u/mpweiher

LOL. I accept your total and unconditional capitulation on the facts.

You may now continue in the category "childish insults" and crown yourself victorious.

Congratulations!

Thanks for sharing your fantasy.

That's not actually reality, though.

The sun "may" also go Nova tomorrow. Or we "may" be swallowed by a small black hole. In the Real World™, nuclear power plants are insured, the only "problem" the insurance industry has with nuclear is that the risk is too low, so it is difficult to price.

Oh, and the two countries that had major nuclear accidents both are enthusiastically expanding their use. Partly because the costs of turning off nuclear far, far outweigh any risks.

But what do they know, I mean compared to Random Reddit User™??

The provider is 100% liable.

Please inform yourself of the basics before joining the discussion.

Thanks!

Incorrect. Base load. Load.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load

Please come back once you've familiarized yourself with the basics.

That is simply false.

In the real world, pretty much the entire industrialized world is keeping their nuclear fleets, expanding them or getting into nuclear.

Of the 10 countries I am aware of that had officially decided to get out of nuclear, 7 have since rescinded that decision:

Japan, South Korea, Sweden, Holland, Belgium, Taiwan, Italy.

That's already more than a 2/3 majority. Of countries that once had a phaseout decision!

But actually two more are pretty shaky: Switzerland has already announced it will remove the prohibition against building new nuclear, and at least one Kanton has requested permission to build.

And the Spanish parliament had already passed a (non-binding) resolution on keeping nuclear, even before the #SpainOut. After the Spainout, the operator has kept significantly more nuclear in the grid, and the Spanish energy minister has stated publicly that she's open to keeping nuclear in the mix.

So that would then be 9/10.

Although it is actually factually wrong and a fallacy, let's run with this "majority of experts" thing for a bit.

You know which experts think Germany is being shortsighted and foolish?

Nearly all of them.

Pretty much the entire industrialized world is either keeping their nuclear fleets, expanding them or getting into nuclear.

China and India: massive expansion in progress.

United States: massive expansion is official policy and now starting

Japan, South-Korea, Holland, Belgium, Sweden: wanted to exit nuclear, rescinded decision, now expanding.

UK: massive expansion is government policy, recently approved Sizewell C and Rolls Royce SMRs

France: effective moratorium rescinded in March 2023

etc.

Er...maybe that one is production, the other is consumption?

I am not sure which would be worse, someone not being able to tell the difference between production and consumption or someone not caring about that difference.

In either case that someone should probably not be discussing power grids.

LOL. The same Fraunhofer ISE that "calculated" nuclear to be more than 10x more expensive than it is in reality.

Fraunhofer ISE is not a credible research organization any more, they are just pro-renewables lobby.

Also, as the paper you cited, but obviously either did not read or did not understand, clearly states, what is disputed is the need for base load *generation*. Not for *base load*, which, as I pointed out and the paper confirms, is just as physical fact.

Yes, it's current, for the year 2024. And in fact the difference has gotten worse, in 2023 it was only factor 8.

2025 will probably be worse still, as the first quarter saw an increase in Germany emissions and coal consumption relative to the same quarter in 2024, despite massive buildout of wind and solar in 2024.

The source is electricitymaps.

If you have a credible contradictory source: go ahead!

Baseload is not a "necessity". It just *is*.

The law will have to be adapted to reality. Because physics doesn't adapt to our ill-conceived laws.

Just like when some state legislature in the US passed a law that π was now 3.

Had very little effect in the real world.

No, I was talking about electricity. There it is more than 10x. worse. 31g / kWh for France und 440g / kWh for Germany.

The non-electricity sectors obviously don't benefit from that difference, yet. But they will.

Our electricity has a Carbon footprint that is 10x worse than France's.

And the difference is increasing, not decreasing.

Because volatile electricity generation is also decreasing, despite massive buildout.

We are seeing unfavorable weather and increasing curtailments.

No it won't.

Unless we build out gas, massively. Or reactivate nuclear.

We don't have the stable baseload generating capacity we need.

Germany's Atomausstieg was the equivalent of one Tschernobyl.

