That’s actually shrinking now, it used to be a larger share a decade, two decades ago. Being replaced by renewables.

BYD isn’t exactly better… But I guess this will be cheaper. You lose out on the really handy supercharging network tho… Don’t know how this will work out…

The Chinese built ones that supply Asia and Australasia are almost faultless as well. My one is an earlier model, US-built, and you can definitely tell the quality difference even with the early models that came from China.

Nice pick. I went from my dying LG V60 to the S23 Plus. It was inevitable…

Because it’s not enough.
She wasn’t enough.
She doesn’t fit the box perfectly.
And she was too popular to ignore.

She was always keeping a moderate tone, always leaning towards supporting China and the Chinese state as well. I thought she’d skip around the censors because of it.

In theory, when it’s working, yes it will. Only after being over a decade late and being everal times over budget. They’ll probably keep it going for as long as humanly possible, until the cost of maintaining it is no longer economically feasible. They’ll try to claw back as much of that investment as possible. But as we know with nuclear projects, they never will. It’s why China is betting big on renewables.

You think nuclear powerplants don’t require parts replacements, maintenance, or shut down over the weather either? France, US, and Finland had to delay the opening of their latest plants because they already had to replace parts before they even started. This isn’t Finland’s first nuclear reactor. Their next one has been cancelled because of the war in Ukraine (Rosatom) The others are being throttled down for maintenance, and it won’t be long until this new one also requires it. As it is, they’re already understaffed.

This one? In what universe would, planning to build nuclear, and then later finding out how impractical it is, or eventually building a plant, only for it to take nearly two decades, be cheaper, quicker, or less polluting?

Perhaps an exaggeration?

Life expectancy did increase, with a few blips in the 1930’s, but this doesn’t seem particularly out of the ordinary, it also increased during the Tsarist government if you look outside of the Sino-Japanese War and WWI era. There really isn’t much consensus here, as well as a marked increase in living standards.

Other countries during that time period also had significant life expectancy increases over that period, which I think is just attributed to better infant mortality rates.

The only metric that that could be demonstrably better than than the Tsarist regime was education levels and literacy as a whole.

It was really from mid-1930’s that Soviet Russia was actually pulling away from the Tsarist regime. But who’s to tell that, had not WWI happened that gradual development would happen under the Tsar, or even the Provisional Government?

Germany had been worried about Russia’s potential since both the German Empire and the Third Reich.

Similarly, you do see a different rate of industrialisation from post-WWII China and Japan.

It’s not profitable. For example, in Sweden, the companies involved aren’t interested. There was talk of EDF being restructured a couple of years back separating the unprofitable nuclear away from their other businesses (until state bailout and investment). Their CFO resigned over their decision to carry on building UK’s latest nuclear powerplant. The Conservatives only pushed through the UK’s next nuclear powerplant only after giving EDF assurances and ability to start taking in profits before the completion of the project.

This is what it takes to build nuclear. A lot of state money… Whereas renewables are cheaper, easier, and faster to decarbonise.

Overall, probably cheaper, as it requires less tax to help pay for the cost of nuclear infrastructure.

But it’s not the general public who is averse to nuclear, they’re as a whole, probably more in favour of it. The current Swedish governmrnt campaigned on it. It’s nuclear companies themselves who don’t want it. Which is partially why Sweden suddenly and quietly scrapped their plans.

It’s still overall, a small part of their grid. They don’t have plans to expand their nuclear fleet all too much. A good chunk are experimental, and for military research.

Renewables?

I have two family subscriptions. I find it worth it. It’s quite cheap on Stacksocial (even cheaper if you have a discount code).

On top of that, I have one of these routers at home. It comes in-built with Adguard Home. There is a newer, better model coming out soon as well.

Yet studies show that renewables decarbonise faster and the only way for nuclear to complete is basically in a majority renewables grid. Oh, and also be 25% cheaper. Which is not ideal.

Sweden’s approach is over.

They have no targets, the industry isn’t interested, and the government’s analysis has been based on nothing.

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/Q70mzQ/regeringen-svanger-om-karnkraftsreaktorerna

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-01/uniper-dents-swedish-nuclear-hopes-with-firm-no-to-new-plants

So, you’re going to build a powerplant, that people don’t want to fund, that governments are reluctant to build? You’ll need to create a government agency responsible for the design and planning, another responsible for training new powerplant workers, another one for the decommissioning process, and another for insurance, and another as a safety watchdog, which might come online in a decade if you’re lucky, or closer to two decades if you’re not, only for it to not be as effective as renewables, be a constant drain on taxpayers, not be entirely reliable, and be more expensive as an energy source than renewables. Sure, good luck with that plan. I wish you well garnering political and academic support with that. In the meantime, universities, companies, and governments will generally avoid it like the plague. Unless or course, there’s a nuclear industry that already exists and needs to be subsidised, or a military nuclear requirement to keep the talent and designs ongoing.

You’re deliberately going to build nuclear, ignore studies telling you that renewables decarbonise faster. Because you want to decarbonise. Only for your personal opinions, backed by the fossils and mining industry? You’re going to give the fossil industry a lot of money over the first 10 years of absolutely nothing happening.

I will add, the election promises the conservative Swedes have made seem to have disappeared. How convenient.

Let me pose you another question. Why do you think, the British Conservatives have invested in making HPC happen (finally agreeing to the demand to allow investing companies to turn a profit even before any energy is produced)? Why have conservatives in South Korea planned to restart a new nuclear industry despite accusations of corruption? Why is it the conservatives in Australia love the idea of nuclear? Is it because they can do the good old-fashioned trope of using the state to make their private company chums some money? Or is it because it’s for the goodness of their hearts, and concern for their citizens, while they dismantle the NHS and privatise it, for example?