this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
356 points (94.5% liked)

World News

38970 readers
2759 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's been 20 years that Germany decided to stop nuclear energy. They're burning coal and gas since then, and it got us an energy crisis last year. It's not faster to deploy renewable.

Mean time to build a nuclear power plant is 7.5 years btw. Not 20. But I'm sure 20 is a lot better for the narrative.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Switching off nuclear early is a mistake (excluding any technical concerns driving a shutdown). In my opinion, shutdown of a nuclear plant should be staged with completion of a new power plant on the same site. Half the regulatory paperwork is already there if it's already a nuclear site.

Sweden are targeting 10 plants by 2045, in just over 20 years. Those 10 plants are probably already proposed and partially designed.

In 7.5 years you could build and energise a shit ton of renewables, and the infrastructure needed to connect it from various remote locations, using less than a quarter of the money they're proposing here.

From what I can tell the biggest hurdle in Sweden is transmission infrastructure to make use of renewable capacity and potential. For Germany, pulling a guess out of my ass, I'd wager it's more of a "Not In My BackYard" situation that's clogged up development of onshore wind.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're deliberately trying to conflate the time from before-site-selection to a finished plant with the time for finishing a particular reactor after ground breaking. An analogy would be claiming the average time for a solar plant is three minutes because screwing one panel on takes that long.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or maybe there are actual studies considering all nuclear power plants built so a mean actually means something. But anti-nuclear people never were about actual facts I guess.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Which are just as legit as all the studies that show how great oil, coal and gas are, and are peddled by the same peoe using the same methods.

Show me your study showing that the average time for a gen III or later plant is finished in 7.5 years from the time where sites are being assessed.