←back to thread

542 points xbmcuser | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.923s | source
Show context
flanked-evergl[dead post] ◴[] No.45037789[source]
[flagged]
Moldoteck ◴[] No.45038123[source]
Deploy both. Wind has advantage of being built faster because nuclear industry was f-ed up. Check out nr of Westinghouse employees now vs it's glory times.
replies(1): >>45038239 #
1. flanked-evergl ◴[] No.45038239[source]
The nuclear industry was not f-ed up, western governments are f-ed up. We regulate things to the point where everything has to be manufactured in China where it is much more environmentally harmful and they treat workers way worse, but we then still import the things. It's the same with Energy, EU regulated their way into an Energy crisis and the only solution was to become completely dependent on Russian energy to the point where even in 2024 EU paid more to Russia for energy than they gave in aid to Ukraine.

And wind, even if it was not a pipe dream, does not escape this. Norway cannot make wind power feasible at all, it will never be able to do that, because even if it could in theory be feasible, which I doubt, our regulation makes it impossible even after the government has thrown billions of dollars of our tax money after it.

We do not need wind, wind is not faster, it's not better, it's not going to fix Europe's energy crisis. Nuclear can and will, but the impediment there is not the nuclear industry, its the crony European politicians that run our economy in China's favour.

replies(1): >>45038307 #
2. Moldoteck ◴[] No.45038307[source]
Wind for nordics is great because it helps reducing water use and avoid drought problems for hydro

Nuclear is still needed since expanding hydro isn't an option. And it's great for district heating in the north

You are right about regulations but even if you fix em now, framatome and whouse are just some shadows of what they've been in the past compared to current rosatom/chinese nuclear. Ramping up to the past lvl will be hard.

Fyi, I'm not sure but I think the statement about funding Ukraine is a bit misleading because EU as a whole and each EU country have different funding and budget mechanisms. Maybe I'm wrong but I remember I've read something about this in the past

replies(1): >>45038597 #
3. flanked-evergl ◴[] No.45038597[source]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/24/eu-spends-more...

> Europe estimated to have bought €22bn of fossil fuels from Russia in 2024 but gave €19bn to support Kyiv

Norway was never anywhere near having drought problems and what the Labour Party did has not reduced water usage by Hydro at all, they made it worse.

replies(1): >>45038748 #
4. Moldoteck ◴[] No.45038748{3}[source]
Yeah, your link is straightforward - It takes all fossils imports from Russia but for Ukraine help it takes only EU fund value, ignoring additional individual state contributions. If you add those I think the sum is larger. Not justifying gas imports in any way, just observing

Norway does definitely have problems to takle

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/08/20/n... https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/southern-norway-...