311–320 of 357 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until the next failure comes along that we didn't predict.
Fukushima could have been easily predicted. That’s what passive safety is about.
After such an accident some armchair experts are quite sure that it "could have been easily predicted". Before the accident (to "easily" prevent it) or during it they are nowhere to be found.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're essentially arguing that kitchen knives should be banned because a small handful of psychos will murder someone with them. That isn't how this works.
No, because we have ne replacement for kitchen knives. We have a replacement for nuclear: renewables.
Renewables can be a complement to other power sources, but to even suggest they can be a "replacement" for nuclear power indicates either naivety or ignorance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not all eu, just some countries. And those(some that want it) are gradually replacing ru enriched fuel with the one from westinghouse. France and US are boosting local enrichment facilities to replace the russian ones. You'll basically have the same problems with renewables if china would ban export to eu/us
Those are all things that take a looong time and cost a hell lot of money, which could be turned into electricity in 2 years if you'd spend that taxpayer money into renewable technology. The war will be probably over before those countries dependent on Russia will become self-sufficient. This is desperate, keeping alive an outdated technology. France slept on the change and now has to do everything to keep the show r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you need to gradually replace renewables, especially for a grid that was gradually deployed. You still can stockpile nuclear, France does have several years worth of fuel for such emergencies. France reprocesses only part of the fuel, is expanding Orano facility, but why is this relevant? They do it and they get additional un-enriched uranium stockpile. WTH dude? Are you just throwing random antinuclear statements ar…
Most materials used by renewables are eternally (at human scale) reusable. In France recycling 95% of the sheer mass of a wind turbine is now mandatory ( https://www.lemoniteur.fr/article/demantelement-des-eolienne... ) > France does have several years worth of fuel Indeed, 'le stock stratégique', about 9 years at best (counting the average amount of uranium already present in reactors). 9 years at best for an overal…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uranium supply is not an issue at all, given that plenty of nations sell it, it is not rare mineral and can be found in abundance. and you need to replenish uranium fuel like once in 5 years - so this is not an issue at all for nuclear energy
> Uranium supply is not an issue I disagree: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41783584 > you need to replenish uranium fuel like once in 5 years At best. Then, if you cannot obtain uranium, your reactor is just a pile of hot waste.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fuel-loading-beg... https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fuel-for-Chinese... I mean, google is free
Google is free but you linked to a prototype and a “will be” article rather than proven results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Man I know this. But the simple undeniable fact is - if nuclear was kept on - even less gas and coal would have been used, it's an obvious thing. Renewables did help ditching some of fossil generation, but with nuclear it would have been even more
And that's different from "it was replaced by coal". You should probably have started with a correct statement, not a falsehood that you had to rephrase into a correct statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
my OG comment clearly stated 'this year so far'. It's also obvious imports increased if you look per month net imports 2023 vs 2024. It doesn't matter the gateway, net imports do matter. Germany net imported 20TWh in 2024 so far and that's a fact. Germany net imported a lot more from neighbor states compared to last year and again, that's a fact.
The fact which is missing here is how much money Germany made with those trades. As the other commenter wrote: trading, transfers, etc. is normal in the EU grid. You buy cheap, you sell expensive. Just because Germany imports electricity, doesn't mean it has to. The German grid, even in its unfinished state, allows turning off power generation where it doesn't make sense financially, and they can do that fast because…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The source argues that the act of evacuating "just in case" caused deaths and that had people remained in place no such deaths would have occurred. We'll never know. Doing history fiction, a more probable outcome would be a lot of people dying by "natural causes" in the next months. We talk about places that were mostly ghost cities for a decade, for some reason. This common discourse of "but nobody died ever by th…
There is a pool of people who definitely died. That's not in dispute. What is questionable, as you point out, is the application of different tricks and shades of "can't prove, must be nuclear" to claim all deaths in the pool as a direct result of nuclear. As others have pointed out there are similar yearly figures for tenuous "coal deaths" as there are here for seven years of post disaster "evacuation deaths".
If we review average annual percent change on Thyroid cancer incidence, there was a more or less stable value between 2008 and 2011. Then in 2012 there is a sudden increase of 10,8% on Fukushima, versus a 3,7% for the whole Japan in the same year [1]. Some increase is normal in a population that is growing and aging but a jump, not so much.
We even have a control population: The Tochigi prefecture (at the South of Fukushima and bordering it). This landlocked prefecture has a big industrial complex, including a strong sector of X-ray machines makers. Tochigi has the lower increase on Thyroid cancer of the three between 2011 and 2012 (3,2% increase). [1]
The death ratio didn't changed, but people that is diagnosed with cancer does not die immediately, so just looking for mortality increase that year is a deceptive measure.
So, something happened in 2012 that increased Thyroid cancer on Fukushima more than in the rest of Japan.
Lets assume that we forget all about the elephant in the room, and past experiences where radioactivity accidents typically increased thyroid cancers. How would you explain that? Any alternative hypothesis?
-----------------
[1] Shibata A, Saji S, Kamiya K, Yasumura S. Trend in Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Fukushima From 2008 Through 2015. J Epidemiol. 2021 Dec 5;31(12):653-659
(The article covers only up to 2015 to remove artifacts from 2016 when the way to report cancer changed, causing another increase on the registers).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fukushima could have been easily predicted. That’s what passive safety is about.
> Fukushima could have been easily predicted After such an accident some armchair experts are quite sure that it "could have been easily predicted". Before the accident (to "easily" prevent it) or during it they are nowhere to be found. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41774144