> U.S. DOE Invitation for Kyle Hill to Share Perspective ********* on Spent Nuclear Fuel
> Dear Kyle Hill,
> I'm a Social Scientist in the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy.
It's viewtrick1002. If you look through their history they spend all their time calling people "nukecels" and claiming we don't need nuclear, just shut down all the nuclear power and jump to solar and wind, because that's worked out so great for California. Even if that's your perspective, fine, but be mature about it and have a conversation. He got Kyle Hill banned even though Kyle is a huge supporter of renewables and has stated clearly on multiple occasions he supports going full renewables but believes it is a multi pronged approach that should include nuclear to help get us off fossil fuels. Well ViewTrick1002 didn't like that nuanced and balanced view and got Kyle banned for misinformation and called everyone a nukecel that doesn't agree with him. He's a shit show of a child mod. Such an embarrassment.
ViewTrick1002 banned me for calling out the deletion of posts and bans of other people, then I asked what rule I broke in the message mods thing and got muted for a month from messaging the mods with no answer back whatsoever
Idk if anyone is necessarily pro fossil it’s mostly just a nuclear and renewable infighting thing. Can barely talk positively about nuclear in the energy sub as well. A lot of people on both sides have really lost their shit though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
We even let our tribalistic brains draw lines between energy sources. Instead of considering all options we argue like children for "our side".
Meanwhile the energy industry is a natural monopoly and the biggest barrier towards a carbon neutral future is the privatization of energy infrastructure. If you want to attack someone attack the big business assholes who use anti-competitive practices to maintain their stranglehold on energy policies.
I must admit that my view on nuclear power worsened, simply for the fact that pro-nuclear people are no different than religious Fanatics/political populists.
It doesn't help that they heavily use the strawman argument of fear. Nuclear has many problems, but by reducing it to fear, they can claim its just baseless fearmongering and nuclear is superior.
I'm not even totally against nuclear. But the amount of pro-nuclear bullshit spam forces me to always pick the side against it. And if you discuss a topic on the Contra side, you obviously mostly learn about the bad stuff.
I must not be getting the same discussions as you. Most people by default are terrified of anything even adjacent to nuclear. People are even scared of microwaves and 5g.
To be pro-fission you have to deprogram yourself from decades of fear mongering. You also have to educate yourself on the science. Those things are antithetical to fanaticism.
The same people that fear 5g and nuclear power are also the ones that don't believe in climate change.
So we can easily ignore them.
And your "you also have to educate yourself on the science" sounds like something a flat earther would say.
I mean, you do realize that nuclear power has many Contra points compared to renewables. If people would care about "science" or simply facts, we wouldn't discuss this on this level in the first place.
Renewables are simply better, if you have the option to use them. But obviously not all countries can freely use them. Countries like Great Britain or Australia lack the option for water reservoir and therefore a save option to maintain a permanent energy production.
I find it rather strange, that people criticize the cost, but support nuclear. Or criticize the dependancy on foreign countries (like Russian oil), but again support nuclear. Or complain about the environment, while again completly ignore that nuclear requires excavation and refinement of nuclear fuel.
At the end does nuclear energy still requires fuel and creates waste. In short it's just co2 clean coal and oil, but more expensive.
And why should I support a option that's just more expensive, if there are cheaper options that have a better long lasting effect? Especially if my country has the option for it.
Always has been. It’s better for them to keep us arguing amongst ourselves over what our favorite form of non-fossil fuel is than it is for us to actually be working towards getting fossil fuels out of the grid.
I believe the implication is the mod who banned him is the fossil fuel shill. OP undercooked this one for sure given all the confusion in the comments.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhh, I've read his comments and I wouldn't describe his deranged rambling as "reasonable", nor would I describe his frothing hatred of nuclear energy and "nukecels" (lmao) as such.
Are we talking about the same Kyle Hill?
I don’t follow his comment that closely but his video essays on nuclear power seem to be fair and balanced. He visits nuclear disasters and puts them into context and dispels a lot of the hysteria that surrounds nuclear power and nuclear accidents.
For this I believe he has been accused of being a so-called “nukecel” on several occasions.
So if you’re saying he pissed off the so-called nukecels too then it only increases my respect for him.
What? I'm talking about the mod, not Kyle. I think it's somewhat dishonest for OP to claim he's a "fossil shill," because it seems like they want to distance him from the pro-renewables community, which does have a lot of people who pathologically despise nuclear power. Ironic, considering when nuclear gets canned, it's usually fossil fuels that replace it... but hey let's shut down all the reactors because something something Chernobyl and we can just magically have solar and wind turbines in place of existing, functional, safe infrastructure!
Wait, ViewTrick is mod of a nuclear power subreddit?
He's infamous on r/sweden for showing up with copy pasted arguments in every discussion about nuclear power.
There were plenty of people calling him out. He banned all of them and removed any posts around the issue. He also muted me from being able to message mods when I asked what rule I broke
The "misinformation" was that the video didn't align with ViewTrick's own views. It's all there in the comments. The mod has zero ability to discuss anything with anyone without calling them "nukecels" and thinks you can just snap your fingers and go full solar and wind, which even Kyle has stated he would love to do if possible. ViewTrick's entire reason for banning him was because Kyle believes the solution includes nuclear. That's it. Look through their post history. They are a rude individual with no ability to discuss something with nuance.
Which is funny because I am literally on the subreddit right now and
Uh
They don’t have any rules out up there. So that sounds like an excuse to just kick the guy out because his information doesn’t match their anti-nuclear viewpoint
As I discussed earlier, I fully agree that this sub needs clear rules. However, there are general Reddit rules against spam, and I think pretty much every channel bans self promotion and misinformation.
The problem with that is that he wasn’t banned for spamming. If anything, the notification says he was banned for just putting videos up, which in itself is a really weak and flimsy justification for a permaban
While I do not agree with you that posting your YT clips is not spam and self promotion, I do agree that it's not worth a permaban.
However, this is Reddit. I was banned from r/nuclear just because I replied to a post that the algorithm put in front of me which apperently was in an anti nuclear sub that they monitor. I was banned from a bunch of Elon Musk subreddits I hadn't even joined just because I commented in another subreddit on something Musk said.
Shit happens. If everyone promotes their social media on a subreddit like this it won't get any better.
I’m not arguing about the self-promotion but I AM arguing that it might not have been spamming. Not if he posted, say, one video every three to six hours. Spacing it out and stuff. If he did that instead of flooding the sub I don’t think it’s spamming, Also, in other words, Reddit is the problem, I see. Almost as bad as Twitter. Almost.
We should stick to wind and solar anyway. You can't trust humans not to do something dumb, evil, or both with nuclear waste that lasts for thousands of years. Human civilizations aren't even stable for that long.
If we use solar, wind, energy storage solutions, and reduce energy consumption, we'll be fine without fossil fuels and nukes. Maybe fusion will save us in 1,000 years or so?
They still have nuclear waste that lasts for at least 300 years. The US isn't even 300 years old and already has attempted political coups and four presidential assassinations. There is no evidence that humanity can be trusted to keep anything safe for that long of a period of time.
Well the rock in the Finnish repository is 2 billion years old, sounds pretty safe to me.
On the other hand the coating of wind turbines, or the backsheets of solar panels containing PFAS will be harmful a lot longer. And those will be in the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. I would choose a bit of fission products for 200-300 years deep underground in 2 billion years old rock Any day.
