10-30 year lead time

I mean, it does not need to be 10-30 years. UAE deployment was from nothing (literally nothing), to first reactor connected in 12 years. The first first years were just for regulation and selecting a partner. Construction took 8 years. The median time for reactor deploy in Japan, Korea and China is 52 months, 65 months, and 68 months respectively, with China getting faster and faster. US and UK are the odd one out, with some deploy taking 513 month and 282 month respectively.

If the EU reform nuclear regulation on the continent and promote nuclear deployment in Italy, Poland, and Germany that would help a lot. The US needs to undergone a similar transformation.

I never said cost is comparable. It is not, in Europe more so than other countries. Nonetheless you are not paying the cost of the nuclear power plant, you are paying the price of electricity. And nuclear lower the price of electricity (see Finland) reason why petrol state like UAE, or china built nuclear power plant. The cost of nuclear in china is competitive with renewable. China is building 28 new reactors, with 59 already built (average construction time of 6 years and 3 billions dollars each). Not every country can build a nuclear power plant: your grid need to support the massive amount of energy produced by a nuclear power plant, your country need to support the massive upfront cost to build one, your country need to be stable, reliable and not encounter opposition from international organizations as nuclear power plant could be used to produce nuclear weapons, and finally you need to have domestic support for nuclear energy and political commitment across the political spectrum for years to make the necessary regulatory commitment.This makes it very hard to have the condition to build one. Furthermore you have a real advantage if you have the domestic know how in your country, and most simply do not have that.

The need for power maybe (not counting on that given the greater need caused by AI and the rapid industrialization of Asia and Africa), but the need for electricity will certainly not go down. While an electric car is more efficient, no electricity was used before to power the cars is going to replace.

Because the need for electricity will only grow the more electrification we do, and doing both is better then doing just one of the two. We need to max-out out production capacity for solar, wind and batteries anyway (and by production I mean combination of grid capacity and rate of expansion, material mining and refinement, labor, legislative bottleneck and capital availability). Anything more is definitionally better, and nuclear is a lot of way complementary with solar, wind, and batteries in materials, fuel, grid usage and operational constraint (namely it is dispatchable and can do load following).

True, but with known reserves and no material recycling we have 70 years of material at current rate. If we add undiscovered deposits we have more or less 200 years. If we add ocean deposits we have 60000 years. If we reprocess the uranium in breeder reactors (we have them already built in Russia, China, India) we can potentially arrive at 5 millions year of reserves. Given we are already discussing thorium rectors, this time frame makes uranium not a problem really.

If we can do both we should do both. This is not nuclear vs renewable. They solve different problems. Modern nuclear reactor design like Terrapower are created to work with renewable (using molten salt energy storage). Humanity will not reduce the amount of energy it uses, and we need to force the electrification transition if we do not want to destroy our planet.

Yes, the barrier for nuclear is much much much higher then renewable development. We know that the same nuclear reactor costs 3.5 billion in china, 4.5 billion in japan, and 9 billion in Europe. That is a huge difference. This is not just a technology problem, but an issue about regulation and processes. I am not arguing for going back to the regulatory framework before Chernobyl and Fukushima, but to take some lessons from the world of aviation where safety is important, but outcome driven and pragmatic regarding costs.

If we want SNR to succeed we need to make it so that you certify one reactor out of the factory line and then you can build a hundred more without to having to re-certify every single reactor.

Battery can meet the equivalent baseload. The problem is production capacity, cost, connections and the pollution caused by this deployment. Often is simply better to deploy more renewable than needed. Today you need curtailment to manage grid stability, the higher the percentage of nuclear is the higher the dependency on battery and curtailment is raising the cost of renewable.

The main problem is that in europe there is no single regulatory body for the certification of nuclear reactor. That means that a nuclear reactor certified for france needs to be certified again for UK, Poland or Czechia. The requirements for nuclear are much higher then a solar power plant. Each single material and part needs to be certified and the entire production is tracked (material traceability, QA testing, chain of custody). A valve in a nuclear power plant cost 100 times more then the same valve in a coal plant. There are very few companies that deal with this level of paperwork required, this means often you need to create new production lines. Regulation in nuclear is not outcome oriented, but process oriented. So you do not have incentive to make everything more efficient: you do not care about the end result, you care about every single steps in the process. This make everything much longer and expensive. Post Fukushima raised a lot the cost of all design made before as new requirements caused to modify previous plants. This is one of the main reasons for the delay in nuclear deploy in the last 20 years.

cheap uranium can be bought from Canada and Kazakhstan. In Europe there are big reserves in Ukraine. But uranium can also be extracted from water. Getting uranium from the ocean is 3 to 5 times more expensive. But uranium is a minimal part of the cost of nuclear energy. So if we get uranium from the ocean, energy price will raise by 10% to 15%. On fossil fuel power plant the actual fuel is most of the cost of the energy. Furthermore you can buy uranium years in advance, making it much easier to prevent jump in market prices.

