21·
1 month ago@Emil The reactor wouldn’t be filled, right? And not under pressure? It would just be a big lump of metal?
Svante
Tja.
I’ll get the lighter fluid.
- 0 Posts
- 23 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: December 16th, 2022
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
@Emil Great, but the AP1000 isn’t the only Generation III+ reactor currently in operation, there is also at least the EPR.
@KnitWit @Emil I guess you’re not alone, sadly.
However…
A nuclear powered ship probably wouldn’t be under ship regulation and supervision, but under nuclear regulation and supervision. Nuclear supervision is much easier to do and harder to circumvent than that of oil. Compliance would be enforced at ports. A ship that cannot dock is useless.
Also, the worst case with a nuclear powered ship is less bad than normal operation of an oil powered ship, and sufficiently improbable.
@tomtrottel @Emil @Tylerdurdon
Well, there we are at the divide between facts and opinion, and that between a civil discussion and ad hominem attacks.
Fact: nobody was ever harmed by spent nuclear fuel. Really. Look it up wherever you like.
Fact: that is not by chance, but by engineering.
Fact: the total amount of all the world’s spent nuclear fuel ever, in the shape of a cube, would have a side length of about 35 m (before recycling).
Fact: I have no money invested in nuclear energy.
@tomtrottel @Emil @Tylerdurdon No, it is a classification.
It’s like saying »human feces is a huge problem« — well, yes, but that’s why we have toilets and sewage plants and so on — it’s solved.
As is nuclear waste.
@Brownboy13 @Emil Not perfect, but definitely better in every way than oil.
@Emil You know, in a sane world, moving a handful of effectively harmless concrete blocks around wouldn’t be newsworthy.
But even in our world, I think that the message should focus more on how little that actually is, how it is all there is, and how obviously it can be successfully done.
Leave some burns on fear-mongers while you’re at it.
@Emil OK, it’s a start. Once regulatory and economic processes are in place, there will be an option to become much more ambitious here, depending on how other plans turn out. Good.
@Emil This sounds like a sensible, level-headed approach. #Australia, take note!
@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.
@Emil Funny thing, the onboard reactor probably produces more power than the gas it carries could.
But anyway, yes, again, nuclear propulsion for ships is quite obviously a very good match.