korantu

11 ms·

31.
by korantu 5y ago
You cant meaningfully compare prices of something that was not ever done with something that is already done and existing. South Korea would argue with you on the experience part, as well.
32.
by korantu 5y ago
I have to point out that you neatly avoided main point in the original post - comparing costs of something that never been done (storing energy at national scale) with something with known price and been done before (powering industrial nat
33.
by korantu 5y ago
If anything this can be ascribed to resilience of nuclear generation. The tsunami in question killed (in a first world country, no less) many thousands of people. The outdated nuclear plant located in the midst of the disaster killed none
34.
by korantu 5y ago
Fuel is miniscule part of nuclear energy cost. With increased demand it will be profitable to prospect for more, and uranium is not a rare element.
35.
by korantu 5y ago
Fuel is very small part in cost of nuclear generation; As fuel price start increasing, more sources become viable, including sea water. There is practically unlimited supply once it happens, and this is before accounting for reprocessing. (
36.
by korantu 5y ago
Thank you for explanation. It seems then we need to avoid competition with food. TTrough human history predictions of us running out of resources did not materialize
37.
by korantu 5y ago
Does it also mean that using wood at industrial scale is bad idea? Trees need phosphorus too
38.
by korantu 5y ago
And even co2-negative, if made with captured co2
39.
by korantu 5y ago
you can achieve the same effect by making plastic with captured co2 [1]. Carbon would stay in plastic for very long time. This way you get to reuse all the (enormous) existing infrastructure, as well. [1] https://www.mdpi.com&#x2
40.
by korantu 5y ago
I know, I am from Russia. Even Chernobyl did not make much land uninhabitable, let alone Western Europe. Exclusion zone is 30 km. And unlike natural disasters, chernobyl and others can be learned from, and currently running stations will no
41.
by korantu 5y ago
Uranium is very common element. From your linked article : > If one is willing to pay $300/kg for uranium, there is a vast quantity available in the ocean.[63] It is worth noting that since fuel cost only amounts to a small fraction
42.
by korantu 5y ago
This is pure fear mongering. There is no way for currently running nuclear power plant to make Western Europe (!) uninhabitable. Worst meltdown is that - meltdown. It stays where it happens.
43.
by korantu 5y ago
Just to clarify, nuclear power plant waste never harmed anyone, so the concern is quite misguided here. You can safely stay next to a dry cask storage [1]. By opposing nuclear one votes for more solar and wind, which come with fossil fuel s
44.
by korantu 5y ago
The more uranium is used, the more it will increase in price, allocating more resources to exploring for new sources. Increased uranium prices will not significantly affect energy cost, as fuel price is very small fraction of nuclear plant
45.
by korantu 5y ago
I understand it is specifically about _space launch_ capability. No other state can launch as efficiently as spaceX. And private citizens get tangible benefits from it, such as internet in remote areas
46.
by korantu 5y ago
we are human beings on average in the world. surely some people are worse off than in 1990, but the number of people worse-off is significantlly reducing. If one had a choice to be born on planet earth now or 1990, much better bet is now.
47.
by korantu 5y ago
Just putting things in context here, it is quite common to consider that we are worse off now than 20 years ago (Internet was better then, etc). But that's not the case.
48.
by korantu 5y ago
Globally in the world people are now better off than they ever were in human history. Telling example is extreme poverty rate that declined several times since 1990 [1] Raising kids is tough, but not raising them because conditions are some
49.
by korantu 5y ago
'Safer' comes from 'Smaller' here; It is possible to have smaller reactor which is completely underground and user passive cooling, so won't meltdown. TBH, modern big nuclear power stations are already very safe.
50.
by korantu 5y ago
Exactly, thank you for bringing this up; Comparison stays true even if we include quite outlandish estimates for Chernobyl.
51.
by korantu 5y ago
Not the original comment author, but will try and offer a clarification: Malthus [1] was of opinion that humanity growth/wellbeing is bound to be curbed by wars/famines due to limits of resources. He was mostly correct up until in
52.
by korantu 5y ago
This is indeed very important question. Nevermind newest technology, if we take existing and dated nuclear technology, and calculate safety in deaths per TWH generated, nuclear is in the same ballpark as Solar and considerably better than W
53.
by korantu 5y ago
Though if one already have a car, then it might make sense to use it to get better value from tax and insurance
54.
by korantu 5y ago
This ton of energy on top what we already consume can be indeed obtained from nuclear [0], without spending a lot of additional material. [0] https://medium.com/climate-conscious/nuclear-powered-carbon-...
55.
by korantu 5y ago
I had great experience with Lona framework [0], for smaller projects; You do everything in Python, and have a representation of your UI as a set of python objects. Then changes in python objects are propagated back to web. - [0] https:&#x2
56.
by korantu 5y ago
Even if we ask South Korea to please build us world of nuclear, it would be long time before uranium would be an issue - it is very small part of overall price.
57.
by korantu 5y ago
South Korea can build nuclear on time and on budget, so it is possible. And for the sake of the discussion, I think France can be fairly considered decarbonized, even if not really 100%. Note that TFA refers to decarbonization of electricit
58.
by korantu 5y ago
In this case 'proven' means was ever deployed at scale and worked successfully. Nuclear has track record of decarbonizing entire industrial economy in just 10 years. We dont have storage solution with such track record.
59.
by korantu 5y ago
It is indeed difficult/impossible to define precisely, but GDP and GDP per capita is a good start
60.
by korantu 5y ago
In last 20 years in the US and other first world countries resource consumption and CO2 emissions flattened or even reversed, whereas economic growth continued almost exponentially. We can now do way more with less resources.

More ›