[seec]

You views on economy and value are very simplistic. It's all based on the false notion that everything we do has to turn a profit. I mean it's the dominant exploitative ideology from the US so I'm not surprised, but this is complete nonsense.

Generating electricity for your country/citizen does not need to turn a profit whatsoever. It generates value in itself, by allowing people to have a more confortable life and enabling industries that can make use of the power.

If you contest that renewable makes even less sense. They only generate less externalities locally that is beneficial to the world equally while exporting a large part of the value creation (and the externalities associated, the major reason china dominate).

On top of that, nuclear was actually profitable and has already paid for itself nicely. Germany knows that very well, which is exactly why they have worked very hard on political sabotage since the 90s. There is a bunch of EU rulings where EDF is forced to sell its electricty at a set price only to be resold later at a higher price by private actors for a "competitive" market. Germany required that because the way it was going, with the opening of homogenized market in the EU, there was no way neighboring country could be price competitive with the cheap french electricity.

China is currently building 10 reactors per year and not only they successfully reducing the construction cost, they are also successfully reducing the build time.

It would serve you well you let go of your ideology just a bit and make some serious research.

[ViewTrick1002]

> You views on economy and value are very simplistic. It's all based on the false notion that everything we do has to turn a profit. I mean it's the dominant exploitative ideology from the US so I'm not surprised, but this is complete nonsense.

Just pay for it with your taxes. Ask the French how that went with a debt at 114% of GDP.

You know, any day now they will get finalizing the absolutely bonkers insanely large subsidy package for the EPR2 fleet.

The next government surely will! You know, after the current one collapsed due to out of control spending.

> Generating electricity for your country/citizen does not need to turn a profit whatsoever. It generates value in itself, by allowing people to have a more confortable life and enabling industries that can make use of the power.

Which means you are paying for it with your taxes. The costs doesn't dissappear simply because you can't accept how horrifyingly expensive new built nuclear power is and are trying to shift the narrative.

I love how deep into pure waste you need to go to justify endless handouts to the dead-end nuclear industry.

Or we can you know, just build renewables and storage. Which in 2025 was expected to make up 92% of all grid additions in the US.

But new built nuclear coming online in the mid 2040s! That is what is needed!

> On top of that, nuclear was actually profitable and has already paid for itself nicely. Germany knows that very well, which is exactly why they have worked very hard on political sabotage since the 90s.

Which is of course why the French nuclear program needed absolutely insane subsidies to get built.

Nuclear power has never been economical and for example in the US it was collapsing already before Three Mile Island happened. Just too expensive.

> China is currently building 10 reactors per year and not only they successfully reducing the construction cost, they are also successfully reducing the build time.

Please stop with the misinformation? Not sure why you need to lie while telling me to do "serious research".

Reactors finished in China:

2025: 0

2024: 3

2023: 1

2022: 2

2021: 3

2020: 2

[seec]

China has 32 reactors under construction. They have approved construction of 10 new ones.

The share of nuclear power in China has increased every single year in the past 10 years.

Since you are going to lie and deny basic facts, I am not going to argue with you, clearly a waste of time. You are so blinded by ideology it's frightening, but I don't expect much else from an anti-nuclear zealot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/ten-new-reactors... https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-reactor-database/summary/C...

[ViewTrick1002]

Why did you lie? Your direct quote is?

> China is currently building 10 reactors per year

They are very much not building 10 reactors per year. Like I just showed you. China finished 3 reactors in 2024 and zero soon 9 months into 2025.

We can also go to construction starts. You know the figure when money finally start changing hands and a reactor likely gets built, unless it becomes a Virgil C. Summer being a very expensive hole in the ground. [1]

- 2025: 4 reactors

- 2024: 6 reactors

- 2023: 5 reactors

- 2022: 5 reactors

- 2021: 6 reactors

- 2020: 5 reactors

Let's skip political announcements since those are dime a dozen nowadays. They are only done to placate voters like you who rage at the headlines and does not have the curiosity to look further.

