goes for everything. Including more coal. Yes, they are building out renewables, but that's because they have little to none at present, so they are still at a stage where adding more renewables won't destabilize the grid.

What are you talking about? China had a third of worldwide installed solar in 2020 (250GW)[1]. In 2023 that had more than doubled to 530 GW [2] and that is accelerating (for 2024 they are projecting another 230 GW).

> They are also massively expanding their nuclear fleet, with no fewer than 20 (twenty!) reactors currently under construction and another 70 currently being planned. That's a tripling of what they have now.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

So China has 57 GW of nuclear and want to get to 200 GW by 2035 (while also having missed their 2020 goal of 58 GW [3]). They are adding more solar every year than that every year. That just shows how completely disproportionate the economics are. The recently approved nuclear power plants (which get to 70GW i think) cost $80 billion [4]compared to $140 billion in solar which gets you 230 GW.

I am willing to bet a significant amount that China will get nowhere close to 200GW nuclear by 2035.

A side note it's funny how you state that China does not have any renewables why making nuclear sound like a huge part of their grid, while in reality just the installed solar capacity is 10 times that of nuclear.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China

[2] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-...

[3]https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-starts-up-worlds-f...

[4]https://thediplomat.com/2022/09/powering-chinas-nuclear-ambi...

"This is happening"

"It's not, where is the evidence"

"Here"

"Just goes to show how strong the nuclear lobby is."

Er no. The nuclear "lobby" is incredibly weak, which is why, against all reason, Germany shut off perfectly fine nuclear power plants and almost all the world barely built any nuclear in the last 20 years.

However, reality is now starting to assert itself again.

China solar is 5%, wind a little more than that. Coal is at around 60%. At those levels adding more unreliable energy to the mix is OK. But you also need stable baseload power, which is why they are also massively expanding their nuclear capacity.

It's not a competition, we want all clean energy to stave of climate change, and we'll also almost certainly need additional energy to get all that CO2 out of the atmosphere again. Solar and wind is great for consumers that are OK to be turned off. But a lot of electricity consumption in an industrialized society isn't like that, particularly if we're also going to electrify a lot of the other primary energy consumption, for example heating. I'd rather not have to turn off my heater in winter because it's dark and there's little wind.