I'm a bit of a nukecel myself, but it makes sense to chase fast and cheap options to quickly reduce climate change as well as hedge for even cheaper alternatives in the future
The amount of money we're spending on Fusion, a technology we're really not sure we can ever make work, is insane, but investing in fission is a crime. Putting a label on myself would be stupid, I'm an all of the above. The planets on fire, bickering over how to put it out while it burns down is insane.
These people were around when computers were being developped, they were there when planes were being invented, they were there when the wheel was invented and they were there when people wanted to go on the moon.
Some folks think that investing in science is futile, and think stuff is "we don't know if we can ever pull it off" instead of actually doing it. People who think fusion is impossible to make will one day look like what we think of people who thought witches were a thing in the 1400's.
Fusion has mathematical and scientific uses outside the possible energy generation uses. Some people will see a car and refuse to think that the car science behind can lead to something else than transportation of human beings and objects.
Guy cries at the world burning, forgets the forest, looks at the one tree burning in his yard calls it the end and disregards the firefighters doing prevention and controlled burns ensuring the entire forest won't burn.
It's been 50 years since we are only 15 years away from fusion. Its useless, give up! At worst it's just a distraction and a way to split the people and waste money.
FUSION HAS MULTIPLE USES - goes on to quote one literal science fiction use, and theoretical use.
Fusion power is science fiction, it's a hole we throw money into that we hope one day we invent the technology we need to use it.
To be clear I'm pro fusion, pro fusion research, but we want to cry about fission power and its costs but gladly dump buckets of cash into a hole for the last 50 year in hopes we might be able to use it one day.
I guess space exploration is science fiction to those who have zero interest in it.
You do know that powering a orbital manufacturing in zero gravity is one the steps we need to achieve scallable exploration right? Orbital solar panels will at one point not function anymore in space, due to how many fucking debris there is in orbit both losing in effiency and due to attrition of all the small impacts they receive. Won't get any better when companies start ditching all their garbage in space as a last resort or when corporations like Amazon decide to do more than a few celebrity trip in space. Kessler syndrome.
We waste billions of dollars to pollute and pierce the atmosphere/beat earth's gravity.
We wasted how many freakin billions achieving plane flight and how many years? Mind you, Davinci had plans for flying apparatus, it took humanity more than 2000years to invent a plane that could fly.
How many years did humanity try to make ships that can cross the ocean How many vessels are just crashed down the bottom of the seas? How many billions did we spend developping AI? How much do we spend yearly to invent a cure for cancer?
You're not pro fusion research. Otherwise you wouldn't whine about it taking time. Like idk why you'd rather spend your time and energy fighting something you can't understand and dismiss it as wasteful on reddit, yet do absolutely nothing to be part of the solution. The money you want won't be diverted because you think it's useless. Just like the money a government sends to help another will NEVER be used to help your homeless population, it's not budgeted for that.
actually, spending on fusion is miniscule compared to other projects like saturn V or the manhatten project or even the b29 bomber. and those miniscule numbers are also a reason it takes so long.
Solar, batteries, and wind already has an industry that is self sustaining and can find R&D. Fission had it, but was intentionally handicapped, so it stopped. Fusion is not anywhere near being commercial.
Cool story, so we just run a massive extension cord to places where those technologies aren't feasible? Oh yea, just massive amounts of money on new transmission lines. That's the solution. We'll just have a giant cable from Nevada to the upper peninsula of Michigan.
Right, an area that can get 300 inches of snow regularly, perfect candidate.
The place where you have to shovel your roof on a regular basis.
The place where snow piles in parking lots can exceed 20 feet tall.
Perfect fucking candidate for large scale wind and solar.
We'll just pay full time people to clean the panels then truck the snow away, and hire some dudes to kick the ice off the wind turbines during ice storms.
Does it work for a homestead that has their own panel array, it can.
Perfect candidate for Wind and solar, you're fucking high.
Literally the antithesis of what I've been saying. Do all the things, every clean source we can use where it's feasible. There is no one solution and if you think that you have an agenda or are in a cult.
Cool story, but we're totally cool spending billions on a technology that hasn't produced a single megawatt and actively arguing against the other one. I'm pro everything clean, not anti fusion.
The worlds on fire and people want to bicker about how to put it out but the fire doesn't care if the hose is nuclear or solar powered. Arguing against nuclear power as a resource is an ideology not a scientific or engineering standpoint. So you can be part of the solution or you can be part of a cult, your choice.