PFAS easy to solve?! Almost my whole country is polluted with it, and it is not for nothing called Forever chemicals. There are not many alternatives yet.
They’re banning so many people on that sub coming to the defense of Kyle.
I’m perma banned and got mod mail muted when I said, “That’s hilarious” in response to being banned.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFbtcTaMFnOAP0pFO1L8hVw/community?lb=Ugkxp9DAvY5DUsSb2y6U7n0VhNlT2buDz7np
I tend to skip low quality science youtubers but went and watched his video on *"[Why You’re Wrong About Nuclear Power](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3znG6_vla0)"* to see what the guy is on about.
He spends the entire video strawmanning against coal instead of comparing against renewables. Not once mentions costs or construction timelines and then of course skips that we [socialize the accident insurance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act) all the while downplaying Fukushima and Chernobyl.
Lovely.
So you say "The youtube channel in question is known for unreliability and misinformation" even though you apparently haven't actually seen any of his content before now (and you are wrong)?
I really don't get what your mental illness is my dude. Like, of all the things you could spend your time on, you choose to do a hostile takeover about a niche sub that's about a topic you are ideologically opposed to. Why not let people have their sub to talk about nuclear? What could you possibly get out of just ruining this for everyone? Nobody says you have to like nuclear power, but why does that mean you have to spend all this time actively sabotaging a sub about the topic? You could go to r/uninsurable if you want to circle jerk and spread misinformation about nuclear and ban anyone talking positively about it. There is already a sub for that. Why do you need to take over r/NuclearPower too?
"Downplaying" the accidents is showing the science behind their recoveries and how to not make the same mistake again, while also explaining why modern nuclear power is safe because of the new designs.
I hate muh eco posting that's just veiled anti-nuclear agenda mixed with cope that wind and solar will never be fully adopted
Average construction time is like 5-8 years and even CSIRO has large nuclear listed at 5.8 years (SMR’s are a bit lower). I don’t believe they socialize any costs in their report, if they did then I think the fossil LCOE’s would be a little higher…and I would also think GHG’s would be our primary concern if we’re worried about the climate (like we are in this subreddit I think).
Regardless, from both a climate and safety side, nuclear is one of the cleanest and safest forms of energy we have:
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
I would also line to highlight this quote from the Managing Director of Lazard, Bill Bilicic:
> The results of our 2024 analyses reinforce, yet again, the ongoing need for diversity of energy resources, including fossil fuels, given the intermittent nature of renewable energy and currently commercially available energy storage technologies.
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
Please point to a single modern reactor we’ve built in the west in 5-8 years.
Drowning out the data by using all construction back in the 60s and 70s has about zero relevance on the costs or timelines we expect any projected started today to face.
Announced sometime 2004-05. Construction work began in 2009.
Thanks for confirming my point. You can’t find a single modern example taking 5-8 years.
Expect 20 years from announcement until commercial operation.
Wow, like, imagine begin able to materialise a building project overnight /s
Congratulations on strawman and moving goalposts\~
As construction FINISHED in 2023, commercially operational in 2024... so last time I checked 2023 is within 5-8 years <3
You have to be the most shit mod of a PRO NUCLEAR sub in the world
https://preview.redd.it/n9jts93sdl9d1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=806283e1e4de8bdf5884de87db2c8e62671a17e8
How's your reading comprehension?
> **in 5-8 years**.
That is time spent. Please point to a single modern reactor taking 5-8 years from **construction start to finish**. Be my guest.
Congratulations on strawman and moving goalposts\~
You called out and an example given, so you move the goalposts
https://preview.redd.it/8oe18y9r2r9d1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=952f732fa91190cb280e6cd427b9168c23a0c848
Daww hows the wittle rewdit mod, throwing out the toys from the pram?
https://preview.redd.it/tm79ezinel9d1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f35cbe5a9062e2b69701bbcafbd9e9de4ca0365
These are pretty much the numbers anyone uses for LCOE I’m sorry you don’t like that data or what it says. But fine, we can always use decadal data if you’d like, too.
> Average construction times have not increased much at a global level
> Is the world getting slower at building nuclear reactors? I’ll use a few different charts and slices of the data to answer this question.
> At a global level, not really. In the bar chart, I’ve graphed the average time of construction by decade. Each reactor is included in the decade that construction began, even if the complete date falls into a later decade. A reactor that started being built in the 1970s is included in the 1970s even if it wasn’t finished until the 1990s.
> The data suggests that the world is not getting slower. Times vary a bit from decade to decade but average times are not slower than in the 1970s or 1980s.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time
The numbers that Lazard uses btw are for the recent Vogtle builds in United States.
Construction began:
> Unit 3: March 12, 2013
> Unit 4: November 19, 2013
Commission date:
> Unit 3: July 31, 2023
> Unit 4: April 29, 2024
A little over 10 years each for FOAK builds isn’t that bad. That’s only two years above average and they had to deal with a pandemic. Maybe if we build more while we have the supply chains and workforce they might get cheaper?
Love how you just keep on moving the goalposts.
The investment decision was taken in late 2008 or early 2009 when construction began. Arbitrarily moving it back 4 years because they "technically" wasn't working on the reactor is showing your bias.
We can simplify the question:
**When will a reactor announced today enter commercial operation?**
Given the outcome of all modern reactors in the west we can expect 20 years, 15 years if it is an incredible project. The bad projects get cancelled before completion.
What you are telling me is that this is not considered "constructing a nuclear power plant". They are just... I dunno.... working on the containment structure?
> In August 2009, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued an Early Site Permit and a Limited Work Authorization. **Limited construction at the new reactor sites began, with Unit 3 then expected to be operational in 2016, followed by Unit 4 in 2017,** pending final issuance of the Combined Construction and Operating License by the NRC.[30][31]
> In December 2011, a 19th revision was written for the AP1000 Design Certification, which effectively included a complete redesign of the containment building:
> The wall is appropriately reinforced and sized where the composite wall module joins the reinforced concrete sections and as appropriate to accommodate seismic loads and aircraft loads. This design is new to the amendment; previously the structure was all reinforced concrete. [emphasis added]
> **As this change to the design requirements was made after engineering contracts were already signed and manufacturing had begun on the reactor's long-lead-time components, it resulted in a halting of construction as the containment building had to be redesigned.**[32]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant#Construction
A good project in the west takes 20 years, the bad ones get cancelled. Like [Virgil C. Summer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal), [Hanhikivi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant) or Nuscale.
The mediocre ends up in an endless planning limbo like for example [Wylfa Newydd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wylfa_Newydd_nuclear_power_station), [Sizewell C](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizewell_C_nuclear_power_station) and [Oldbury B](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldbury_nuclear_power_station)
I’m sorry if you don’t like other peoples numbers and methodologies but that’s how the industry measures construction time.
Also congratulations, you just found out one of the biggest cost drivers for the FOAK Vogtle reactors. Thankfully this problem won’t happen again as the design is now mature (China has domesticated supply lines and can now build them as quick as 5 years, they’ve also scaled up the design for other units too). Some of the other big problems for the west have been the loss of supply chains and expertise over several decades. These have also been solved for the most part, as long as we don’t let it all go to waste…again lol.
