Too many things are left unsaid => too many assumptions. As usual, even with human beings specifications are key, and context (what each entity knows about the other one or the situation) is an implicit part of them.
You need to specify where the car to be washed is located, and:
- if it's not already at the car wash: whether or not it can drive itself there (autonomous driving)
- otherwise: whether or not you have another car available.
Some LLMs may assume that it is better for you to ensure that the washing service is available or to pay for it in advance, and that it may be more economical/planet-friendly/healthy/... to walk, then check/pay, then if OK to drive back.
Nothing so deep as that needed here to understand what is going on; it's a paid vs free issue - free versions are less competent while paid versions of the reasoning/thinking models are getting it right. Different providers may hobble their free versions less, so those ones also get it right.
The guardrails you have outlined will help squeeze out more performance from smaller/less capable models, but you shouldn't have to jump through these hoops as a general user when clearly better models exist.
I know about it, affected components were replaced. They still built it relatively on time and on budget
"On 7 February 2014, the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission declared that its investigation since mid-2013, they found eight cases out of 2,075 samples of foreign manufactured reactor components that were supplied with fake documents."
Nope. 7 years late (plan: 2017, last reactor diverged in 2024).
Total cost not known, at least 24.5 billion USD and maybe up to 32 according to Bloomberg (plan: 20). Koreans are even fighting: KHNP (a subsidiary of KEPCO, the company building the plant) officially seeks for about 1.2 billion USD in compensation ( https://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=... ) and it may worsen up.
8bn/unit is successful considering fla3 was 23bn. 8y/unit is successful, several in parallel with 1y distance, considering fla3/vogtle took about 20y.
Yes. It is a success.
Korea also announced they plan to build two additional reactors domestically by 2038
I've seen what a success Energiewende was. Really top notch execution to spend more than the entire french fleet and after 25y to have much worse emissions, while planning to have 80GW gas firming per Fraunhofer ISE to cover under generation periods
> 8bn/unit is successful considering that FL3 was 23bn.
Yes, a failure is better than a disaster. As we say in France, "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
> Korea also announced their plan.
For 25 years, numerous announcements of this kind have been made by many nations, without any real intention of following through, and for various reasons (electoral considerations, will to create competition for renewable energy suppliers, etc.).
Only projects that are actually starting (on the ground) provide a good indication.
> Energiewende
> spends more than the entire French fleet
On the one hand, France's transition to nuclear power began with the first industrial nuclear power reactor (dubbed "EDF1") in 1957. In 1959, the project for the power plant that would be completed in Chooz in 1967 began, and as early as 1964, nuclear power was presented to the public as the energy source that would take over in 1975 (correctly predicting that in Europe it would produce 25% of electricity 20 years later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6Xfu8u3Yqw).
This nuclearization lasted approximately 40 years.
Furthermore, nuclear power did not replace a huge set of existing electricity-producing sector, such as coal in Germany, because in 1970 France produced about four times less electricity than at the end of its nuclear power deployment: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by...
In short: comparing France's nuclearization with the Energiewende is extremely difficult, and a direct comparison absurd.
> planning to have 80GW of gas-fired power plants
In early 2026, Germany announced it would deploy new gas-fired power plants. The impact depends on the corresponding emissions. If they are only all active for a few hours a year to get through critical periods and (as planned) replace coal or primarily burn green hydrogen, for example, then it will be progress (reducing emissions). The best-case scenario is a full renewable fleet but Rome wasn't built...
1- 8bn/unit is pretty acceptable if you adjust for capacity factors and compare to solar projects in say Germany that would on avg deliver same power per year and even better if you want firm power.
2- announcement is recent and made by a somewhat antinuclear PM which changed the course seeing that ren alone are not sufficient. It's in the context when Korea will soon finish 2 units locally. In fact if for some reason govt will change there, plans will probably accelerate
Why should I read a nonsensical antinuclear article by a rando on the internet when there are official numbers from court of auditors? The numbers of french nuclear program are available. And even if you bump them by 50%, it'll still be cheaper than german EEG expenditure alone and the difference only grows
"This nuclearization lasted approximately 40 years." But messmer plan took much less. We are talking about accelerated deployment and spending. France beat Germany in both. Or maybe we should start counting for germany from the moment first solar panel was deployed there instead of Energiewende proposal? It'll make things look even worse. A direct comparison isn't absurd. Numbers are known in both cases and you clearly want to ignore them. Talking about french prosperous period when DE is biggest EU economy is strange too.
