mpweiher

52 ms·

811.
South Africa 'aims to be self-sufficient across nuclear value chain'(world-nuclear-news.org)
2 points by mpweiher 1y ago|0 comments
812.
by mpweiher 1y ago
Since the 70s, oil reserves only lasted for another decade. "Current reserves" is a moving target: once scarcity raises prices, prospecting makes sense again. Uranium is incredibly cheap. Prospecting is not worth it as there ar
813.
by mpweiher 1y ago
1. Nuclear district heating. 2. Just electric heating, if electricity is cheap enough. Very simple and cheap. But yeah, heat pumps make that more efficient. At significant higher investment costs. Gotta do the math of whether it is more
814.
by mpweiher 1y ago
It's the other way around. Nuclear works now. We just have to build it. Intermittent renewables supplying an industrial society does not. And there is no way to get from here to there except a lot of handwaving and "magic happen
815.
by mpweiher 1y ago
Remember that Poe's Law makes subtle parody or sarcasm almost impossible on the Internet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law Now the only real way I can understand your original comment is that lots of l
816.
by mpweiher 1y ago
Er...nuclear is already self sustaining and has a great ROI for the French (and pretty much everyone else). Even the most catastrophic nuclear construction project the French ever had, Flamanville 3, will have better ROI than intermittent
817.
by mpweiher 1y ago
And even that absolutely catastrophic nuclear construction project has a better ROI than any German intermittent renewables. After almost 25 years of renewable subsidies. Note: catastrophic nuclear is still better than best renewables.
818.
by mpweiher 1y ago
> I will use the "rabid" replies I got... All the replies other than yours have politely pointed out that you were incorrect. > >Radiophobia > I do not have this issue, The definition says: "...leading to overest
819.
by mpweiher 1y ago
> The money Germany "wasted" on renewables brought down prices a lot, It massively increased the price of electricity in Germany. And the same holds true of pretty much every other location that tried it. And it did remarkab
820.
by mpweiher 1y ago
Germany didn't build any. France built hardly any. And that's the complete answer: we know how to build nuclear reactors quickly and cheaply. Building only very few of different novel designs while slowly (or quickly) losing the
821.
by mpweiher 1y ago
> It is not about blackouts but about the risk induced by a nuclear plant in a warzone. What concrete risks are those? And of course the IEAE is concerned about nuclear safety. That's their job.
822.
by mpweiher 1y ago
> Germany could have decarbonized faster by maintaining its nuclear power Precisely. > but only to a limited extent because the bulk of the coal (especially lignite, a high CO2 emitter) is burned to generate electricity in the former
823.
by mpweiher 1y ago
That's completely false. The Konvois in Germany were extremely successful. France built 50+ reactors in 15 years from a standing start.
824.
Nvidia-backed U.S. atomic fusion firm eyes reactor in Japan(japantimes.co.jp)
3 points by mpweiher 1y ago|0 comments
825.
by mpweiher 1y ago
It turns you are right that there was a ton of BS around the Chernobyl accident...but going in the other direction. Every decade, the WHO publishes a report on the health effects of Chernobyl. Every decade, they had to reduce the projectio
826.
by mpweiher 1y ago
It's actually not, as it correctly states 50 direct fatalities. What is grossly messed up are, or were, the initial projections of thousands, ten-thousand, no hundreds of thousands or even millions of fatalities. The WHO does a repor
827.
by mpweiher 1y ago
Wind turbines cause more deaths than nuclear reactors. Fact.
828.
by mpweiher 1y ago
Right now in Ukraine, the nuclear plants are what's keeping the grid alive. They are extremely tough targets, and fairly easy to defend.
829.
by mpweiher 1y ago
Later. Reactors in the US, on which the German designs are based, have already received their extensions to 80 years. Experts see no particular problems in extending that to 100 years or even further. https://www.scientificameric
830.
by mpweiher 1y ago
Yes. And in Fukushima, they apparently actually lowered an existing natural barrier. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Tepco-Rem... In addition, they didn't have hydrogen recombinators, whic
831.
by mpweiher 1y ago
No shutting down cheap, reliable, CO₂ free and already paid for energy infrastructure was. That's about as idiotic as you can get. And simply by not destroying this already existing infrastructure you wouldn't even have needed n
832.
by mpweiher 1y ago
> He claims no such things. Literally: "i asked a solar developer." https://x.com/simonahac/status/1318711817502302209 > Citation still needed. Real one will not come as it's nonsense. https:
833.
by mpweiher 1y ago
The US fracking boom lasted until about 2015. And according to energycharts.de Germany was at 395g CO₂/kWh in 2023. Again, both pale in compare to France.
834.
by mpweiher 1y ago
In 2005, both the US and Germany had specific emissions of around 600g CO₂/kWh. In 2015, due mostly to fracking gas, the US was down to around 450g CO₂/kWh. Germany, with its Energiewende, was at around 560g CO₂/kWh. Because,
835.
by mpweiher 1y ago
No, about the Onkalo nuclear storage facility. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230613-onkalo-has-finla...
836.
by mpweiher 1y ago
Fun fact: The US achieved more for the climate with fracking gas than Germany did with its "Energiewende".
837.
by mpweiher 1y ago
United Arab Emirates. Fastest build times are Japan with under 4 years. Germany built its Konvois in just shy of 6 years. Just before we stopped building altogether. France built 50+ reactors in 15 years. We know how to build nuclear quickl
838.
by mpweiher 1y ago
No, the exceptions are builds like HPC. The average build time is currently 6.5 years. The median is lower at 5.8. The variations across both time and space of those average are neither large nor particularly systematic. There have alwa
839.
by mpweiher 1y ago
Or if you build them there, build them so they can withstand that disaster. There was another similar plant even closer to the epicenter, and it was hit with a (slightly) higher tsunami crest. It survived basically undamaged and even serve
840.
by mpweiher 1y ago
> I already know where your numbers come from: the Quadrennial Technology Review by the US Department of Energy from around 10 years ago. That turns out not to be the case. Even if it were the case: an official study by the DOE was &quot

More ›