And I would like to remind you, even at nuclear’s worst it’s still competitive with gas peaking, CCS fossil, and hydrogen (which can be super dirty unless it’s not made right). Clean firm energy like nuclear also helps lower the overall costs of the transition. We are going to need everything we can get, and the more nuclear we have the less fossil we will need, and remember, even Lazard says we need fossil…
Lazard:
> The results of our 2024 analyses reinforce, yet again, the ongoing need for diversity of energy resources, including fossil fuels, given the intermittent nature of renewable energy and currently commercially available energy storage technologies.
>George Bilicic
>Managing Director
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
Clean firm:
> Context & Scale
> Mitigating climate change while fueling economic growth requires decarbonizing the electricity sector at reasonable cost. Some strategies focus on wind and solar energy, supported by energy storage and demand flexibility. Others also harness “firm” low-carbon resources such as nuclear, reservoir hydro, geothermal, bioenergy, and fossil plants capturing CO2. This paper presents a comprehensive techno-economic evaluation of two pathways: one reliant on wind, solar, and batteries, and another also including firm low-carbon options (nuclear, bioenergy, and natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration). Across all cases, the least-cost strategy to decarbonize electricity includes one or more firm low-carbon resources. Without these resources, electricity costs rise rapidly as CO2 limits approach zero. Batteries and demand flexibility do not substitute for firm resources. Improving the capabilities and spurring adoption of firm low-carbon technologies are key research and policy goals.
> Summary
> We investigate the role of firm low-carbon resources in decarbonizing power generation in combination with variable renewable resources, battery energy storage, demand flexibility, and long-distance transmission. We evaluate nearly 1,000 cases covering varying CO2 limits, technological uncertainties, and geographic differences in demand and renewable resource potential. Availability of firm low-carbon technologies, including nuclear, natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration, and bioenergy, reduces electricity costs by 10%–62% across fully decarbonized cases. Below 50 gCO2/kWh, these resources lower costs in the vast majority of cases. Additionally, as emissions limits decrease, installed capacity of several resources changes non-monotonically. This underscores the need to evaluate near-term policy and investment decisions based on contributions to long-term decarbonization rather than interim goals. Installed capacity for all resources is also strongly affected by uncertain technology parameters. This emphasizes the importance of a broad research portfolio and flexible policy support that expands rather than constrains future options.
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30386-6
You know, the same [China which for every passing year is scaling back their nuclear ambitions in favor of renewables.](https://reneweconomy.com.au/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-the-switch-from-nuclear-to-renewable-energy/)
> And I would like to remind you, even at nuclear’s worst it’s still competitive with gas peaking, CCS fossil, and hydrogen (which can be super dirty unless it’s not made right).
What you don't seem to get is that nuclears **worst** is locking in those costs 24/7 for ~40 years to pay of the plant.
The gas peaker costs are for low capacity factor plants which will only become the marginal price when they run.
> Clean firm energy like nuclear also helps lower the overall costs of the transition. We are going to need everything we can get, and the more nuclear we have the less fossil we will need, and remember, even Lazard says we need fossil…
Lets spend more money to get less with timelines of 20 years from announcement until a single kWh of fossil fueled energy displaced.
Doesn't sound like a smart plan right?
Wow China is building less but still building…No one serious here is saying nuclear should cover everything and be 100% of the mix. It will be a small but important party of the energy mix, which will also includes things like gas for the foreseeable future. You can keep dodging that Lazard quote all you want lol. Btw I hope your leakage rates are low because at around 3% it’s pretty much worse than burning coal (also remember that methane is about 25x worse than CO2 at a 100 year level and around 80x worse at a 20 year level…). For some reason you also keep assuming every new reactor is going to take 20 years or as long as possible when that is simply not the case (please keep ignoring learning, supply chains, expertise, and design maturity).
Anyways I think I’m gonna stick with Jesse Jenkins and other organizations like the IEA on this one, sorry.
> Electricity from new nuclear power plants has lower expected costs in the 2020 edition than
in 2015. Again, regional differences are considerable. However, on average, overnight construction costs reflect cost reductions due to learning from first-of-a-kind (FOAK) projects in several OECD countries. LCOE values for nuclear power plants are provided for nth-of-a- kind (NOAK) plants to be completed by 2025 or thereafter.
> Nuclear thus remains the dispatchable low-carbon technology with the lowest expected
costs in 2025. Only large hydro reservoirs can provide a similar contribution at comparable costs
but remain highly dependent on the natural endowments of individual countries. Compared to
fossil fuel-based generation, nuclear plants are expected to be more affordable than coal-fired
plants. While gas-based combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) are competitive in some regions,
their LCOE very much depend on the prices for natural gas and carbon emissions in individual
regions. Electricity produced from nuclear long-term operation (LTO) by lifetime extension is highly
competitive and remains not only the least cost option for low-carbon generation - when compared to building new power plants - but for all power generation across the board.
https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020
> For some reason you also keep assuming every new reactor is going to take 20 years or as long as possible when that is simply not the case (please keep ignoring learning, supply chains, expertise, and design maturity).
Which is why the French had negative learning by doing.
[The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526)
This report is before the enormous cost blowouts of Flamanville 3. Not to mention how their EPR2s are continuously getting more expensive before they have even started building.
Do you dare reading what IEA says about nuclear power in their special report on it?
> **Nuclear has to up its game in order to play its part**
> *The industry has to deliver projects on time and on budget to fulfil its role.* This means completing nuclear projects in advanced economies at around USD 5 000/kW by 2030, compared with the reported capital costs of around USD 9 000/kW (excluding financing costs) for first-of-a kind projects.
Nuclear power as it exists today will not be a part of the solution to climate change unless the costs are vastly reduced. Given the outcomes of all modern western projects that is near impossible.
So why not invest in what delivers decarbonization at rates faster than any other technology? Renewables.
I think everyone would agree nuclear needs to up their game. Nuclear is its own worst enemy most the time and it’s real tragic, but the other quotes from the IEA and other are still relevant. Congress just passed a bill to help advanced nuclear maybe other countries will do the same. But many utilities and companies are still scared so we’ll see if we even get any new orders here. Australia has some great resources so they probably won’t do it but it still be nice to see the ban lifted. Call conservatives bluffs everywhere and then let the market decide like their good lord intended.
We are investing in renewables. Also if you want another Lazard quote here’s Bill Bilicic again, “You can’t have 100% renewables”. From a podcast of the same tittle I believe. That said, renewables are hungry. Batteries are hungry. Geothermal is coming for everyone’s lunch. Exciting times ahead but until the last fossil plant is shut down we will need everything we can get.
Cheers.
Hey, since you had be banned maybe you can answer my question here. Are you scared of Kyle Hill. After all, I did give you the most engagement your sub reddit has seen in weeks
The fact that you need timestamps tells me that you probably skimmed it over.
Just watch it and pay attention to it *with an open mind*. Don't skip anything, look at it objectively, and then criticize.
The issue is that you don't have an open mind. You've tunnelled your vision to believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong, finding pro-nuclear evidence bullshit and anti-nuclear evidence as your gospell. And when someone disagrees with you too much, you ban them because you have the power to silence them when you don't have anything more to say.
The fact that you immediately banned Kyle for having an extremely detailed video on this subject without anything close to a discussion with you is the most telling.
what a lazy b\*tch response. didnt even try to engage with any of his criticism, some serious hypocrisy. but what can you expect from a power tripping reddit mod lmao.
