bobtimus_prime

Für NRW bist du nicht zuständig, oder? Da muss ich heute quer durch :D

Ich würde vermuten, dass das kein Anschlag auf Bedürftige, sondern ein misslungener Schmuggelversuch war.
Das erste würde mich aber leider auch nicht wirklich überraschen.

Hat da etwa jemand ‘Physics for Birds’ geschaut? :D
https://youtu.be/v5ev-RAg7Xs?si=y3Yf8GNaztfKxRPQ

I agree that fear and NIMBYs are one key issue that hinders us into progressing into a green future. Although we may not agree how to proceed best, it is important that we take quick and large steps, and stay united against continuing the emissions of CO2.

Thanks for the discussion :)

This study says otherwise: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544223015980

• We present a unique cost data set on 19 small modular reactors.
• Manufacturer cost estimates are mostly too optimistic compared to production theory.
• A Monte Carlo simulation shows that no concept is profitable or competitive.
• Median NPVs are negative ranging from 3 (HTR) to 293 (SFR) million USD/MWel.
• Median LCOEs start at 116 USD/MWh for HTRs and at 218 USD/MWh for PWRs.

If we had to decide between nuclear and coal, the clear winner is nuclear. As I stated in the other comment that renewables are more cost effective than nuclear, and thus, we can convert more coal to emission free energy than with nuclear.

Your language is rude. Please adress your point in a more formal way, without claiming that I would be yelling or bullshitting.

I still don’t see the deposition of nuclear waste as straight forward as you claim. We have accumulated waste for many decades and, so far, have establiahed only a single site. If this was new technology I would give it the benefit of the doubt, but we have decaying castors, wich will become more and more difficult to handle, as the fule rods become brittle. Just building new Reactors and think we will handle the waste eventually, is not enough to convince me.

If we had the resources to build nuclear powerplants and renewables, we should do both, but we have not. Thus, every Cent spent on nuclear is not spent on renewables which give more power per invested money.[1]

Baseload: The grids might not yet handle a widespread dunkelflaute, but they can be, and currently are, extended to shift energy from production places to the regions where they are needed. Furthermore the cost of energy storage is falling every every year[2], while the the cost of nuclear remains more or less stagnant.[3]

I agree that coal does more harm than nuclear, but as states above, we should put our effort in renewables.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2024/may/24/nuclear-power-australia-liberal-coalition-peter-dutton-cost
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline
[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/184754/cost-of-nuclear-electricity-production-in-the-us-since-2000/

As long we don’t have a way to deal with the nuclear waste, nuclear is not safe.

And even if we had a way to deal with this, Mining, preprocessing, building the reactor, running the reactor and treating the waste has to be cheaper than renewabls, which I doubt.

Last, but not least, building such powerplants takes years, if not decades, to build, which we don’t have. At the current rate of emission, we have less than 6 years left before we miss the 1.5°C target[1], which is way to short for any nuclear facility.

[1] https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/research/co2-budget.html

Ich bin zwar dafür, aber dieser Abschnitt lässt mich doch zweifeln ob es ausreicht:

Ernüchternd hingegen die Statistik der Schweiz: Seit elf Jahren haben Gerichte dort die Möglichkeit, das Fahrzeug einzuziehen und zu verkaufen. Dennoch stieg in dieser Zeit die Zahl der Delikte.