natmaka

63 ms·

751.
by natmaka 5y ago
The more we obtain uranium (prospecting, mining, milling...), the more we add to the associated carbon footprint. Therefore a sustained growth of installed nuclear capacity will lead us to exploit mines at always lowering ore grades => m
752.
by natmaka 5y ago
Breeder reactors research was quite huge (one of the first breeder was built in the US in 1951). To this day there is no such reactor working industrially satisfactorily. This architecture has been, for all practical purposes, abandoned by
753.
by natmaka 5y ago
Chomsky denounces this since at least the 70's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model#Ownership
754.
by natmaka 5y ago
Was 'umount -f' unable to unmount? Did you use 'soft' NFS mounting?
755.
by natmaka 5y ago
Indeed. "If the radiation dose is low and/or it is delivered over a long period of time (low dose rate), the risk is substantially lower because there is a greater likelihood of repairing the damage. There is still a risk of long
756.
by natmaka 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
757.
by natmaka 5y ago
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-us-utiliti...
758.
by natmaka 5y ago
Baseload: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...
759.
by natmaka 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...
760.
by natmaka 5y ago
Power dams are historically very safe: See https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
761.
by natmaka 5y ago
In France the 'nuclear success story' led to a state law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") stating that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less
762.
by natmaka 5y ago
> every renewable deployment in history has failed to reach zero carbon. No energy production mean reached zero carbon. Nuclear is far from this goal and cannot attain it on any financially realistic way. Even France, which produces mos
763.
by natmaka 5y ago
Sorry but I see no argument here. I referenced published documents, everyone is free to read, counter-argument, and even rant on.
764.
by natmaka 5y ago
Russia's demographics show surges of deaths during this period, there is no doubt about it. The causes are a matter of polemics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#After_W... Russian Academicians
765.
by natmaka 5y ago
It may solve the problem for Canada. Maybe for the US, if there is enough supply. Maybe even for France and Germany, but doubt so. Moreover ore grade falls with extraction, and extraction-related emissions grow accordingly. Maybe up to 11
766.
by natmaka 5y ago
The tsunami was the secondary cause, and believing that no-one could predict such a tsunami is misleading. Proof: another nuclear plant was less distant from the tsunami and survived, because someone (Y. Hirai) foresaw it and could impose h
767.
by natmaka 5y ago
Victims: there are dissenting opinions, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... No, nuclear isn't fully insured, in any nation (there are funds, providing for damages up to a l
768.
by natmaka 5y ago
The new type of nuclear reactor is the "EPR". The first project, in Finland (Olkiluoto-3) was a disaster: massive overcosts, 12 years late, customer lost, penalties paid, builder (Areva) saved thanks to public money. https:/
769.
by natmaka 5y ago
When it comes to production costs renewables (wind included) are cheaper than nuclear: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 The gap is growing. When it comes to complete costs of reliable gridpower an adequately
770.
by natmaka 5y ago
Indeed, under pressure about the industry tries hard to find ways: https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/towards-circular-wind... https://www.veolia.com/en/news/united-states-veolia-make
771.
by natmaka 5y ago
Indeed. France is by far the leader when it comes to the fraction of electricity produced by nuclear reactors; however it never ever could phase out fossil fuels, nor could or can do it at a realistic cost. In the following history graph fo
772.
by natmaka 5y ago
Could be an argument with nuclear as the sole "source" (way to produce electricity), but there are many other ones.
773.
by natmaka 5y ago
Germany is richer (GDP) than France, 20% of its GDP comes from industry (10% in France), and its climate is colder.
774.
by natmaka 5y ago
Does nuclear relieves this pressure? Doubt so, as France buys a fair part of its uranium to Kazakhstan, which will very probably stop to supply if Putin says just a word. The US buys 50% of its uranium to them: https://www.reuter
775.
by natmaka 5y ago
France doesn't recycle nuclear fuel anymore (since 2013). Source: https://www.rtl.fr/actu/debats-societe/nucleaire-que-devienn... AFAIK it may restart around 2029 The waste repository (Cigéo) isn't ready
776.
by natmaka 5y ago
Maybe did the US only supply a few (hundreds...) pies, for some brass to drop it down before abandoning a location, for the Germans to find it and become discouraged. It seems that in ancient times some town besieged for quite a long time w
777.
by natmaka 5y ago
> it's been improving regularly for decades in price/performance etc. Indeed: https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline
778.
by natmaka 5y ago
During the 1940's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Grey_Walter#Robots
779.
by natmaka 5y ago
Don't forget KEPCO: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Indictments_for_South_...
780.
by natmaka 5y ago
Spreading out production units (mainly wind turbines) and mixing sources (wind, solar...) considerably lowers the burden of intermittency. LCOE is pertinent because the very low total cost of electricity generated by renewables spares money

More ›