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.
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.
"...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.
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.