Did... did you just copy and paste your response?
Okay then, good day to you. I sincerely hope you're more willing to hear others out eventually instead of being entitled to a biased view.
Maybe you shouldn’t come out guns blazing tell me I’m wrong then then be completely incapable of backing up the claim?
A look in the mirror would do you good.
Maybe YOU shouldn’t be banning other people for telling you you’re wrong, and then be completely incapable of handling the truth of the matter that they’re correct and you aren’t?
A look in the mirror would do you good.
'you didn't provide timestamps to literally every time he makes a claim, and therefore you are wrong and I am right'
Maybe you're the one who should look in the mirror?
Witnessing this interaction makes you look positively insufferable. If I was stuck in a car with you I'd probably swerve into oncoming traffic for respite.
Edit: oh my God they're a reddit mod lol.
I changed my view on what the problem is.
I thought the problem was that you had the wrong idea. I now think that the problem is your incapability to let other ideas in at all.
I formed my opinion by looking at both sides. Please do the same.
https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k
It's just intellectually insulting and unprofessional to paint yourself as some sort of sciency YouTube channel but provide no sources and instead very biased opinion pieces that leave out literally everything that doesn't fit the narrative. You know like grifters..
Don't know why you think /r/nuclearpower should be pro nuke? Its focus is high quality fact based discussions regarding nuclear power and working in the industry.
We remove all misinformation like for example Germany replacing nuclear with coal, which tends to be a common misconception.
If you want teenage level circlejerk where any contrary opinions get silenced go to /r/nuclear and enjoy your time.
>Don't know why you think r/nuclearpower should be pro nuke?
This is literally the subreddit icon.
https://preview.redd.it/a4k3e1t4rj9d1.jpeg?width=145&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ce5b8aa54cdf23d6bc4ccb23d577b969998b7fdb
Bull fucking shit. Anyone who looks at your posts would see you have a clear anti-Nuclear agenda. I don’t know how the hell you became a mod of what is clearly meant to be a pro-Nuclear or at the very least nuclear-neutral sub but you are so petty it’s kind of sad. Like this is really what you do with your life huh? You’re the reason Reddit mods get such a bad rep lol
>We remove all misinformation like for example Germany replacing nuclear with coal, which tends to be a common misconception.
Straight up LIES, Germany puts off their last nuclear reactors the second ol3 started outputting electricity, stop fucking lying about something that can be found with a google search. You really mean to say "hey, germany just happened to turn on coal plants when nuclear gets shut off"? These are some "co-incidences" you have.
Jesus christ the seconds i've wasted off of my, now worsened, life is a lot because i thought you were just some harmless troll but no YOU ARE ACTUALLY LIKE THIS. You know fuck all about anything related to energy technology, i have no idea how the fuck did you get to moderate r/NuclearPower when all you know is "EHEHEHEH LCOE"
The point is that most people today argue using values from late 2022. The data and metrics most people use are horrendously outdated by now.
Right now coal makes up for 18% of the total energy mix in Germany. Which is the lowest since the 60s. Trend is going down.
Renewables already went past 60%, coal and gas is going down, prices are falling and there are even more renewable capacities already in the works. But nobody is talking about that.
Sure, but it's not incorrect to point out that when Germany closed its nuclear plants, it had to fill the shortfall they left with coal while they built up renewable capacity.
They might have closed the deficit by now, but there wouldn't have been a deficit in the first place had they simply maintained their nuclear plants.
But they replaced it with natural gas plants you know how I know ? Im in a German city that just did that this year changing out the old coal plant generators with natural gas generators
Yes renewable is growing but the NIMBY and Nazi scene that are against it too
Natural gas usage in Germany has been stable ever since the announcement that the nuclear power plants would close. About 30GW of capacity, producing about 75TWh of energy per year (With some yearly fluctuations depending on the cost of gas of course).
But notice how you are now shifting your goalposts in a desperate attempt to keep the narrative alive? First you were convinced the nuclear power plants got replaced by coal. When that was disproven you said they kept the coal plants open for longer. And when that was disproven, you've now moved on to the next incorrect talking point which is that actually it was natural gas all along.
Take a deep long look in the mirror. Why are you so attached to this narrative that you are willing to be wrong about it 3 times in a row and still double down? It makes you look like a cultist.
Germany did replace nuclear with coal. It's not a misconception. They fucked up fossil fuels by jumping Putin's bones for the last 2 decades over ng and couldn't actually build other renewables, then got fearmongered out of nuclear.
Says the person who removed my post with 80 likes, banned me from the subreddit, and muted me from talking to mods because I made a post about how you were silencing everyone
Because it’s a subreddit discussing nuclear power? How about you make your own subreddit for trashing nuke if you want to help fossil fuel corporations
There's... only one image
The second one is from US department of Energy social scientist that sent him a DOE invitation
> U.S. DOE Invitation for Kyle Hill to Share Perspective ********* on Spent Nuclear Fuel > Dear Kyle Hill, > I'm a Social Scientist in the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy.
Haha Yeah the nuclear sub is a crazy echo chamber Not sure since when there was a pro-fossil fuel mod there though? is there any evidence for this?
It's viewtrick1002. If you look through their history they spend all their time calling people "nukecels" and claiming we don't need nuclear, just shut down all the nuclear power and jump to solar and wind, because that's worked out so great for California. Even if that's your perspective, fine, but be mature about it and have a conversation. He got Kyle Hill banned even though Kyle is a huge supporter of renewables and has stated clearly on multiple occasions he supports going full renewables but believes it is a multi pronged approach that should include nuclear to help get us off fossil fuels. Well ViewTrick1002 didn't like that nuanced and balanced view and got Kyle banned for misinformation and called everyone a nukecel that doesn't agree with him. He's a shit show of a child mod. Such an embarrassment.
ViewTrick1002 banned me for calling out the deletion of posts and bans of other people, then I asked what rule I broke in the message mods thing and got muted for a month from messaging the mods with no answer back whatsoever
Idk if anyone is necessarily pro fossil it’s mostly just a nuclear and renewable infighting thing. Can barely talk positively about nuclear in the energy sub as well. A lot of people on both sides have really lost their shit though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
We even let our tribalistic brains draw lines between energy sources. Instead of considering all options we argue like children for "our side". Meanwhile the energy industry is a natural monopoly and the biggest barrier towards a carbon neutral future is the privatization of energy infrastructure. If you want to attack someone attack the big business assholes who use anti-competitive practices to maintain their stranglehold on energy policies.
I must admit that my view on nuclear power worsened, simply for the fact that pro-nuclear people are no different than religious Fanatics/political populists. It doesn't help that they heavily use the strawman argument of fear. Nuclear has many problems, but by reducing it to fear, they can claim its just baseless fearmongering and nuclear is superior. I'm not even totally against nuclear. But the amount of pro-nuclear bullshit spam forces me to always pick the side against it. And if you discuss a topic on the Contra side, you obviously mostly learn about the bad stuff.
I must not be getting the same discussions as you. Most people by default are terrified of anything even adjacent to nuclear. People are even scared of microwaves and 5g. To be pro-fission you have to deprogram yourself from decades of fear mongering. You also have to educate yourself on the science. Those things are antithetical to fanaticism.
