natmaka

78 ms·

871.
by natmaka 5y ago
Moreover it leaked (shouldn't happen!) due to defective combustible rod(s). This is relatively minor but in order to analyze they had to temporarily shut it down. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/31/asia&
872.
by natmaka 5y ago
The "decades lost between projects" is a fable, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29137107
873.
by natmaka 5y ago
France: see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29126898 Japan: in the past they invested in nuclear power, now they don't want it anymore BUT need gridpower and have no other way to obtain it than to (reluctantly) re
874.
by natmaka 5y ago
> china EPRs which was similar but a lot less constrained was done in time No, it was late and overbudget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Taishan_...
875.
by natmaka 5y ago
> much the entirety of the problems we've had with the EPR program has to do stopping building nuclear power plants for decades In 1999 a new reactor started in France (Civaux-2). In 2005 a new building site started (at Olkiluoto,
876.
by natmaka 5y ago
China: overbudget and overdelay. Then a reactor leaked and was shutdown for maintenance. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/31/asia/taishan-nuclear-plan...
877.
by natmaka 5y ago
Many old industrial setups are now closed, and there are not many new projects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_s...
878.
by natmaka 5y ago
At an equivalent total cost of ownership most will prefer renewables to nuclear: no risk, no waste, no geopolitically touchy nuclear fuel, no adventurous decommission...
879.
by natmaka 5y ago
Indeed, because building wind/solar/biomass/... production units took most of the investment capacity, while coping for variability was cheap because we already had thermal (fossil fueled) powerplants. Those are aging up and
880.
by natmaka 5y ago
4x of not-so-much is easy and doesn't change the big picture while 50% of a huge amount is... huge and maintains the big picture.
881.
by natmaka 5y ago
Yes, it was, however this dates back 2014 and solar recycling is progressing, and becomes more and more legally mandatory in industrialized nations. Solar panels: operators now reach ~80% recycling (glass, metal, silicon, plastic). Wind tur
882.
by natmaka 5y ago
In order to cope with renewables variability various approaches complement each other but need investments in order to produce the baseload: continent-scale wind generation patterns benefiting from lo-correlation between wind regimes, a mix
883.
by natmaka 5y ago
> this is not because China is reducing renewables but rather it's energy needs are increasing so rapidly. This is key (also: in the graph hydro isn't accounted for), and the reason why the current observed trend (huge push to
884.
by natmaka 5y ago
Even better: when produced energy is not needed... store it, in order to use it when production is insufficient.
885.
by natmaka 5y ago
Batteries: huge recycling projects ( such as https://northvolt.com/ ) are moving forward and the market is ready: in many industrial nations battery-equipped vehicles and buildings are already recycled, not thrown in a tras
886.
by natmaka 5y ago
Nope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis...
887.
by natmaka 5y ago
It also is the potential "phase-out chain reaction": after most accidents more nations begin a nuclear phase-out (closing plants before they could be profitable). Each accident also adds to the financial risk, for a nuclear invest
888.
by natmaka 5y ago
China: * 50GW nuclear already in place, producing 5% of the gridpower. Previsions: up to 200GW in 2030. * 790GW renewables already in place, producing 26% of the gridpower. Previsions: 1200GW in 2030. In 2020 alone China added 71.6GW of win
889.
by natmaka 5y ago
The Chernobyl disaster root cause is difficult to assess ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Safety_test ), however given the sheer amount of active nuclear reactors in USSR at the time one may consider
890.
by natmaka 5y ago
Banquiao isn't a sound case here. It "took place during the Chinese Cultural Revolution when most people were busy with the "revolution" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure The &q
891.
by natmaka 5y ago
> renewables simply can't meet base load requirements We read this since the 1990's. Meanwhile the share of renewable energy in gross final energy consumption in Europe reached 19.7% in 2019, up from 9.6% in 2004. A grid-scale
892.
by natmaka 5y ago
> no civilian has died from nuclear power accidents in the last 30 years. This is false, even the industry recognizes victims from radiations and from evacuation, source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiic
893.
by natmaka 5y ago
I wrote 'statistically', meaning that this risk is extremely low. Moreover one can even considerably reduce it by not living or working nearby any airport. During and after a nuclear disaster vast areas may become dangerous zones
894.
by natmaka 5y ago
This is not anymore about developing "nuclear vs fossil" but about developing "renewable sources or/xor nuclear".
895.
by natmaka 5y ago
As for the past: There are many studies about the amount of deaths related to nuclear accidents, and their conclusions vary widely. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... As for
896.
by natmaka 5y ago
A. Huxley explored many concepts and ways, I'm not sure he was trying to enforce anything or manipulate anyone. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_(Huxley_novel)
897.
by natmaka 5y ago
There is a fundamental difference: flying isn't really dangerous (statistically) for those deciding not to fly. Nuclear is dangerous for everyone ('indiscriminately'), even for many generations to come (hot long-lived waste).
898.
by natmaka 5y ago
Trust isn't boolean, there are levels/degrees.
899.
by natmaka 5y ago
No wind turbine can produce long-term 'hot' waste, nor trigger a disaster threatening millions.
900.
by natmaka 5y ago
There is a fundamental difference: flying isn't really dangerous (statistically) for those deciding not to fly. Nuclear is dangerous for everyone ('indiscriminately'), even for many generations to come (hot long-lived waste).

More ›