Moldoteck

7 ms·

151.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
Yes, EPR2 is overcomplicated mess. But the subsidy is not that great either... considering many EU countries are subsidizing biomass today at 18ct/kwh...
152.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
weapons are unrelated to plants. Weapons are more about enrichment.
153.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
nuclear waste is not a problem. It can be made a problem if the chiefs responsible for it (BASE?BMUV) have certain political affiliation... All german plants are decomissioned through operators money except soviet/experimental units. O
154.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
"Renewables don't need to fulfill everything all the time. If they need assistance from fossil fuels 10% of the time, that's a 90% cut in greenhouse gas emissions. The last 10% won't be the biggest issue to deal with.&qu
155.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
decomission is cheap too. All german plants are decom with operator money except soviet/experimental units. There are price breakdowns if you wish for opex https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsb
156.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
Germany spends 10x more than france on transmission precisely because of ren expansion. Curtailment payments are much higher too. So you are right that taxes are different - depending on your pathway, you have no choice. Germany has highest
157.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
Nuclear managed to make France and Sweden cleanest grids in EU as late as 90's while Germany is still one of the worst emitters in EU with ren-only approach and plans gas expansion fro firming. Yes, tell us more about who did better
158.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
not that many either if the design is sufficiently flexible. That's how japan spewed several ABWR's so fast
159.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
they dont hire engineers either. Those are hired by companies that design/build reactors. How many died from Chernobyl bombing in Ukraine?
160.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
not in case of CFD's
161.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
politicians dont manage nor design reactors. With all it's flaws nuclear is one of the safest sources of power
162.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
it'll still not work if you bothered to look at energy charts data for Europe. Plenty of 3+days of low capacity factor for solar+wind. No amount of realistic oversupply will save you there. "Wind and solar are anti-correlated.&quo
163.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy Lol-ed hard... If we look only at modern generation of tech, Gen3 nuclear plants are the safest source of power
164.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
It led to onsite cost reductions. But these were negated if the following site had serious design changes. Example is France. Still, compared to today it was much cheaper.
165.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
Uranium mining nowadays is pretty environmentally friendly. More than half of global production is in situ mining. Nuclear also requires least amount of mining per kwh vs alternatives https://ourworldindata.org/low-carbon-te
166.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
I do see how France and Sweden have lowest GHG emissions in EU by building both nuclear and renewables. I see other countries like Denmark/Germany who decided to go with ren alone. Germany spent on EEG double than entire french nuclear
167.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
what has installed capacity to do with price? Check recent chinese solar parks prices and power. Normalize that power with chineze weather capacity factor. Do the same for their nuclear which is roughly 2.5bn/unit China does expand ren
168.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
this is nonsense. Take german plants - zero subsidies for operation, plants were built mostly by private sector. In France - no CFD's for existing units, plants were constructed by govt for about 150bn. In comparison Germany spent on E
169.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
Will solar + bess supply power with the same pattern in UK or will they require gas firming on top?
170.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
proliferation argument doesn't hold considering you can do it much cheaper with distributed enrichment of uranium. Breeders can open a pathway for plutonium warheads but it's more about optimization. If a country wants such warhea
171.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
The purpose of deep geo facility is to be deep. Bombing something 500m deep underground makes little sense when russia can use dirty bombs directly. Besides - humanity already has such facilities for vast of toxic waste, prime example being
172.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
how is solid material supposed to leak? Like take a look at Onkalo and explain to us what will happen, how and what impact will it have?
173.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
please spare us from this nonsense. Waste can be stored in facilities like Onkalo just like we do for many others type of waste, for example in Herfa Neurode
174.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
Yes. Check Onkalo. At worst you can unban reprocessing to reduce the amount of waste or pour some $ in fast reactors
175.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
There is. Hualongs and ABWR were/are about 3bn/unit. Local Korean APR is about 4.5bn/unit
176.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
no they dont. For military nuclear program you don't need power plants at all. You either have enrichment for uranium based warheads or a facility dedicated specifically to breed plutonium. Classic PWRs are unsuitable for that. There a
177.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
no, weapons production is unrealated anyway - it's cheaper to do it in special facilities. Thorium was just too late to the party when most units were classic PWR's and BWR's without complicated handling
178.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
military is unrealated to plants. You are ill informed. The statement about subsidies is false too for existing plants. IPEX data is public. There are more subsidies for new units because the west is bad at construction but the amount is st
179.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
Their estimate was somewhat justifiable. Just recently before Hitachi finished it's ABWR in Japan for 3bn in under 4y... EDF thought they are cocky and can do the same...
180.
by Moldoteck 4mo ago
Ironically Finland had the option to build ABWR which got built already for cheap and fast. But it picked EDF because it decided to underbid saying it can do cheaper... The result is known...

More ›