Per year.

And it also cost upwards of €600 billion and took upwards of 20 years. So far. For that money, we mostly just replaced a reliable and cheap CO₂ free electricity source with one that is unreliable and expensive. And we're at best 50% done. With the easier 50%, because we still maintain a full fossil-fuel electricity system that provides the reliable energy.

Even Germany was building in ~6 years for under DM 7 billion just before we stopped building.

And the French built ~50 reactors in 15 years. The entire industry cost them €228 billion.

We know how to do this.

We also know how not to do this. For example, at the same time the Konvois were being built for DM 7 billion and in 6 years, a single "one off" plant took twice as long and cost twice as much.

And all the recent builds in the West were (a) on-offs (b) FoaK (c) built without an experienced industrial base. The EPR in Europe also appears to be appallingly difficult to build. It even took the Chinese 10 years to build theirs, which is twice as long as it usually takes them (part of that was FoaK).

They declined to build any more EPRs.

Instead they standardized on the Westinghouse AP-1000. The first two of which also took them quite some time to build, similar to the Vogtles in the US. But there the problems were more temporary.

Yeah, which it uses for solar cell manufacturing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57124636

Not for nuclear reactors.

Do you have any evidence for the claim hat China's safety standards for nuclear are "much lower"?

Or just basic random xenophobia?

The state does not cap liability. This is simply false. The operators have unlimited liability. And unlike almost any other sort of liability there is a shortcut: even if someone else is actually responsible for the damage, it is still the operators who are liable.

So you are woefully uninformed, as with all your other claims.

Reactivation is a lot simpler than you think: most of the components in a nuclear power plant get replaced all the time, particularly during an uprate or a life-extension. A reactivation is just the same, except you don't have to remove the existing equipment, as it is already gone. So actually simmer.

Your claim that the 5 cent/kWh doesn't cover full lifecycle costs is simply false. The nuclear electricity price was always full lifecycle. Unlike most other electricity generation technologies!

Lifetime extensions are comparably cheap, which is why everyone is doing them. And reactivations are similar. For example what is currently being done with TMI in the US for Microsoft.

Safety concerns are due almost entirely to the well-researched phenomenon called Radiophobia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia

Nuclear power is the safest electricity generation source we have, just by 2011 it had already saved 1.8 million lives. Just the Germany Atomausstieg by itself, on the other hand, was equivalent to 1 Tschernobyl.

Per Year.

You seem to conflate "coined the term" with "used the term in a scientific publication".

Those two are very, very different things, and you're not going to find an answer to the former while looking for the latter.

And your confusion of terms is, as far as I can tell, exactly the thing that "doesn't add up".

The thoughts on glue-code/boilerplate mirror mine almost exactly.

My hypothesis is that a large or even overwhelming reason for this is that we have an architectural mismatch between what our languages can express and the architectures we actually need to build.

Objective-S is my attempt to fix this. It seems to be working.

One huge difference of SVE is that it is vector-length agnostic, like RISC-V's vector extension. This means the same instructions can work with different vector lengths and with different sizes of hardware registers/ALUs, unlike existing SIMD extensions that have to be updated every time you get more bits.

Apparently the x86 instruction set grew from 80 to over 1400 instructions mainly due to ever changing SIMD instruction sets.

https://www.sigarch.org/simd-instructions-considered-harmful/

So don't do that?

We should be able to use the architectural style appropriate for the problem domain. A lot of (most?) the time, we simply shove data around, yet still there is abstraction, and we shouldn't be forced to shoe-horn our CRUD-like applications into procedural form just to be able to abstract.

And if you have flows, you probably want to be able to express that with a (data-)flow-ish mechanism.

And yes, when there's actual computation, then you probably want something procedural/functional.

Why Architecture Oriented Programming Matters

I think event sourcing is great, see

https://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/EventPoster.html

On the other hand: is the web built on event sourcing?

I agree that REST/CRUD is boring, but maybe boring is good? And certainly most of our apps are, for the most part, pretty boring.

https://youtu.be/EKWGGDXe5MA?t=279