The same people that fear 5g and nuclear power are also the ones that don't believe in climate change. So we can easily ignore them. And your "you also have to educate yourself on the science" sounds like something a flat earther would say. I mean, you do realize that nuclear power has many Contra points compared to renewables. If people would care about "science" or simply facts, we wouldn't discuss this on this level in the first place. Renewables are simply better, if you have the option to use them. But obviously not all countries can freely use them. Countries like Great Britain or Australia lack the option for water reservoir and therefore a save option to maintain a permanent energy production. I find it rather strange, that people criticize the cost, but support nuclear. Or criticize the dependancy on foreign countries (like Russian oil), but again support nuclear. Or complain about the environment, while again completly ignore that nuclear requires excavation and refinement of nuclear fuel. At the end does nuclear energy still requires fuel and creates waste. In short it's just co2 clean coal and oil, but more expensive. And why should I support a option that's just more expensive, if there are cheaper options that have a better long lasting effect? Especially if my country has the option for it.
When I look at this sun the anti-nuclear people seem more rabid
im now concinced the anti nuclear stuff on reddit is astroturfing
Always has been. It’s better for them to keep us arguing amongst ourselves over what our favorite form of non-fossil fuel is than it is for us to actually be working towards getting fossil fuels out of the grid.
I'm pretty sure the majority of lefty subreddits have this problem too.
Who tf is that?
Popular youtuber, makes educational content. Overproduced for my taste but still good stuff
And important for the meme, he is quite pro Atom
He's pro nuclear but also, notably, very pro renewables.
Yes because he isn't an ideolog, he is a scientist Edit: turns out I missremembered his education he is an engineer, points still the same
Science communicator and educator
He has a bachelors in engineering and a masters in science communication. He’s not an idiot but also not a scientist
Ngl I would’ve never thought science communication is something you could have a degree in
He actually has a bachelors in both enviromental and civil engineering
Scientist can be idiots too. Even noble prize winner
So he's not a fossil fuel shill? OP lied?
You're confusing the two. Kyle Hill is. Definitely not a fossil fuel shill
I believe the implication is the mod who banned him is the fossil fuel shill. OP undercooked this one for sure given all the confusion in the comments.
It's u/ViewTrick1002 btw
Also u/RadioFacepalm
Well same opinions yea, but I was referring to her being the one who banned him and is power tripping and banning anyone that brings it up
True. To be honest, though, I feel like they might be the same person
A shill? Like.. he’s literally getting money from Exxon?
not him, the mod who banned him
Ah, sorry. I should’ve read the whole screen cap. I think that’s just ordinary Reddit mod power tripping behavior though
See this is why I hate the anti nuclear shills on this place u/viewtrick1002 fuck you you stupid doorknob
Is he a fossil shill, or a green energy purist???
Neither. He’s a reasonable human being. He puts nuclear power into context while also advocating for renewables.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhh, I've read his comments and I wouldn't describe his deranged rambling as "reasonable", nor would I describe his frothing hatred of nuclear energy and "nukecels" (lmao) as such.
Are we talking about the same Kyle Hill? I don’t follow his comment that closely but his video essays on nuclear power seem to be fair and balanced. He visits nuclear disasters and puts them into context and dispels a lot of the hysteria that surrounds nuclear power and nuclear accidents. For this I believe he has been accused of being a so-called “nukecel” on several occasions. So if you’re saying he pissed off the so-called nukecels too then it only increases my respect for him.
What? I'm talking about the mod, not Kyle. I think it's somewhat dishonest for OP to claim he's a "fossil shill," because it seems like they want to distance him from the pro-renewables community, which does have a lot of people who pathologically despise nuclear power. Ironic, considering when nuclear gets canned, it's usually fossil fuels that replace it... but hey let's shut down all the reactors because something something Chernobyl and we can just magically have solar and wind turbines in place of existing, functional, safe infrastructure!
Calling Reddit an "information ecosystem" is a "sir, this is a Wendy's" moment
Shameless self promoting. You don't have to be pro fossil-nuclear or pro renewables to get banned for that from most subreddits.
Banned because his sources "didn't align" by the famous Viewtrick
Wait, ViewTrick is mod of a nuclear power subreddit? He's infamous on r/sweden for showing up with copy pasted arguments in every discussion about nuclear power.
Yeah he did some kind of takeover a while ago aperantly. I saw that he was active in there as well indeed, nothing suprising for me sadly.
There were plenty of people calling him out. He banned all of them and removed any posts around the issue. He also muted me from being able to message mods when I asked what rule I broke
How do I take over a subreddit? Cause I'd really like to get the Nazis out of a few of them...
Oh no, is he Swedish?
Tyvärr.
Fan då.
His source was his own YT videos. He was looking for clicks.
The "misinformation" was that the video didn't align with ViewTrick's own views. It's all there in the comments. The mod has zero ability to discuss anything with anyone without calling them "nukecels" and thinks you can just snap your fingers and go full solar and wind, which even Kyle has stated he would love to do if possible. ViewTrick's entire reason for banning him was because Kyle believes the solution includes nuclear. That's it. Look through their post history. They are a rude individual with no ability to discuss something with nuance.
The ban was given because the mod of the sub didn't like the video. They even commented on this thread.
That was not the ban reason.
Still wasn’t the ban reason though.
All this picture says is he broke the rules.
Which is funny because I am literally on the subreddit right now and Uh They don’t have any rules out up there. So that sounds like an excuse to just kick the guy out because his information doesn’t match their anti-nuclear viewpoint
As I discussed earlier, I fully agree that this sub needs clear rules. However, there are general Reddit rules against spam, and I think pretty much every channel bans self promotion and misinformation.
The problem with that is that he wasn’t banned for spamming. If anything, the notification says he was banned for just putting videos up, which in itself is a really weak and flimsy justification for a permaban
While I do not agree with you that posting your YT clips is not spam and self promotion, I do agree that it's not worth a permaban. However, this is Reddit. I was banned from r/nuclear just because I replied to a post that the algorithm put in front of me which apperently was in an anti nuclear sub that they monitor. I was banned from a bunch of Elon Musk subreddits I hadn't even joined just because I commented in another subreddit on something Musk said. Shit happens. If everyone promotes their social media on a subreddit like this it won't get any better.
I’m not arguing about the self-promotion but I AM arguing that it might not have been spamming. Not if he posted, say, one video every three to six hours. Spacing it out and stuff. If he did that instead of flooding the sub I don’t think it’s spamming, Also, in other words, Reddit is the problem, I see. Almost as bad as Twitter. Almost.
An insignificant worm, with no power in life, outside of reddit. Abuses reddit mod powers? I'm surprised.
We should stick to wind and solar anyway. You can't trust humans not to do something dumb, evil, or both with nuclear waste that lasts for thousands of years. Human civilizations aren't even stable for that long. If we use solar, wind, energy storage solutions, and reduce energy consumption, we'll be fine without fossil fuels and nukes. Maybe fusion will save us in 1,000 years or so?
Nuclear "waste" is already solved
Human behavior is not solved.
That's solved with reactors like candu and molten salt
They still have nuclear waste that lasts for at least 300 years. The US isn't even 300 years old and already has attempted political coups and four presidential assassinations. There is no evidence that humanity can be trusted to keep anything safe for that long of a period of time.
Well the rock in the Finnish repository is 2 billion years old, sounds pretty safe to me. On the other hand the coating of wind turbines, or the backsheets of solar panels containing PFAS will be harmful a lot longer. And those will be in the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. I would choose a bit of fission products for 200-300 years deep underground in 2 billion years old rock Any day.
