![](https://6-28.mastodon.xyz/accounts/avatars/109/524/565/337/763/784/original/9ccf5ec9e0f74e30.jpg)
![](https://feddit.nl/pictrs/image/721f6669-d6f0-493a-8981-c414f6226ac6.png)
@breadsmasher @Emil Yellowcake is not very dangerous, but it’s not safe to eat either.
@breadsmasher @Emil Yellowcake is not very dangerous, but it’s not safe to eat either.
@Emil From a pure technical view, it is almost always more reassuring to use the »original«. And that is all this one argues.
But there are other considerations, such as political security for Europe. And diversification of supply is practically always a win for the consumer.
I think Europe should pay a research grant or something like that to whoever develops replacement fuel units.
@Emil This sentence somehow seems wrong: »They are highly radioactive and have long half-lives.«
Halflife and decay rate (and thus radiation intensity) are inversely proportional to each other, and there is the halflife gap in fission products above Strontium-90 and Cesium-137 quite clearly separating »high radioactivity/short halflife« and »low radioactivity/long halflife«.
@Sweetshark @Emil @Diplomjodler
It’s almost funny to watch anti-nuclear rhethoric over the years. In the beginning it was »it’s unsafe, you’re just doing it for profit«, then »it’s dirty, you’re just doing it for profit«, and now that those points don’t hold up, it’s »it’s unprofitable, you’re just doing it for, uhmm…«.
@Sweetshark @Emil @Diplomjodler
Regulations are necessary. But regulations can be implemented in ways that do not create arbitrary month-long delays for simple and standard engineering questions. Or you can do what Trittin described.
The problem is that the Greens /still/ have not cleaned up their priorities. Habeck last year was unable to affirm in an interview the direct question whether coal is worse for the environment than nuclear.
The competition is not between nuclear and volatiles.
The competition is between nuclear and whatever else could provide the remaining 60% of live electricity demand /after/ the volatiles have hit their limit. And heat.
People hope and handwave a lot about storage, but that’s a large project for tech that doesn’t exist yet.
And then there is the comparison between the lifetime energy output of 1 kg of e. g. a Li battery and 1 kg of U fuel assembly…
@circuitfarmer @Emil You are laughing, but that actually seems to be what’s in the head of Habeck etc. There is a TV interview from last year where this became explicitly apparent. And it’s confirmed in his actions. 🤡
This seems like a good view into the mind of an anti-nuclear zealot: that /they/ are the vox populi and there /obviously/ cannot be a genuine public opinion against them.
@Emil I think you shouldn’t auto-boost every reply.
@kuna I like the irony of it being a webp.
@FarraigePlaisteach @Emil @flossdaily @MotoAsh That is not an explanation, it is an assortment of claims without any attempt to prove them.
The DIW is a pseudo-scientific institution giving out PhDs for anti-nuclear propaganda.
If there are only non-technical, non-engineering obstacles for a solution, then it is our task to remove them, not throw up our hands in fatalism.
To qualify that »none(*)«:
- Nuclear power /is/ sustainable, but I guess you don’t mean that
- Physical resources demand (i. e. material) is significantly lower for nuclear power than for e. g. solar or wind plus storage
- Solar and wind often have no output; then you need to get 100% of live demand from other sources, such as storage or backup plants. Batteries don’t exist at that scale at all (there is some hope that they might get there in 10 to 20 years, but still R&D).
- No. France temporarily reduced some outputs to go easy on water temperatures according to regulations. This affected 0.05% of their annual output (one twentieth of a percent).
- Current median is 7 years (see image), running it is very cheap (most of the costs are in building it), for disposal look at Finland (it’s not a real challenge)
- Currently none(*) without fossil backup of the same capacity, unless you have place for pumped hydro (also of the same capacity).
@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
I think you do not realize how much of our population only exists because of Haber and Bosch.
@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
Sorry, but the term »degrowth« is a red flag for me.
Sure, we are getting more efficient over time. That’s why even Germany’s emissions fell over the last two decades.
But cutting power that is actually needed means poverty, and that will immediately end support for long-term thinking as well as severely limit our technical options.
There are too many people for romantic visions of rural self-sufficiency.
@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
Yes, but I’d like to add that we need to think about lifetimes.
Let’s imagine having built all we need in 30 years, through sometimes extreme efforts.
Current solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries have a lifetime of (a bit generously) 30 years. So we’d have to immediately start again with the entire effort just to keep it up. I’m worrying that this might not be … sustainable.
@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant#Nuclear_power_plants
For a grid of 100 GW peak demand, you either need
- 100 GW nuclear plants, or
- 100 GW storage output, plus (100 GW × storage loss factor) storage input (volatiles or whatever), plus additional transmission capabilities, or
- a combination of 60% nuclear plus, say 10% hydro, plus 30% volatiles
I’d say some variation on the last looks most plausible to me.
@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
You seem to argue that our /current/ fossil grid would also need more storage, but it works just fine as is. Nuclear is better at load following than fossils, so what gives?
@matthewtoad43 @MattMastodon @BrianSmith950 @Pampa @AlexisFR @Wirrvogel @Sodis
Again, £50 per MWh is at current penetration levels of volatiles. This doesn’t scale linearly.
See that you get to more-of-the-same-kind nuclear reactors. This does.
@Emil This sounds like a sensible, level-headed approach. #Australia, take note!
#auspol #nuclear