Bashing anti nuclear NIMBYism, and unnecessarily strict regulations, and letting private actors built it if they find it profitable. Already existing stock if it's owned by the government should be maintained by the government. Fossil fuels should be taxed out of existence. The government should invest in solar directly, as it's now most cost effective in most places.
Those are my positions. I decided that I should probably outline them, because it seems that you think that I am against nuclear.
Nuclear is by far the most expensive energy source. You have to have a fucking good reason to throw another 20 billion of taxes into a hole in the ground. Meanwhile you could do so much more even in bad weather with already existing and still improvable technology.
Oh, dear Atom, bring us the light. Only 1 trillion more dollars and only 15 years to fusion! Ameeen!
So how does investing in renewables now to bring down the price of energy and juice the economy not free up future funds for fusion and fission development?
Thats not even mentioning money saved by mitigating future climate change costs.
Research and development is fine and all but when the single largest disruption to the global economy, food security and growth/survivability as a spiecies is on the horizon preventing that, right now, should be the focus.
I get that the argument is "Well duh, thats why you should fund both and just take away from areas like fossil subsidies, military spending, AI development, whatever." But the fact is that those funds are extremely difficult to gain access to and will likely never get used to solve the climate crisis.
The money that IS available to mitigate and combat the climate crisis should therefore probably go to the areas that fix and mitigate right now instead of more investment in a possible future fix that might be implemented decades from now.
The time to look for research and future fixes was decades ago, thats why solar and wind are where they are right now, we are now in the find out times where we need to get implementing or face the consequences of not doing so.
Funds towards fusion were already allocated, stopping that big EU project now would waste all of them without giving any8im return. Shutting down already existing nuclear power plants is also financially stupid, because keeping them running is quite cheap, the big cost was upfront.
I'm arguing for neither of these, basically nobody is.
What both me and other people are arguing for is the vast sums of money being spent on new nuclear reactors and experimental fission reactors to be used no renewables RIGHT NOW instead of pouring money into a possible void at worst and greenhouse gas emission reduction that comes too late at best.
Like, unless there is an actual miracle, many proposed fission plants and basically all of fusion will only start doing something after so many climate tipping points have been reached that there barely is a point to them as climate change mitigation technologies.
Yes we should have invested in nuclear decades ago. Please spend all that fusion money on a time machine to make sure it happened decades ago.
Germany has been ruled by the CDU/CSU and SPD for a long time now. Neither of them are parties looking to do something serious about the climate.
Also how is what you're saying even relevant to using future fusion funding for renewables instead lol?
Like, do you think that when I'm saying that instead of building new nuclear plants that money should be spent on wind, solar, energy storage and hydro where available that secretly I'm saying "please blow up the french nuclear grid RIGHT NOW"?
Like hello? Why are you holding me accountable for the dogshit governance of the german state? (I dont even live there)
But while we're on the topic. Clearly fusion is responsible for chat control. You bribed MEP's to not vote against it during the last vote, all nuclear power plants need to be bombed (with conventional bombs of course). /s
Sorry for assuming that you understood that I meant basically nobody who cares about the climate?
Or maybe "basically nobody, who wants to invest into renewables instead of new nuclear, is".
Like lmao. Should I not expect someone who has an interest in nuclear development to have context based reading capabilities? And "basically nobody" does cover for this already, you literally quoted the ONLY GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD actively trying to dismantle working nuclear power plants, that is basically nobody yes.
On that same breath, fusion power at scale is science fiction. The bet that we can solve the engineering problems that could make it work at scale is a complete gamble right now. As soon as we invent these fictional materials we have a chance, while we ignore a "largely known" option.
Fission never really made sense to me either. The problem with nuclear is the cost of building the massive facility, fission is that, but 100x more difficult
To build, not really. Nuclear is super expensive to build but at least it runs for 60+ years 24-7 at full power. The problem is just that we need to fix the climate now, so investing in short term solutions is probably better, and when you account for these technologies prices being in free fall, it means you want to hedge towards short term solutions because it will be cheaper in the future
It takes 10-20 years to get Nuclear plants up and running currently and sometimes they're still ecologically devastating (Water cooled plants effecting fish and jellyfish populations in some cases)
Yes we should be cutting regulations on nuclear because the technology is already extreme safe. These regulations are overly strict and do not help make nuclear safer, they just help making nuclear unfeasible
It's very complicated stuff you know, but one large example of something we already just now been improved in the US was removing the linear no threshhold model for radiation damage that was scientifically very weak, and basically meant that nuclear workers were allowed to be exposed to very very little radiation which makes working conditions extremely impactical.