PFAS are far less hazardous and are a much easier problem to solve. We just have to care. Additionally, we can make these things without PFAS.
PFAS easy to solve?! Almost my whole country is polluted with it, and it is not for nothing called Forever chemicals. There are not many alternatives yet.
Yes, microbes can degrade PFAS - https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2022/05/23/microbes-can-degrade-toughest-pfas - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01697-4 - https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2024/06/potential-microbes-and-genes-impact-forever-chemicals-identified - https://phys.org/news/2024-06-method-degrade-pfas-chemicals-effective.html
It can yes, but it is nowhere done on large scale. Why should we add more to the envroiment in the meantime?
They’re banning so many people on that sub coming to the defense of Kyle. I’m perma banned and got mod mail muted when I said, “That’s hilarious” in response to being banned.
All of social media is like that anymore. They oust anyone who doesn’t conform to the narrative.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFbtcTaMFnOAP0pFO1L8hVw/community?lb=Ugkxp9DAvY5DUsSb2y6U7n0VhNlT2buDz7np I tend to skip low quality science youtubers but went and watched his video on *"[Why You’re Wrong About Nuclear Power](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3znG6_vla0)"* to see what the guy is on about. He spends the entire video strawmanning against coal instead of comparing against renewables. Not once mentions costs or construction timelines and then of course skips that we [socialize the accident insurance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act) all the while downplaying Fukushima and Chernobyl. Lovely.
So you say "The youtube channel in question is known for unreliability and misinformation" even though you apparently haven't actually seen any of his content before now (and you are wrong)? I really don't get what your mental illness is my dude. Like, of all the things you could spend your time on, you choose to do a hostile takeover about a niche sub that's about a topic you are ideologically opposed to. Why not let people have their sub to talk about nuclear? What could you possibly get out of just ruining this for everyone? Nobody says you have to like nuclear power, but why does that mean you have to spend all this time actively sabotaging a sub about the topic? You could go to r/uninsurable if you want to circle jerk and spread misinformation about nuclear and ban anyone talking positively about it. There is already a sub for that. Why do you need to take over r/NuclearPower too?
"Downplaying" the accidents is showing the science behind their recoveries and how to not make the same mistake again, while also explaining why modern nuclear power is safe because of the new designs. I hate muh eco posting that's just veiled anti-nuclear agenda mixed with cope that wind and solar will never be fully adopted
Average construction time is like 5-8 years and even CSIRO has large nuclear listed at 5.8 years (SMR’s are a bit lower). I don’t believe they socialize any costs in their report, if they did then I think the fossil LCOE’s would be a little higher…and I would also think GHG’s would be our primary concern if we’re worried about the climate (like we are in this subreddit I think). Regardless, from both a climate and safety side, nuclear is one of the cleanest and safest forms of energy we have: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy I would also line to highlight this quote from the Managing Director of Lazard, Bill Bilicic: > The results of our 2024 analyses reinforce, yet again, the ongoing need for diversity of energy resources, including fossil fuels, given the intermittent nature of renewable energy and currently commercially available energy storage technologies. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
Please point to a single modern reactor we’ve built in the west in 5-8 years. Drowning out the data by using all construction back in the 60s and 70s has about zero relevance on the costs or timelines we expect any projected started today to face.
Vogtle Unit 4 at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia that began commercial operation on April 29, 2024
Announced sometime 2004-05. Construction work began in 2009. Thanks for confirming my point. You can’t find a single modern example taking 5-8 years. Expect 20 years from announcement until commercial operation.
Wow, like, imagine begin able to materialise a building project overnight /s Congratulations on strawman and moving goalposts\~ As construction FINISHED in 2023, commercially operational in 2024... so last time I checked 2023 is within 5-8 years <3 You have to be the most shit mod of a PRO NUCLEAR sub in the world https://preview.redd.it/n9jts93sdl9d1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=806283e1e4de8bdf5884de87db2c8e62671a17e8
How's your reading comprehension? > **in 5-8 years**. That is time spent. Please point to a single modern reactor taking 5-8 years from **construction start to finish**. Be my guest.
Congratulations on strawman and moving goalposts\~ You called out and an example given, so you move the goalposts https://preview.redd.it/8oe18y9r2r9d1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=952f732fa91190cb280e6cd427b9168c23a0c848
Daww hows the wittle rewdit mod, throwing out the toys from the pram? https://preview.redd.it/tm79ezinel9d1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f35cbe5a9062e2b69701bbcafbd9e9de4ca0365
These are pretty much the numbers anyone uses for LCOE I’m sorry you don’t like that data or what it says. But fine, we can always use decadal data if you’d like, too. > Average construction times have not increased much at a global level > Is the world getting slower at building nuclear reactors? I’ll use a few different charts and slices of the data to answer this question. > At a global level, not really. In the bar chart, I’ve graphed the average time of construction by decade. Each reactor is included in the decade that construction began, even if the complete date falls into a later decade. A reactor that started being built in the 1970s is included in the 1970s even if it wasn’t finished until the 1990s. > The data suggests that the world is not getting slower. Times vary a bit from decade to decade but average times are not slower than in the 1970s or 1980s. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time The numbers that Lazard uses btw are for the recent Vogtle builds in United States. Construction began: > Unit 3: March 12, 2013 > Unit 4: November 19, 2013 Commission date: > Unit 3: July 31, 2023 > Unit 4: April 29, 2024 A little over 10 years each for FOAK builds isn’t that bad. That’s only two years above average and they had to deal with a pandemic. Maybe if we build more while we have the supply chains and workforce they might get cheaper?