To say gas plants will burn hydrogen when merely 25% mix is already worse economically than failed nuclear projects like Vogtle is at least laughable. The announced gas plants dont match the numbers demanded by Fraunhofer, mostly because EU rules dont allow that. So basically germany is stuck in a strange position where it needs firming but it cannot build it.
Again, France spent considerably less and did the job much faster while Germany still struggles while it's best hope is to have some magical cheap hydrogen to replace gas...
Deeming dispatchable power necessary was valid as long as the technical means (long-distance, high-capacity transmission, smart grids, energy storage, network management software capable of reacting quickly enough and optimizing the system, voltage stabilization and current frequency synthesis tools, etc.) that would have allowed for a mostly non-dispatchable way to generate electricity were too expensive, insufficient, or simply nonexistent.
Now these means exist, and experts assert that it is no longer necessary to deploy a large proportion of dispatchable generation capacity. Therefore, from a technical standpoint, an electrical system based on renewables with the largest resources (wind and solar, which are not dispatchable) is feasible: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/25/will-renewable-energy-d...
> compare to solar projects
"With the cost of storing electricity at $65/MWh, storing 50% of a day’s solar generation for use during the night-time hours adds $33/MWh to the total cost of solar. The global average price of solar in 2024 was $43/MWh. Turning this cheap daytime electricity into a dispatchable profile that is closer to an actual demand profile, would therefore result in a total electricity cost of $76/MWh."
https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/how-cheap-is-batter...
The total cost of nuclear power, even when building and managing waste without exceeding the budget, even without accidents, even without uranium supply problems..., is already much higher than that.
He's dead, Jim.
> 2- announcement
> plans will probably accelerate
> Why should I read a nonsensical antinuclear article by a rando on the internet
It is sourced (or you may pinpoint what isn't).
> when there are official numbers from court of auditors?
The referenced article quotes thems!
> even if you bump them by 50%, it'll still be cheaper than german EEG expenditure alone
The cost of the energy transition in Germany is sometimes cited as €300 billion, €500 billion, or even €1.5 trillion.
These figures are worthless because no reputable source publishes a specific figure along with its scope (some aspects of the investments needed for the electricity grid are independent of the energy source) and at least a timeframe.
These figures are actually projections published by various sources, covering distant timeframes (2050, etc.) and encompassing the entire electricity system (including non-renewable energy sources).
We had the same sort of propaganda in France, then EDF (Big Chief of the French nuclear sector) boss stated in public that about 50% of the projected network-related costs are not tied to renewables ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEdQz3hGlf0&t=328s ).
> "This nuclearization lasted approximately 40 years." But messmer plan took much less.
> Numbers are known in both cases and you clearly want to ignore them.
The afore-referenced articles states and sources facts and data. You don't.
> Talking about french prosperous period when DE is biggest EU economy
'Prosperous' is more-or-less 'density', not extension. This past prosperity (massively benefitting to the Messmer Plan) is an historical indeniable fact ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses ).
> gas plants
> hydrogen when merely 25% mix is already worse economically than failed nuclear projects like Vogtle
This is not valid as in this context those hydrogen plants are prototypes, while Vogtle (and other recent projects aiming at building nuclear reactors) are theoritically mastered since the 1970's (Messmer Plan...).
> The announced gas plants dont match the numbers demanded by Fraunhofer, mostly because EU rules dont allow that. So basically germany is stuck in a strange position where it needs firming but it cannot build it.
Indeed, and it may imply that more coal will be burnt. This is ridiculous.
> magical cheap hydrogen
This is indeed a bet, but a non-inept one ( https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news... ), especially as the amount of electricity overproduced by renewables, reflected by episodes of low or even negative spot prices, is constantly increasing.
An accident spreading hazardous substances over a large geographical area that are difficult to contain (or waste of this type) is unique to nuclear power; no renewable energy source poses such a threat.
Another problem is the urgency (due to the impacts) combined with the difficulty of modifying power plants as required by "lessons learned," in other words, bug fixes. Modifying or repairing solar panels or wind turbines is easier than working on a reactor and results in a smaller reduction in the plant's output. The effects of this are significant.