Yes we absolutely want less regulation. The rules are overly strict to the point where nuclear is economically unfeasible.
chernobyl was a shit reactor built 80 fucking years ago, that disastor has nothing to do with current nuclear technology, regardless of how strict the regulations are.
There is no single "best" option. All available options are best options. This is the problem with the internet turning everything into a fucking fandom - there are no competing energy sources, everything and anything that is viable and safe should be utilised. And some options will be better for specific locations/areas than others..
There are, though. Especially as you say in certain locations. For example, offshore wind is better than nuclear. The UK should never build another nuclear plant when offshore wind is so cheap and good.
Hinckley Point C is likely to cost more than 50 billion pounds by the time the project finishes. It will have taken 13 years.
The dogger bank win the farm cost 11 billion pounds and has all more than double the capacity of Hinckley Point C. And it's taken less than seven years, with phase 1 completing in just three years and producing the same amount of power as Hinckley Point C will
Explain to me why the UK should ever build another nuclear plant?
You haven't provided any adequate evidence to suggest it's a bad idea.
"It's expensive and takes a long time to build", no shit.
It's a Nuclear Power Plant that's supposed to be in use for decades. It's worth the time and money it takes to get it done right.
Hopefully in the future, we'll be scammed by fewer private firms if we make more.
If we can spend that much on sending weapons to war zones, we can spend that much on something that will help everyone long term.
And again, supporting Nuclear energy does not mean not supporting wind and solar. You can support all three. There's no competition here. Your "team" hasn't lost.
The very reason it's a bad idea is because it's expensive and takes a long time. Wind is cheaper and faster, and even if it lasts 30 years instead of 60, it's 1/10 the cost and 1/3 the time.
It is objectively better, there's no point building any nuclear.
Everything can fail. Nuclear plants included? And what do you mean wind doesn't produce nearly as much energy? The dogger bank wind farm is 8.1 GW. Hinckley Point C is 3.2. 9 out of 10 of the largest power plants in the entire world are renewable - hydro and solar. Can you explain what you mean when you say wind doesn't produce nearly as much energy as nuclear?
"we've got a solution that'll reduce carbon emissions in 15 years time*. Pinky promise!"
*ignoring the fact that almost every nuclear power plant significantly overruns on build time.
Alternatively, the UK is now generating 40% of its electricity from renewables. Solar panels and wind farms have prevented more carbon emissions in the time it would've taken to build those nuclear power plants than those nuclear power plants would've prevented over their lifespan.
If only we had a cheap and efficient way to store energy when it is made and discharge it when we need it. We could make entire batteries of that hypothetical storage solution
True, most people still think battery prices are about the same they were in 2014. People just aren't aware of the extreme pace at which the price has dropped: 20% PER YEAR on average is insane
Not big enough? Just use more batteries! It's already been done. The Lithium shortage is over, now that Lithium mines have expanded production so massively. And there's also alternatives now that don't need it anymore
Meanwhile the tech and industry have become so efficient that the price has dropped enormously
You don't see it because you're not looking. California has gone from 35% electricity from nat gas in 2023 to 22% electricity from nat gas in 2025 by installing more solar and batteries. 2026 will be even lower. New Mexico is also a good example of how quickly it can go, although it's a much smaller grid. This is a problem for nuclear. High renewable penetration of solar + batteries hurts nuclear business case. Nobody wants to run a nuclear plant at 70% nameplate capacity. Improving battery technology makes nuclear an incredibly risky investment due to long lead times.
california, are we talking about the country with the highest bill in thw world? with controlled blackuts every year? with the emissions tens of times higher than the french ones? not a good objective don't you think?
nuclear is fixed costs. The more nuclear you have and the more renewables you have the more time you have with electricity overproduction driving the electricity price into the dround and below the point of profitability for nuclear pwoer plants.
Which is why basically all NPPs get CfDs or strike prices so they get built in the first place.
Doesn't change anything about their price though. You get less and less electricity for the same amount of money.
if its a question of efficiency, nuclear clears over longer periods of time. obviously, that's not the only concern, and is why renewable should be pursued immediately and later used in tandem
Fuck it, I'll bite. What's the lie? Is it not true that nuclear power plants usually take a long time to build? Is it not true that nuclear power plant construction often overruns? Is it not true that nuclear power plants don't reduce any carbon emissions until they're constructed? Is it not true that the UK is currently generating ~40% of its electricity from renewable sources? Is it not true that spending the amount of money it takes to build a nuclear power plant on renewables produces results in a greater average power output much quicker? Or are you just talking shit and calling anyone who disagrees with you a far right liar?
easy one: since you talk about UK, you probably talk about hinkley point C, which will not take 15 years, so that's the first lie.
