EU members want more subsidies for nuclear power

[auroraglacialis]

HNM, I dont get you and your obvious double standards. In previous posts you explicitely said that none of the energies should be subsidized and especially you were proud that nuclear energy can be successful because it is so much cheaper than anything else and that the UK will not subsidize nuclear energy and still make it work. This was, when I argued, that up to now, nuclear power ALWAYS was heavily subsidized because it is not economical. And I said, that without these subsidies, nuclear power would be as expensive as many other forms of enery. You then said that the UK does not anymore subsidize nuclear power and that it still is economical. Obviously that is wrong because now they seem to want subsidies for that.

The other part of your post was adressed extensively in another thread, where I provided information and sources that show that wind energy is not as much a failure as you would like it to be, but mostly I adressed that frankly nonsensical comparison between tar sands oil and electrical energy as well as the false argument that Germany would use tar sands oil or french nuclear power to fill in the gaps created by the shutdown of nuclear power plants (oil is NOT used to create electricity in Germany and Germany EXPORTED energy after the shutdown of the nuclear plants, not import it). So what you wrote there is simply wrong, I provided the sources, links and information on that and I dont want to repeat this again here and I dont really understand why you just ignore any of what I wrote there and just argue the same thing again here. But maybe facts dont count for you once you have formed an opinion or you jus tuse fals "facts" in order to convince others and yourself of whatever world view you have on that. I thought you want also to become a scientist. I suggest to behave like one then and not insist on pseudofacts that have been proven wrong.

Right now, nuclear power is certainly not much affected by the tiny amount of subsidized renewables in terms of at what cost they can sell their energy. Especially as even subsidized renewables are still more expensive than fossil fuels.Their main competitors is coal. And to subsidize nuclear power so that it can beat coal may be a decision a country can make if they really want that as a solution and think it is a good idea to build more nuclear power, but then please no one complain about other countries subsidizing solar power for the exact same reason.

But if a government really wants to throw money at companies that make nuclear stuff, my suggestion would be to not throw it out randomly like that. They can, if they really think this is an option, fund research on safer next generation nuclear power. They could provide funds for making that Thorium stuff work, that you, HNM always talk about so highly. Then they can see if that works. But to give them money just to continue operating their old crappy reactors a while longer or to build new ones that operate with the same dangerous principles does not make ANY sense to me at all.

Subsidies and research grants are a good tool to create new technologies, to start up new technologies that are not yet competitive on a market and to provide a fair marketplace that offers chances for new solutions that have to be tested. It should not really be a way to keep dinosaurs like pressurized water nuclear power plants alive. That is as stupid as the German subsidies for extracting coal in Germany for decades at a time when it was not economical anymore to do this, just to keep the jobs in mining.