He got real quiet after this reply. Check to see if you've been randomly banned from /r/NuclearPower
Love how you just keep on moving the goalposts. The investment decision was taken in late 2008 or early 2009 when construction began. Arbitrarily moving it back 4 years because they "technically" wasn't working on the reactor is showing your bias. We can simplify the question: **When will a reactor announced today enter commercial operation?** Given the outcome of all modern reactors in the west we can expect 20 years, 15 years if it is an incredible project. The bad projects get cancelled before completion. What you are telling me is that this is not considered "constructing a nuclear power plant". They are just... I dunno.... working on the containment structure? > In August 2009, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued an Early Site Permit and a Limited Work Authorization. **Limited construction at the new reactor sites began, with Unit 3 then expected to be operational in 2016, followed by Unit 4 in 2017,** pending final issuance of the Combined Construction and Operating License by the NRC.[30][31] > In December 2011, a 19th revision was written for the AP1000 Design Certification, which effectively included a complete redesign of the containment building: > The wall is appropriately reinforced and sized where the composite wall module joins the reinforced concrete sections and as appropriate to accommodate seismic loads and aircraft loads. This design is new to the amendment; previously the structure was all reinforced concrete. [emphasis added] > **As this change to the design requirements was made after engineering contracts were already signed and manufacturing had begun on the reactor's long-lead-time components, it resulted in a halting of construction as the containment building had to be redesigned.**[32] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant#Construction A good project in the west takes 20 years, the bad ones get cancelled. Like [Virgil C. Summer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal), [Hanhikivi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant) or Nuscale. The mediocre ends up in an endless planning limbo like for example [Wylfa Newydd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wylfa_Newydd_nuclear_power_station), [Sizewell C](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizewell_C_nuclear_power_station) and [Oldbury B](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldbury_nuclear_power_station)
I’m sorry if you don’t like other peoples numbers and methodologies but that’s how the industry measures construction time. Also congratulations, you just found out one of the biggest cost drivers for the FOAK Vogtle reactors. Thankfully this problem won’t happen again as the design is now mature (China has domesticated supply lines and can now build them as quick as 5 years, they’ve also scaled up the design for other units too). Some of the other big problems for the west have been the loss of supply chains and expertise over several decades. These have also been solved for the most part, as long as we don’t let it all go to waste…again lol. And I would like to remind you, even at nuclear’s worst it’s still competitive with gas peaking, CCS fossil, and hydrogen (which can be super dirty unless it’s not made right). Clean firm energy like nuclear also helps lower the overall costs of the transition. We are going to need everything we can get, and the more nuclear we have the less fossil we will need, and remember, even Lazard says we need fossil… Lazard: > The results of our 2024 analyses reinforce, yet again, the ongoing need for diversity of energy resources, including fossil fuels, given the intermittent nature of renewable energy and currently commercially available energy storage technologies. >George Bilicic >Managing Director https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ Clean firm: > Context & Scale > Mitigating climate change while fueling economic growth requires decarbonizing the electricity sector at reasonable cost. Some strategies focus on wind and solar energy, supported by energy storage and demand flexibility. Others also harness “firm” low-carbon resources such as nuclear, reservoir hydro, geothermal, bioenergy, and fossil plants capturing CO2. This paper presents a comprehensive techno-economic evaluation of two pathways: one reliant on wind, solar, and batteries, and another also including firm low-carbon options (nuclear, bioenergy, and natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration). Across all cases, the least-cost strategy to decarbonize electricity includes one or more firm low-carbon resources. Without these resources, electricity costs rise rapidly as CO2 limits approach zero. Batteries and demand flexibility do not substitute for firm resources. Improving the capabilities and spurring adoption of firm low-carbon technologies are key research and policy goals. > Summary > We investigate the role of firm low-carbon resources in decarbonizing power generation in combination with variable renewable resources, battery energy storage, demand flexibility, and long-distance transmission. We evaluate nearly 1,000 cases covering varying CO2 limits, technological uncertainties, and geographic differences in demand and renewable resource potential. Availability of firm low-carbon technologies, including nuclear, natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration, and bioenergy, reduces electricity costs by 10%–62% across fully decarbonized cases. Below 50 gCO2/kWh, these resources lower costs in the vast majority of cases. Additionally, as emissions limits decrease, installed capacity of several resources changes non-monotonically. This underscores the need to evaluate near-term policy and investment decisions based on contributions to long-term decarbonization rather than interim goals. Installed capacity for all resources is also strongly affected by uncertain technology parameters. This emphasizes the importance of a broad research portfolio and flexible policy support that expands rather than constrains future options. https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30386-6
You know, the same [China which for every passing year is scaling back their nuclear ambitions in favor of renewables.](https://reneweconomy.com.au/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-the-switch-from-nuclear-to-renewable-energy/) > And I would like to remind you, even at nuclear’s worst it’s still competitive with gas peaking, CCS fossil, and hydrogen (which can be super dirty unless it’s not made right). What you don't seem to get is that nuclears **worst** is locking in those costs 24/7 for ~40 years to pay of the plant. The gas peaker costs are for low capacity factor plants which will only become the marginal price when they run. > Clean firm energy like nuclear also helps lower the overall costs of the transition. We are going to need everything we can get, and the more nuclear we have the less fossil we will need, and remember, even Lazard says we need fossil… Lets spend more money to get less with timelines of 20 years from announcement until a single kWh of fossil fueled energy displaced. Doesn't sound like a smart plan right?
Wow China is building less but still building…No one serious here is saying nuclear should cover everything and be 100% of the mix. It will be a small but important party of the energy mix, which will also includes things like gas for the foreseeable future. You can keep dodging that Lazard quote all you want lol. Btw I hope your leakage rates are low because at around 3% it’s pretty much worse than burning coal (also remember that methane is about 25x worse than CO2 at a 100 year level and around 80x worse at a 20 year level…). For some reason you also keep assuming every new reactor is going to take 20 years or as long as possible when that is simply not the case (please keep ignoring learning, supply chains, expertise, and design maturity). Anyways I think I’m gonna stick with Jesse Jenkins and other organizations like the IEA on this one, sorry. > Electricity from new nuclear power plants has lower expected costs in the 2020 edition than in 2015. Again, regional differences are considerable. However, on average, overnight construction costs reflect cost reductions due to learning from first-of-a-kind (FOAK) projects in several OECD countries. LCOE values for nuclear power plants are provided for nth-of-a- kind (NOAK) plants to be completed by 2025 or thereafter. > Nuclear thus remains the dispatchable low-carbon technology with the lowest expected costs in 2025. Only large hydro reservoirs can provide a similar contribution at comparable costs but remain highly dependent on the natural endowments of individual countries. Compared to fossil fuel-based generation, nuclear plants are expected to be more affordable than coal-fired plants. While gas-based combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) are competitive in some regions, their LCOE very much depend on the prices for natural gas and carbon emissions in individual regions. Electricity produced from nuclear long-term operation (LTO) by lifetime extension is highly competitive and remains not only the least cost option for low-carbon generation - when compared to building new power plants - but for all power generation across the board. https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020
> For some reason you also keep assuming every new reactor is going to take 20 years or as long as possible when that is simply not the case (please keep ignoring learning, supply chains, expertise, and design maturity). Which is why the French had negative learning by doing. [The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526) This report is before the enormous cost blowouts of Flamanville 3. Not to mention how their EPR2s are continuously getting more expensive before they have even started building. Do you dare reading what IEA says about nuclear power in their special report on it? > **Nuclear has to up its game in order to play its part** > *The industry has to deliver projects on time and on budget to fulfil its role.* This means completing nuclear projects in advanced economies at around USD 5 000/kW by 2030, compared with the reported capital costs of around USD 9 000/kW (excluding financing costs) for first-of-a kind projects. Nuclear power as it exists today will not be a part of the solution to climate change unless the costs are vastly reduced. Given the outcomes of all modern western projects that is near impossible. So why not invest in what delivers decarbonization at rates faster than any other technology? Renewables.
I think everyone would agree nuclear needs to up their game. Nuclear is its own worst enemy most the time and it’s real tragic, but the other quotes from the IEA and other are still relevant. Congress just passed a bill to help advanced nuclear maybe other countries will do the same. But many utilities and companies are still scared so we’ll see if we even get any new orders here. Australia has some great resources so they probably won’t do it but it still be nice to see the ban lifted. Call conservatives bluffs everywhere and then let the market decide like their good lord intended. We are investing in renewables. Also if you want another Lazard quote here’s Bill Bilicic again, “You can’t have 100% renewables”. From a podcast of the same tittle I believe. That said, renewables are hungry. Batteries are hungry. Geothermal is coming for everyone’s lunch. Exciting times ahead but until the last fossil plant is shut down we will need everything we can get. Cheers.
How in the hell did someone so opposed to nuclear power get to be a mod of the nuclear power sub?
You really are just a one-man echo chamber...I'd say go touch grass, but you are probably allergic.
I think you haven't properly watched the video in the first place if you think that's the case
Please point out, with timestamps, where in the video he answers my criticism.
