101–110 of 396 posts
Isn't the price of a KW of solar panels similar to the price of a KW of nuclear power these days? I wonder what hinders us to replace the roofs of all houses with solar panels and put batteries in all cellars? It might still be useful to build out nuclear power plants. But the solar+battery approach seems like an easier first step to increase the available power, doesn't it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter. As far as I am concerned, self sufficiency comes before price concerns. Nuclear is very safe and reliable. By all means, EU countries should keep investing in Solar, Wind, Geotermal, etc. but that should be done alongside Nuclear.
> Nuclear is very safe and reliable. How do we stop fukushima-like disasters?
In the case of Fukishima, only one person died directly because of it. About 2000 more deaths can be related to the nuclear accident, for example because they were displaced and living in worse conditions [2]. Since this is the kind of event that every few decades (we have to go back to Chernobyl for something similar) I would say that it is not a reason for worrying.
For comparison, that is 1/10 of people that died in Japan because of the Tsunami that caused it, and it is less than the number of people that die every year for traffic accidents in Italy, so if I was Italian (wait, I am!) I would be more worried about the road traffic than a nuclear accident.
[1] https://www.electricaltechnology.org/2024/07/two-engineers-h...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident_cas...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_an...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter. As far as I am concerned, self sufficiency comes before price concerns. Nuclear is very safe and reliable. By all means, EU countries should keep investing in Solar, Wind, Geotermal, etc. but that should be done alongside Nuclear.
As always with nuclear there are a few taboo topics. One of them being fuel supply. For European reactors that seems to be either Mali/Niger, or Russia. Both not excellent if the goal is geopolitical independence. Solar, wind and batteries have no fuel concerns, and they are inherently decentralized.
Australia, Kazakhstan and Canada are main suppliers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the same way we have handled other dangerous activities (including aviation and driving around with sloshing flammable liquids) Improving continuously, having strict but not restrictive regulation, addressing risks before they become a problem.
TEPCO decided to ignore regulations and reports on how they could improve and reduce risks. How do you solve corruption?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Italy neither has the engineers to build a nuclear power plant, they would have to ask another nation, like Russia, Canada or France, to build it for them. And where does the nuclear fuel come from? Russia.
Italy has highly skilled nuclear engineers. >And where does the nuclear fuel come from? Russia. Nonsense.
To be very clear, the title refers to nuclear energy, which may not be immediately obvious given the current geopolitical climate.
Oh, I hoped it's about nuclear weapons. Pitty, it's not. Now, as US is slowly leaving NATO, European countries should urgently work on increasing their nuclear capabilities, developing strategic and tactical nuclear weapons and means of delivery (rockets, bombers, submarines).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nuclear is very safe and reliable. How do we stop fukushima-like disasters?
You can't. The problem with nuclear is that it needs to be properly maintained forever. If you get an irresponsible government or power company that cheaps out in 30 years, oopsies, you're going to irradiate the local area. It's a lot like trusting your private data to a company. Sure, Google in 2007 is pretty great, but maybe you have some doubts about their integrity in 2025. Too late, they have what they have, for…
One solution is to house government officials and their families close-by so they're incentivized to never cheap out.