The number of victims (and more generally, the health impacts) of nuclear power depends on the method of analysis, which is controversial. This is true for Chernobyl and Fukushima, where the evacuation triggered by the nuclear accident officially caused 2,202 deaths (2019 count), and 2,313 according to the International Nuclear Association.
Even the maximum potential impact of an accident is debated.
The full impact of nuclear power will at best only be known after all dismantling is complete and the last cold waste is disposed of (before this deadline any mishap or stray waste can be costly), in a few thousand years.
renewables are still made from different substances, one of which is copper. One byproduct of copper is extremely toxic- arsenic, and it's spills are not that different in terms of dangers. That's the point. For nuclear at least, over time decay happens, esp for most dangerous isotopes, but for chemical waste - it's forever.
Nuclear still has higher capacity factor than any VRE.
Evacuation numbers for Fukushima are accounted in the stat. But it's also worth mentioning Japanese govt acknowledged most of the deaths are caused by extreme evacuation measures that werent needed, but govt ignored the data it had to enforce them. The panic against nuclear caused them, not radiation.
Arsenic: this only plays during mining (recycling is OK), and efficient measures are already in place (where and when was it a problem, and at which extent?)
> capacity factor
So what? Capacity factor (or another similar quantity such as physical efficiency, operating life, etc.) is a salient criterion in the case of equipment consuming materials or fuel without recycling them, or producing waste in quantity or in the long term that is dangerous... therefore does not concern nuclear power but hardly concerns renewables.
A low yield makes deployment more expensive but, considered alone, is not prohibitive: a mix of renewables producing adequately (quantity, permanence, impacts, total cost including recycling, etc.) is a good solution whatever its yield.
> most of the deaths are caused by extreme evacuation measures that werent needed
This is disputed and the real amplitude of the threat was not known during the nuclear accident. The tiny evacuation ordered was minimally cautious as experts predicted, during the accident, that the worst cast would imply evacuating up to 50 millions persons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naoto_Kan#In_media
There are some very recent arsenic spills events in copper mines...
Nuclear fuel can be recycled, just like renewables. It's mostly not done because it's cheaper not to, just like in renewables
The danger was known based on multiple data points. Japanese govt ignored them. And they acknowledged evacuation was not necessary in the way it was implemented
Capacity factor is important to understand how much firming you need
Indeed, but nothing comparable to the spills at Chernobyl or Fukushima.
> Nuclear fuel can be recycled
Only once, and France, an industrial leader in this area, only manages to recycle 10% of its reactor fuel this way.
> It's mostly not done because it's cheaper not to, just like in renewables
No, that's completely false. Closing the fuel cycle was considered the Holy Grail as early as the 1950s, because everyone knew that uranium deposits would greatly limit the expansion of nuclear power. The industrialization of reactors of the most promising architecture (fast neutron-breeders, sodium-cooled) as well as others, attempted at great length and expense in many countries, failed everywhere ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Notable_reacto... ), there is no ready-to-deploy model of such reactor, and this approach has been virtually abandoned, replaced by the pursuit of fusion.
> The danger was known based on multiple data points
Before the major nuclear accident at Fukushima, the formulas for calculating seismic risk (the tsunami was triggered by an earthquake) were incorrect because they neglected very old earthquakes. The cause was an inability to properly assess the risk. This inability was not universal, as some (for example, Y. Hirai in the case of the Onagawa nuclear power plant, which was closer to the earthquake's epicenter and withstood the earthquake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20...) did take the necessary precautions.
> They acknowledged evacuation was not necessary in the way it was implemented.
Arms-chair tacticians are verbose after the fact, but nowhere to be found when the problem was an ongoing challenge and experts described the worst-case scenario. The testimony of the prime minister at the time, referenced above, is perfectly clear.
> Capacity factor is important to understand how much firming you need.
No value is prohibitive, as there are many other pertinent parameters.
The nuclear industry rightly fears excessive standardization because the more units of a given reactor model are built, the more drastically production is reduced by the discovery of a serious bug that leads to their immediate shutdown.
This is one of the major design problems of SMRs (along with the abandonment of economies of scale).
