Zion's thesis is correct; the pro-nuclear forces are succeeding essentially everywhere, and the negative messaging of Greenpeace et. alii. has largely been rejected. The vast bulk of the taxpaying citizens never cared for their messaging anyway, largely indifferent to their relentless fearmongering.
Ontario is holding public hearings this year and next year on new nuclear power plants in the province. It has no choice, as electricity demand is being driven by population growth. Italy is considering the need for new nuclear power to offset its permanent dependence on imported natural gas. Japan is restarting idled nuclear plants after Fukushima. Britain needs new nuclear simply to replace the existing old nuclear plants that have to be retired over the next decade. Rumania has contracted to build Cernavoda 3 and 4. Poland has partnered to build its first nuclear power plants. UAE wants more NPPs after its success with Barakkah.
But not Germany. It is a lost cause. It was betrayed by corrupt politicians with its political and environmental spheres infiltrated by the Soviet KGB. The corruption was blatant and public, which is how a former German Chancellor ended up as the head of Gazprom. At this time, Germany is doomed to enriching France and whatever neighbours have surplus electricity generated from nuclear power. The KGB and the German coal unions have triumphed in their long campaign against nuclear power, and the result is the growing de-industrialization of Germany.
Thanks for the upbeat report. Nuclear power plants are needed, and this is starting to be recognized by people in a bipartisan way, and it's gathering momentum, which is really good news. When democrats and republicans, environmentalists, climate activists and climate deniers can all start to agree that nuclear is the obvious answer, we'll finally be able to quit arguing and get something positive done. The only trouble is, it takes years to build new power plants, and we're going to go through some lengthy periods of blackout pain while waiting for the new plants to be built.
We need a world energy model that includes all clean energy sources, users, and transport of energy; including the hourly, daily, and seasonal peaks and valleys of user requirements.
This is a large undertaking, but the data is available from the energy producers of each country.
One of the advantages of nuclear power is the small footprint of nuclear generation that can be near the energy users minimizing energy transport.
I see reports like this everywhere and similarly read about actual projects, both large and SMR being massively delayed and creating much higher costs than planned. How will that work out.
Another question is the supply of uranium, where will it come from when the goal of tripling nuclear energy worldwide is achieved? My information is that known resources would last 130 years with today’s consumption. That would reduce it to less than 40 years with the expansion. How will this work out?
Zion's thesis is correct; the pro-nuclear forces are succeeding essentially everywhere, and the negative messaging of Greenpeace et. alii. has largely been rejected. The vast bulk of the taxpaying citizens never cared for their messaging anyway, largely indifferent to their relentless fearmongering.
Ontario is holding public hearings this year and next year on new nuclear power plants in the province. It has no choice, as electricity demand is being driven by population growth. Italy is considering the need for new nuclear power to offset its permanent dependence on imported natural gas. Japan is restarting idled nuclear plants after Fukushima. Britain needs new nuclear simply to replace the existing old nuclear plants that have to be retired over the next decade. Rumania has contracted to build Cernavoda 3 and 4. Poland has partnered to build its first nuclear power plants. UAE wants more NPPs after its success with Barakkah.
But not Germany. It is a lost cause. It was betrayed by corrupt politicians with its political and environmental spheres infiltrated by the Soviet KGB. The corruption was blatant and public, which is how a former German Chancellor ended up as the head of Gazprom. At this time, Germany is doomed to enriching France and whatever neighbours have surplus electricity generated from nuclear power. The KGB and the German coal unions have triumphed in their long campaign against nuclear power, and the result is the growing de-industrialization of Germany.
Thanks for the upbeat report. Nuclear power plants are needed, and this is starting to be recognized by people in a bipartisan way, and it's gathering momentum, which is really good news. When democrats and republicans, environmentalists, climate activists and climate deniers can all start to agree that nuclear is the obvious answer, we'll finally be able to quit arguing and get something positive done. The only trouble is, it takes years to build new power plants, and we're going to go through some lengthy periods of blackout pain while waiting for the new plants to be built.
We need a world energy model that includes all clean energy sources, users, and transport of energy; including the hourly, daily, and seasonal peaks and valleys of user requirements.
This is a large undertaking, but the data is available from the energy producers of each country.
One of the advantages of nuclear power is the small footprint of nuclear generation that can be near the energy users minimizing energy transport.
I see reports like this everywhere and similarly read about actual projects, both large and SMR being massively delayed and creating much higher costs than planned. How will that work out.
Another question is the supply of uranium, where will it come from when the goal of tripling nuclear energy worldwide is achieved? My information is that known resources would last 130 years with today’s consumption. That would reduce it to less than 40 years with the expansion. How will this work out?
What do I miss in the picture?