> The share of nuclear power in China has increased every single year in the past 10 years.

Now you lie again. Nuclear power peaked at 4.77% in 2021 and is in 2024 down to 4.47%. [1]

Given your exit from this conversation you truly must be frightened by the truth about nuclear costs and the reality on the ground in China.

Do you have a stake in the nuclear industry?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal

[1]: https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?ent...

[seec]

I misremembered/misunderstood from an interview I watched on the subject a while ago. In any case, it's hardly a lie but an imprecision at most.

It seems they have hit a bump in the rollout but it could also related to data gathering / grid connection. Unless you know an expert in the field in China you are just speculating about things you clearly don't know (because you objectively can't).

Then you are nitpicking for a fraction of a percent, which is beyond retarded and is subject to data choice/error. I don't remenber where I found the original data (probably the wiki for nuclear in China) but here is another source contraticting your bullshit. https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/chin... Clearly nuclear gained almost 7% capacity, so you are just stupidly wrong.

No I don't have any stake in the nuclear industry, not that it matters or make any difference. I'm just more pragmatic and fully realise that renewable aren't sufficient in the short-medium term. Germany that has started rollout a long time ago still has more than 10 years to go to even be able to cover their current needs and that's before even talking about the storage needs. They also have very low penetration of electric residential heating (precisely because their high electricity cost) and will be extremely reliant on fossil fuel for the forseable future. Their economy has tanked in part because the rising costs of their fossil fuel inputs and they import quite a lot of electricity. Meanwhile France with it's "terrible" nuclear power is net exporter.

The funny thing is that I'm not saying we shouldn't do renewables, just that we also need to keep investing in nuclear, at the very least to insure minimal base load for the bad weather periods.

You are clearly a believer of the neo-liberal bullshit with it's absurd focus on costs that pretends everything needs to make a profit in monetary terms. It's just shortsighted nonsense that is largely irrelevant at the level of industrial planning for a country. By this measure we should also stop any military nuclear programm and all kinds of stuff that are not directly profitable like fundamental research. You do not realise that a basic need like reliable access to electricity being paid by taxes is a benefit to the society and potential industries it allows. At the same time you conveniently ignore the fact that Germany subsidize it's "green" energy way beyond what it cost France to build it's nuclear fleet. This is fully reflected in the difference in price of electricty between the two countries and that's after Germany went out of its way to sabotage the too competitive nuclear industry by political corruption (like for example the partnership with Siemens for the buildout of Flamanville which is one of the primary reason for it being so late/expensive).

You are just a troll, an ideologically driven political activist spouting random talking points without any coherent view of the complete problem. That is the reason I do not wish to pursue more argumentation, you clearly can't realise how crude your discourse is.

That being said, it doesn't even matter what some zealots like you believe, thankfully policy makers aren't taking advice from random shitposter and there is definitely a renewed interest and planning for nuclear power, basically everywhere. So you can cry about it but I don't even care about proving my point because it will be the de facto choice, since there aren't any other one as things stand at the moment.

[ViewTrick1002]

> I'm just more pragmatic and fully realise that renewable aren't sufficient in the short-medium term.

Which is why we should lock in the solution not delivering a single new kWh until the mid 2040s. Sounds reasonable?

You should also read some research on the topic before again coming with falsehoods. The scientific consensus is that renewable systems works.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910

> The funny thing is that I'm not saying we shouldn't do renewables, just that we also need to keep investing in nuclear, at the very least to insure minimal base load for the bad weather periods.

Which tells me you don't understand how the grid works. Why should someone with rooftop solar and a home battery buy your extremely expensive nuclear powered electricity when they are swimming in their own?

Well. They don't. Meaning capacity factors crater.

Should we calculate what running Flamanville 3 at a 40% equivalent capacity factor costs? We are now somewhere around 35 cents per kWh excluding transmission cost.

Then three paragraphs of personal attacks to round it off because the nuclear logic does not compute.