Consider the lower production cost of renewable electricity: in the long run, it offsets the investment. Bonus: no risk of accidents, no hazardous waste, no dependence on a fuel source, no weapons proliferation...
Decentralizing solar power reduces electricity transmission costs and improves reliability. This doesn't offset the additional cost, but it's not negligible.
If the grid gets heavily overloaded, the frequency and voltage drop. And home-based grid-tie solar will shut itself off when it's most needed. This is fragile and DEcreases reliability.
Strategically, if nuclear power experiences a resurgence, procuring uranium could become difficult because the superpowers (Russia, China, and the US) will want to reserve it for themselves, and corresponding efforts have already begun.
The majority of nuclear-producing nations (Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc.) will immediately comply.
Wind and sun, however, cannot be confiscated or withheld by blockade or embargo.
There is so much uranium in the ground (in the west too) that it doesn’t make sense to ”keep it” for yourself. Why would Russia wanna keep a supply for the next one million years instead of selling it and get money today? Same with all other countries with uranium.
Regarding known and exploited or rapidly exploitable deposits, we are very, very far from millions of years:
"As of 2017, identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg were 6.14 million tons (compared to 5.72 million tons in 2015). At the rate of consumption in 2017, these reserves are sufficient for slightly over 130 years of supply"
You're forgetting about the supply chain. Who manufactures all the solar panels and wind turbines? Honest question - are we increasing the risks of becoming energy dependent on China? Or does Europe have the ability to manufacture its own?
AFAIK all the raw materials (maybe not all top-notch, especially from the get go, but usable) and all the know-how exist in Europe (at worst currently working abroad), where many nations want to reindustrialize and gain autonomy.
In France numerous projects appear. Some may be too ambitious, some with a Chinese partner. In any case we will re-learn, and it will be less difficult than creating usable uranium without any adequate ore here!
Nuclear power resurgence is bullshit and it will always remain a drop in the bucket, especially for large countries. US has too much natural gas, China too much renewables, Russia well, it's of virtually no economic impact worldwide and whatever they might do is irrelevant (unless they nuke us).
Any country that starts a new nuclear power plant construction today won't finish it before electricity will be comprehensively solved by renewables. It pertains even to dictatorship where public opinion does not exist and there's no red tape (Belarus: 14 years from decision to first reactor start) let alone not in free countries. It puts them into 2040+. In EU let's say there will be certainly no fossil fuel electricity at all, maybe apart from few percents of natgas for prolonged quiet periods in winter, and whatever nuclear power remains will be easy to replace. China? go figure, they have a problem of removing coal generation and that's essentially same as nuclear from standpoint of its behaviour on the grid, and there is so much more coal, nuclear will be squashed simply as a byproduct of whatever solution (which will likely be solar+batteries) they come up with.
We must take into account the public money spent to build and maintain the electricity system. In France, for example, electricity is cheaper than in most similar countries, but nuclear power costs taxpayers a huge amount of money.
In 2010 A. Merkel decreed a 12-year delay of the nuclear phase-out schedule ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#Chang... ), then the Fukushima accident happened (2011), then public opinion did demand a quick nuclear phase-out and no government could resist.
Hanno Klausmeier wrote what follows:
CDU / CSU : Center right parties, Christian democrats
FDP: Right wing liberals, moving to libertarians (Koch line)
SPD: Social democrats, oldest party in Germany, old fashioned, a certain proximity to Unions.
Greens: Rather left wing liberals, ecologic positions.
Who is in the government right now?
SPD the Greens and the FDP. Do they like each other? No they hate each other but they are forced to work together.
In the current political discussion the CDU/CSU (especially the CSU from Bavaria) are complaining the current government switched off the last remaining nuclear plants in Germany. The FDP which is part of the government is also criticizing the switch off of the last nuclear plants albeit being in the same government.
Now lets take a look which parties switched most of the nuclear plants off since Fukushima?
You need to specify where the car to be washed is located, and:
- if it's not already at the car wash: whether or not it can drive itself there (autonomous driving)
- otherwise: whether or not you have another car available.
Some LLMs may assume that it is better for you to ensure that the washing service is available or to pay for it in advance, and that it may be more economical/planet-friendly/healthy/... to walk, then check/pay, then if OK to drive back.
reply