In the current European legislative environment yes. We lack common certification rules, standardized procurement and security standards that make sense. Nuclear in Europe is double the time to build and double the cost of nuclear in Japan. This was not always the case. France was able to decarbonized faster than any other big country in the world thanks to the rapid deployment of his fleet. If we fix that, new nuclear in Europe makes sense. We currently lack the technology and the industrial capacity to not be dependent on China for solar, wind and batteries. Nuclear provide energy when you need it, stabilize the grid and ultimately reduce the price of energy (like you see in Finland). The higher the share of renewable in the European grid, the higher the amount of batteries needed. In general one could argue that the best grid mix for lowering external dependencies and costs is 10% to 20% nuclear, and the rest hydro, solar, wind and batteries. In the north of Europe wind is a great resource, but in the most industrialized part of the south (Italian padana plain) the wind potential is very low, as the solar potential in winter when the fog would cover everything. The amount of connections to make a renewable only grid work on the European level are not trivial nor cheap, and we should do anything we can to promote and regulatory environment where the best tool for the job can be deployed.

Was referring no to this recent article cited in the cross posted thread: https://feddit.org/post/27922091

People do not want to ear this, but depending on your definition of clean, nuclear is as clean as solar, wind and batteries. No source of energy is free from death, carbon emissions and pollution. Solar, wind and batteries requires extensive mining for rare materials and carbon intensive factory production. If we check all factors again nuclear, the number are remarkably similar to solar, wind and batteries.

In a world where gas, oil and coal exists, nuclear must be put on the same category as renewable. We cannot afford to close any nuclear power plant, as closing a nuclear power plant before the last coal power plant is closed, means we are killing people. Numbers do not lie.

I think that’s what the diplomats from 123 of 178 nations are recognizing

No, they are not. They are asking for reparation, that is the entire point of the resolution. Reparation, it is said so many time in the document it is ridiculous. We want to say that slavery in US plantation was worse because it had a race component? Fine! I agree, but we are playing the game of “which crime against humanity is worse?”. I find it just degrading. Because Ghana does not really care about the life of the US american citizens that descended from the slaves. They want reparation for Ghana. And reparation for losing millions of citizen is the same if you lose them to the Arabs or to the Americans or to your own internal plantations with chattel slavery.

If for you this is not hypocrisy I do not know what to say

Again, it is like talking to a wall, you are not addressing my points.

I am not referring to 123 nations as hypocrites, I am referring to the dozen of nations that voted “Yes” for slavery reparation but practiced slavery to the millions of dead and do not intend to pay any reparation.

The US already recognized and apologized for chattel slavery with H. Res. 194.

Again, Roman slavery was one of the most massive example of chattel slavery. Brazil was chattel slavery, the Islamic world engaged in chattel slavery (bantu in salts marshes in Iraq, plantation in Zanzibar, Ottomans plantations for sugar and cotton), the Sokoto Caliphate used chattel slavery (modern Nigeria working in plantations)

The vote at the UN was not for recognition, was for reparations, and the diplomats to the countries involved clarified multiple time that was not an internationally recognized crime at the time, so descended can not be held liable for reparations. Anything else is just performative. What exactly do you expect?

Sorry, but you totally ignored my points. Did you not understand what I said and why I said it?

Why are you trying to say that the millions of African dead in the Sahara are somewhat to be ignored as slavery in the Arab world was more traditional? You are continuing to dismiss spartan and repubblican Rome slavery as humane when we already established that it was worse in mines and villas (when it was also your right to kill the slave with no need for a workaround?). You are trying to dismiss more than 60 years of free and independent Brazil supporting slavery? Portugal was a kingdom, now is a democracy, why you want to keep today people of Portugal accountable for the actions of kings 20 generation separated by modern Portuguese, but you will not keep accountable descendent from the same people living in Brazil? What is the logic here?

