111–120 of 147 posts
Its also really expensive because you need all the infrastructure for nuclear plus the infrastructure for steam turbines which all needs to be built and maintained and is very expensive
Do we need nuclear power anymore? It dose not seem to occupy a very efficient spot as part of the grid anymore due to long spool up and power down times it has to always run at a steady load where what the grid really needs is something that can quickly spool up and down like gas or battery. Its also really expensive because you need all the infrastructure for nuclear plus the infrastructure for steam turbines which…
Gas also becomes obsolete with peaking-capable renewables with battery and/or PES.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, the opinion about nuclear power kind of feels like the subject of homeopathy in Germany. It feels like in the general population there is a whole that can only be filled by non-science and quackery. The most reasonable people that usually believe in science just get emotional and ignore facts in favor of a vague feeling of defending their beliefs no matter what.
Yes, indeed. But there are still parts of Germany where you should not pick wild mushrooms because of Chernobyl. And the whole Asse II we still have to fix. Which is a bit more tangable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is one single westinghouse reactor of the same type that was used in Fukushima II. So essentially 60ies technology. I'm no nuclear expert but there surely is much improved more efficient and safer reactor technology now, not to speak of completely obsolete control and safety systems. Also AFAIK it isn't really complete anymore as parts have been dismantled and sold to be used in reactors of similar vintage.
It is not a westinghouse reactor. Westinghouse doesnt and has never produced Boiling Water Reactors afaik. They mostly do Pressurized Water Reactors. And while Fukushima and Zwentendorf had the same type of reactor (Boiling Water Reactor), it was not the same modell or from the same vendor. Fukushimas reactor was made by General Electrics. Zwentendorfs reactor was made by the German Kraftwerk Union.
Fukushima's BWRs were GE, Hitachi, and Toshiba. It doesn't matter who the official brand is on the side because they're integrated and supported on-site using consulting companies who probably designed them and probably worked for both or all 3 companies at some point.
Sorry, not entirely correct: https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/nuclear-fuel/boiling-wat...
I worked for the company of one the main guys who designed BWR-4, consulted on BWRs, came up with SBWR (never used) and ABWR, and submitted ALWR plans to EPRI that never really went anywhere because of public relations and regulatory climate. ALWR became the basis of some SMRs like NuScale. WH and GE Hitachi SMRs are BWRs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would make an amazing set for a film. Correlated: SVT did a concert in one[1][2]. [1] - https://www.svtplay.se/video/e56v35j/radiokoren-i-reaktorhal... [2] - https://youtu.be/Q560cKnreSk Edit: Added Trailer
For non-swedes: SVT is Swedens public television.
sed s/SVT/PBS/g se_SE > en_USEarlier quoted context omitted.
> If noone ever fought for the environment beyond their own personal immediate health we might be in better position now than we are in term of CO2 and millions of people and thousands of ecosystems and species could be saved. It is astonishing how far the nuclear bubble is ready to go down the stairs of reason for drama. I mean seriously? Wtf is this? :D Are you joking? This is the equivalent of people who buy a gun…
I don't get your analogy and I don't care about nuclear specifically. There were many examples where dams weren't built to protect local ecosystems. Pumped storage denied. Roads not build that could shorten the travel. Ethanol in fuel that actually emitted more CO2 because of land use change to satisfy the enforced demand. Multi-use bags that require so much energy and resources to build that you need to use them tho…
Genuine question: How much of the anti-nuclear movement in the West was actually a initiative of the USSR?
Do we need nuclear power anymore? It dose not seem to occupy a very efficient spot as part of the grid anymore due to long spool up and power down times it has to always run at a steady load where what the grid really needs is something that can quickly spool up and down like gas or battery. Its also really expensive because you need all the infrastructure for nuclear plus the infrastructure for steam turbines which…
NPPs can do load following: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant#N...
Of course if we don't care about the climate gas and coal plants are cheaper (assuming cheap gas and cheap coal)
It’s mind boggling how a country can be so rich as to spend millions of manhours on a project and never use it. Maybe we have become too rich as a species.
To start, the sellers of the project will be pressed to embellish the history and real capabilities of the system.
And mega-projects are a magneto for corruption. Part of the money will vanish, then somebody will typically hide it, cutting corners in safety, and then some horrified official looks at it and thinks: "No way I will sign the green light and associate my name with this mess".
This is a dilemma. Politicians can't never, ever admit that this never worked (and millions were burnt by their naivety). "best thing since chocolate with grapes, but can't be opened and will never be" is a common defense. Plus for better measure.
I'm not saying that this is the case here, but it just happens a lot with mega projects and, lets face it, companies working on nuclear projects were all except honest or transparent with the public on those years
Genuine question: How much of the anti-nuclear movement in the West was actually a initiative of the USSR?
Unless you're saying that Chernobyl was a Soviet initiative... which wouldn't even be super wrong strictly speaking... But if that's not what you meant, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't, then no not really. I think it's hard to overstate how much Chernobyl scared people. If anything the Soviets had everything to win by making nuclear look safe back in the cold war. If you look at Soviet propaganda, nuclear technology wa…