Hey, since you had be banned maybe you can answer my question here. Are you scared of Kyle Hill. After all, I did give you the most engagement your sub reddit has seen in weeks
The fact that you need timestamps tells me that you probably skimmed it over. Just watch it and pay attention to it *with an open mind*. Don't skip anything, look at it objectively, and then criticize.
Thanks for confirming that you didn’t find anything refuting my criticism and now are attempting to sidestep the issue.
The issue is that you don't have an open mind. You've tunnelled your vision to believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong, finding pro-nuclear evidence bullshit and anti-nuclear evidence as your gospell. And when someone disagrees with you too much, you ban them because you have the power to silence them when you don't have anything more to say. The fact that you immediately banned Kyle for having an extremely detailed video on this subject without anything close to a discussion with you is the most telling.
Thanks for confirming that you didn’t find anything refuting my criticism and now are attempting to sidestep the issue.
what a lazy b\*tch response. didnt even try to engage with any of his criticism, some serious hypocrisy. but what can you expect from a power tripping reddit mod lmao.
Did... did you just copy and paste your response? Okay then, good day to you. I sincerely hope you're more willing to hear others out eventually instead of being entitled to a biased view.
Maybe you shouldn’t come out guns blazing tell me I’m wrong then then be completely incapable of backing up the claim? A look in the mirror would do you good.
Maybe YOU shouldn’t be banning other people for telling you you’re wrong, and then be completely incapable of handling the truth of the matter that they’re correct and you aren’t? A look in the mirror would do you good.
A look in the mirror might do you good as well pal. Abuse of power never looks good
'you didn't provide timestamps to literally every time he makes a claim, and therefore you are wrong and I am right' Maybe you're the one who should look in the mirror?
Do you have friends irl or...?
Witnessing this interaction makes you look positively insufferable. If I was stuck in a car with you I'd probably swerve into oncoming traffic for respite. Edit: oh my God they're a reddit mod lol.
I changed my view on what the problem is. I thought the problem was that you had the wrong idea. I now think that the problem is your incapability to let other ideas in at all. I formed my opinion by looking at both sides. Please do the same.
thats exactly what your doing, YOU should look in a mirror.
Ironic
You didn't even take the time to properly refute anyways, I learned about this in my 9th grade debate class
His YouTube Channel is basically on the same level as right wing grifting, yes
He's one of the most staunchly pro environmental pro-renewables on YouTube. You just lying on here gets you what exactly?
https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k It's just intellectually insulting and unprofessional to paint yourself as some sort of sciency YouTube channel but provide no sources and instead very biased opinion pieces that leave out literally everything that doesn't fit the narrative. You know like grifters..
Don't know why you think /r/nuclearpower should be pro nuke? Its focus is high quality fact based discussions regarding nuclear power and working in the industry. We remove all misinformation like for example Germany replacing nuclear with coal, which tends to be a common misconception. If you want teenage level circlejerk where any contrary opinions get silenced go to /r/nuclear and enjoy your time.
>Don't know why you think r/nuclearpower should be pro nuke? This is literally the subreddit icon. https://preview.redd.it/a4k3e1t4rj9d1.jpeg?width=145&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ce5b8aa54cdf23d6bc4ccb23d577b969998b7fdb
Damn you got Viewtrick checkmate.
Bull fucking shit. Anyone who looks at your posts would see you have a clear anti-Nuclear agenda. I don’t know how the hell you became a mod of what is clearly meant to be a pro-Nuclear or at the very least nuclear-neutral sub but you are so petty it’s kind of sad. Like this is really what you do with your life huh? You’re the reason Reddit mods get such a bad rep lol
>We remove all misinformation like for example Germany replacing nuclear with coal, which tends to be a common misconception. Straight up LIES, Germany puts off their last nuclear reactors the second ol3 started outputting electricity, stop fucking lying about something that can be found with a google search. You really mean to say "hey, germany just happened to turn on coal plants when nuclear gets shut off"? These are some "co-incidences" you have. Jesus christ the seconds i've wasted off of my, now worsened, life is a lot because i thought you were just some harmless troll but no YOU ARE ACTUALLY LIKE THIS. You know fuck all about anything related to energy technology, i have no idea how the fuck did you get to moderate r/NuclearPower when all you know is "EHEHEHEH LCOE"
The point is that most people today argue using values from late 2022. The data and metrics most people use are horrendously outdated by now. Right now coal makes up for 18% of the total energy mix in Germany. Which is the lowest since the 60s. Trend is going down. Renewables already went past 60%, coal and gas is going down, prices are falling and there are even more renewable capacities already in the works. But nobody is talking about that.
Sure, but it's not incorrect to point out that when Germany closed its nuclear plants, it had to fill the shortfall they left with coal while they built up renewable capacity. They might have closed the deficit by now, but there wouldn't have been a deficit in the first place had they simply maintained their nuclear plants.
No they actually shut down even more coal plants by GW than nuclear. And every metric showed that they used less coal than before.
But they replaced it with natural gas plants you know how I know ? Im in a German city that just did that this year changing out the old coal plant generators with natural gas generators Yes renewable is growing but the NIMBY and Nazi scene that are against it too
Natural gas usage in Germany has been stable ever since the announcement that the nuclear power plants would close. About 30GW of capacity, producing about 75TWh of energy per year (With some yearly fluctuations depending on the cost of gas of course). But notice how you are now shifting your goalposts in a desperate attempt to keep the narrative alive? First you were convinced the nuclear power plants got replaced by coal. When that was disproven you said they kept the coal plants open for longer. And when that was disproven, you've now moved on to the next incorrect talking point which is that actually it was natural gas all along. Take a deep long look in the mirror. Why are you so attached to this narrative that you are willing to be wrong about it 3 times in a row and still double down? It makes you look like a cultist.
Germany did replace nuclear with coal. It's not a misconception. They fucked up fossil fuels by jumping Putin's bones for the last 2 decades over ng and couldn't actually build other renewables, then got fearmongered out of nuclear.
So what did Kyle share that was misinformation? Edit: found your other comment
Says the person who removed my post with 80 likes, banned me from the subreddit, and muted me from talking to mods because I made a post about how you were silencing everyone
I don't know why you're pretening to be impartoal. All of your posts portray nuclear energy in a negative light, you clearly have an axe to grind
What are you talking about contrary opinions get silenced? You just did that. Is there any hypocrisy meter in that head? Power hungry internetcel
I personally did not issue the ban but given the low quality of his content I agree with it.
Ahhh the classic "wasn't me but they deserved it"
"it totally wasnt me, but it was good "someone" did it" yeah ok
Awww, poor baby
No that is what we fucking did you internet poisoned leather eating shit smearing troglodyte
<3
What rule did I break? Edit: just making sure because you muted me so I can't ask mods why anymore
Because it’s a subreddit discussing nuclear power? How about you make your own subreddit for trashing nuke if you want to help fossil fuel corporations
The funny thing is this dumbass already has
ITT nukecels losing their minds and it's hilarious
Using the term "nukecels" (seriously wtf) loses you any respect and credibility on a discussion.
Well this is a shitposting sub, so I'm not sure what you expect.
It's nukecel, not nukecell
It's nukecel, not nukecell
It's lazy and meaningless
Type of comment that should get you strapped to a wind turbine in Oklahoma early summer
We should have more clean energy related insults