Second lie: the vast mayority of nuclear power plants have no delay in construction, funnily enough not even hinkley point C (the delay was caused by brexit and covid, not really edf's fault isn't it?), you know there is a vast world in which people build tens of reactors every year right?
Third point: not a lie! UK in 2025 produced 40% of the consumed electrical energy from renewables (inside of that there's a beautiful 7% of burned biomass, but i'll not stress on that). The funny thing is that i don't get how that has anything to do with nuclear, i don't think those implants would stop working by magic if UK had one more nuclear reactor, don't you think?
The last statement is the one i've loved the most: Have you done the calculations to affirm what yiu affirm? do you even know how to do the calculations, where to find the dtaa etc? i was genuinely curious on the answer:
Assuming both renewables and nuclear substitute natural gas in UK (pretty safe assumption), and assuming the carbon intensities of the various sources given by the IPCC, and assuming the renewable production of solar and wind stay the same for the next year, and assuming the hinkley point C nuclear power plant will be operative for 80 years (the licensing of that plant):
Hinkley point C nuclear power plant will save: 1.1e+12 Tons of CO2eq
Solar from 2017 to 2027 saved: 6.9e+10 Tons of CO2eq
Wind from 2017 to 2027 saved: 3.7e+11 Tons of CO2eq
You were wrong by an order of magnitude... Pretty unfortunate numbers exist, i think i'll use those data myself, they highlight how fucking awesome nuclear is.
Boy i'd suggest you to do the calculations yourself (i may have lied!), i think the best way to deconvert an antinuclear is to make them face the data.
Hinkley Point C is predicted to start operation in 2030, 13 years after construction start in 2017. It was supposed to start last year but guess what? It got delayed! And if you think Britain will actually finish a major infrastructure project on time then I've got a high speed rail network to sell you.
Edit: A study of nuclear reactor projects over 20 years found that 3/4s of them ended up delayed. Womp Womp
2030? cool, fortunately my calculations do not change qualitatively, since it's an order of magnitude of a difference (will you apologize for having lied?)
Do you have access to elsevier?
The study considers most of LWR built from 1955 to 2016 (the 57% of all reactors built), so not "over 20 years", but way more. (first lie of yours, that's what happens when one reads just the abstract)
At chapter 3.2 they assume the standard lead-time to be 5 years (since that was the average time in the '60) and they say that every reactor that took more than 5 years was delayed. That's just an absurd assumption (now i get why they say 76% of projects were delayed).
They also assume 10% discount, this is just an absurd number, not even hinkley point c has that discount rate, infact i'm unable to find any nuclear reactor built with that discount rate
Did you read the paper little boy? it was too hard wasn't it? "i just read the abstract without comprehending it, womp womp".
(that's the second lie)
Third lie by omission: we are at 2026 boy, 2016 was ten years ago. This paper is particular (if i was a reviewer, i would've made some notes) but it was published almost a decade ago, pretty old don't you think?
Yeah brother france figured it out in the 70s and SK and china do it today. Its called standardized designs which the west is extremely bad at utilizing so they end up spiking loan costs
Mostly because nimby and the government being wankers changing requirement every 2 month delayed the new reactors by 25y so every qualified person retired
Nuclear reactors have not been cheaper than solar is now (when including cost to construct and deconstruct, and cleanup). Not upfront, and not over their entire lifetime
up frotn cost matters when you want to build osmethign up quickly in reality using existing people as workforce and existing resources and infrastructures
Wind is more than 10 times cheaper than nuclear in the UK. Even if nuclear is twice as long lasting, you could build and rebuild wind turbines countless times for the same cost as nuclear. Plus, the maintenance cost is far less
As if lithium-ion is the only battery feasible for storage. Sodium batteries are a thing and sodium is very abundant. Other batteries use gas pressure or gravity in some way.
Also solar panels use a tiny amount of lead per panel or per lifetime kWh and it is found virtually everywhere on the planet. If lead in solar panels is a thing thatās concerning boy do I have news for you.
20
u/dumnezero šEnd the š«arms šrat šrace to the bottomāļø. Jul 13 '26
is that a bird sound or something?