My opinion is that in those 123 nations there are lot of hypocrites that have promoted slavery to the milions of dead in the past but will not pay for the reparation in the preposition nor intend to take responsibility for any wrongdoing of the past. That is my point. Why the double standard? They are just dishonest. If European said “Yes” they would have just lied like all that other nations I cited above lying by saying “Yes”.

That resolution is just virtue signaling. It adds non binding untenable principles like an hierarchy of crimes against humanity and reparation across centuries for something that was not an international recognized crime at the time (while we agree it was terrible).

On the countries that voted yes we have:

• Brazil: the biggest slaver country in the trans-atlantic trade (5 million people vs 400K for the US, just to give you some numbers). It abolished slavery in 1888, the last countries in the americas to do so.
• Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, all part of the trans-saharan trade that trafficked between 10 and 18 million african (20% to 25% died in transport on the saharan route). All of three very very late in abolishing slavery, in 1962, 1963 and 1962 respectively. The 1926 league of nation (like the UN) slavery convention was created to stop the Hejaz slave trade centers that connected the arab world with multiple slave routes in africa and asia.
• Turkiye was the major player in the crimean and black sea slave trade (up to 2 million slavic slaves). Turkiye abolish slave trade in 1857, and slavery in general in 1924.
• Algeria, Tunisia and Libya (also in the trans-saharan trade): the centers for the barbary slave trade (1 to 1.25 million people), captured from the costal villages of italy, spain and france. They banned slavery very late, 1848, 1846 and 1912 respectively.

I do not want to engage in whataboutism, that is not my point. My point is that this vote is full of hypocrisy. We are not voting for change, we are voting for scoring political points on easy propaganda at home (west bad, we good). While I hate the US, I found that the fact they opposed the resolution and the reason why they opposed the resolution was at least honest. None of the countries above that voted yes will do anything in terms of reparation, and they are not required to.

Finally, I have to correct you on something you said: both in the Roman Republic and Greece (Sparta) was legal to kill your slave without justification.

Brazil abolished slavery 63 year after independence because of British pressure to do so (can you imagine? The British telling you that is too much!). The last nation in the western world to abolish slavery. After the US. For all intents and purposes, the responsibility of Brazil is exactly on par, if not worse on all metrics, than the responsibility of the US. If you condemn the US you must do the same or more for Brazil.

Just being descriptive. My country abolished slavery 650 years before yours 🤣 and you were calling me a slaver 😂 and talking about me enjoying the spoils of slavery 🤪 your entire agricultural economy is the result of slaves being worked to death. While Brazil was an independent free country!

Hahahahahahahaahaaaa,

Brazil, the country that imported more slaves then any other countries in the Americas. How could I have missed this.

I cannot take you seriously anymore 😂 You lost the insignificant shred of credibility you fought so hard to maintain.

Your country has bought more or less 5.5 million more slaves than mine.

Feel free to continue the name calling. From someone as hypocritical as you is like a medal.

Wait, you are not seriously telling me you are from Brazil aren’t you? Brazil, a Western country!

A corrupt country that is accused of exploitation of other countries like Angola (via BNDES loans), or Bolivia (with Petrobras), or Mozabique (with both Vale and the ProSavana project).

That would be the funniest thing ever

If your standard for imperialism is “some companies from a state are operating in another state under that state regulated market” then every state is imperialistic: Italy’s Trenitalia manage trains in Spain and the UK, Spain bank Santander operate as a major player in Italy, Germany Volkswagen operate factories in Mexico, China and Brazil. China battery CATL operates in Spain. Brazil aerospace Embraer has factories in Portugal.

But is interesting your shift from “your country is a slaver country” to “your country’s companies operate subsidiary in other law regulated markets”.

For example, Enel (Italy) operate in South America with concessions that can be revoked by the country if Enel does not follow the law, while prices are not decided by Enel. Electrical grid is a natural monopoly, so prices are decided by government entities (ANEEL for Brazil, CREG for Colombia, CNE for chile). See for example this: https://legal.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/chile-fines-italys-enel-19-million-over-2024-power-outages/117472660 “We hope that not just Enel, but all companies, see that they need to comply with regulations and understand that in Chile nobody is above the law”

And sorry to reiterate but fascism and imperialism are not the same. While both have an affinity for capital market, the core tenant of fascism is militarism, political violence, suppression of media and suppression of the individual to serve the state. State that are fascist are Russia for example, with other arguing that Hungary is becoming a fascist regime as well. The current US administration has traits that I would link with fascism as well. Other states with strong nationalism are North Korea, Myanmar, Eritrea.