Last week, I attended this year's edition of the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF), in Prague, organized by the European Commission.
Here are just a few highlights I found interesting. I leave the bittersweet highlight for last, it being both funny and sad at the same time. Spoiler: concerns Germany.
#nuclear #EU #ENEF
Despite this, Ukraine is not shying away from nuclear.
https://t.co/9uZHUsRCdm
It's more centralized production? Yes. But decentralized storage is expensive. The only cheap one is hydro, which is also kinda centralized.
Russia also has nuclear plants, specifically Chernobyl-style models without containment walls running.
So yes, this argument of centralized vulnerability has more merit, but despite this, it doesn't appear to be changing the case for Ukraine
NUCLEAR EM PORTUGAL: NOVO GUIA
Criei este guia, que aborda as várias questões práticas sobre a implementação da Energia Nuclear em Portugal, uma vez ultrapassados os mitos (segurança, etc):
Custos, SMRs, Financiamento, Caminho de entrada para Portugal, e Localizações.
Feedback é bem vindo!
https://t.co/jzTgP2nEjR
@grok@dayvsterdev@yawaramin@dhh@grok So, how many times higher is it in these places where people live, compared to Prypiat?
In any case, how likely are dangerous releases from modern reactors which, unlike Chernobyl, actually have containment walls?
@dayvsterdev@yawaramin@dhh@grok@grok compare the average radiation in Chernobyl to places where people live like Ramsar, the thorium beaches in Brazil, Kerala coast in india... and global average.
How many people live in the Chernobyl region nowadays?
Here we go again...
What place exactly is unlivable for centuries?
Do you know there are at least 500 people living in Chernobyl, and people go on tourism there? Did you know that the reactor next door (Reactor 3 next to reactor 4 that had the accident) operated for 14 more years till it was shut down in 2000? Obviously with people operating it. Not in Prypiat 3km away, in the power plant itself!
And nature is flourishing in Prypriat btw!
Did you know that Chernobyl reactors didn't have the fckin 1m+ thick reinforcement concrete containment wall, which is precisely meant to prevent any significant releases of radiation?
Did you know that there are less than 100 confirmed deaths due to Chernobyl? And that the worst plane accident took 580 lives? And the worst non-energy industrial accident took 10k lives? And the worst industrial accident (a dam breach) took 200k lives?
Did you know that in Fukushima (btw, of both design and construction older than Chernobyl) zero people died due to radiation?
And more! Did you know that average radioactive in the Chernobyl/Prypiat area is several times lower than in naturally radioactive places like Ramsar in Iran, some beaches in Brazil, the Kerala coast in India, and other places?
--------
I at the very least hope that this makes you consider how much you might not know of the reality of the situation, due to the decades of feamongering of media, movies and stupid environmental NGOs, and makes you wonder what other assumptions that you hold may be incorrect.
Im confused, did we stop flying after 9/11? Or did we apply the required security measures?
Do you think walk into a nuclear plant like you walk into a supermarket?
Maybe visiting a nuclear plant would clarify the situation. I have done this.
When you arrive you and and car are sniffed by dogs. Entering requires going through airport dtyle machinees, but fancier, that even blow on you to detect explosive particles.
Several layers of secure access. Guards on site, often including snipers.
1m+ think reinforced/prestressed concrete containment wall. You cant destroy these with rocket launchers.
But why does it need to be solar? I mean, solar has a part to play, but the whole setup of solar in africa, sounds like a lot of risks and costs, with very little benefit.
Grid costs can be as much or more expensive than generation costs. In Portugal (and we have a lot of solar), grid costs are equivalent 67% of the generation costs.
With a Sahara setup, the whole advantage of cheap generation of solar goes down the drain. Especially if you start adding batteries.
It's a solution with no advantage from any point of view, and a lot of risks/costs.
Nuclear is a no brainer.
@angerman@benwilsondev@dhh For sure you should rely on contractors that know how to do it on cost/time.
The best in this case if for the local politicians to make a "turnkey contract" and then get out of the way.
Regardless of chaebols or not. Japan is actually the leader in reactor construction time.
@yawaramin@dayvsterdev@dhh I mean, they are possible, but yes, they hurt the economics.
With HVDC, I think the losses are around 3% per 1000km. So they wouldnt be too outrageous. But the capital cost is
Nuclear construction time has little to do with fancy tech, but with civil works. Most of the cost and time of a nuclear plant has to do with civil works.
The Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) is around 25% of the cost.
The West knew how to do megaprojects on time/budget. It forgot
@dayvsterdev@dhh Terrible idea. The transmission costs would be huge. Not to mention the storage costs.
Plus, you'd have no energy independency, since countries where the Sahara lives could cut supply. Plus, its easy to sabotage underwater cables.
The way forward requires energy independence