@Emil Interesting that Niger is letting the French back in. I wonder what is happening here.

@Emil Good step. In line with Engie’s news they’re also moving away from Russian supply chains. By the end of the decade the EU isn’t relying on Russia at all anymore.

Except Hungary. Fuck Orban.

@Krusty @Emil Is it not a problem with war areas in general?

@Emil Currently 57% of all uranium globally is retrieved using ISL. This will further raise the number, further decreasing the footprint of uranium mining.

cc @dch

@Emil Of course, the work only just begins. Decades of dependence on Russian nuclear fuel has decimated Western industry on this. The ban makes room for Western nuclear fuel companies to exist, especially American ones. It’ll take around a decade to build up this industrial infrastructure.

@icanbob
I think this has to do with the fact that:

1. Thailand is new to nuclear energy.
2. Seaborg is an unproven startup.
3. This barge concept hasn’t been proven in the West yet.
   @Emil

@Draedron
Really? Tell us more. I never ever heard these arguments before. I also never ever refuted them a thousand times already. Please, tell us, as we never heard these very original takes!
@Emil

@Emil “A common European market for nuclear power plants would enable the benefits of serial production, and this requires a technology-neutral climate and energy policy from the EU, as well as cooperation between nuclear safety authorities in harmonising requirements.”

This is what I’m talking about! A European cooperation like this would be great idea!

@Emil This is a pretty big change from the EU. If anything, it’s still way too timid (we need hundreds of new big units in Europe, not merely 30), but this is already a watershed moment compared to just a few years ago when nuclear was the black sheep in Brussels.

They’re finally starting to get it!

@Emil Anti-nuclear activists must be really in a bind explaining this one away.

“But isn’t there smore sun in Bangladesh? But isn’t solar cheaper? But but …”

Nuclear provides dispatchable energy in a densely populated country. This is a smart choice.

@Foppe @Emil Why do you say that?

@Emil The EU is killing it lately with massive legislative steps forward ⚛️

@KevonLooney I skipped that part because, in my opinion, it is completely irrelevant. But I do think that out of those 400,000 people receiving nuclear heat, there are bound to be party officials and other ‘higher ups’.

@KevonLooney Ok, let’s assume you’re not trolling and you genuinely don’t know that the tertiary cooling piping has zero contact with the reactor.

The primary cooling network goes through the reactor. The secondary network powers the turbine and already has no contact with the fuel rods in the reactor. The tertiary network is then used for the district heating.

So, there is no “nuclear steam” involved.

So, let’s reverse our places and hope you weren’t acting you didn’t understand this.

@Emil

@KevonLooney @Emil why is that?

@Emil “Kortom: laat alles wat links is: Amnesty International, Extinction Rebellion, Greenpeace, de NPO, alle milieu-organisaties, alle linkse politieke partijen, SP, PvdA/GL, PvdD, de krachten bundelen voor die ene grote strijd. Laat links strijden tegen de neoliberalen van NRC, en de grootkapitalisten van Shell, en strijden vóór de aanleg van kerncentrales.”

Dit is mijn missie. Mooi stukje.

@Diplomjodler @Emil Sure, let’s check the white elephant in the room, systems cost:

Bank of America research: “Industry research suggests that, after accounting for efficiency, storage needs, the cost of transmission, and other broad system costs, nuclear power plants are one of the least expensive sources of energy.”

👉 https://advisoranalyst.com/2023/05/11/bofa-the-nuclear-necessity.html/

(The graphs on page 12 are quite damning for solar and wind).

“Vijftig jaar veilig CO2-neutrale stroom opwekken en vijftig jaar radioactief afval verwerken zonder een millisievert straling te verspreiden; er worden voor minder feestzalen afgehuurd.”

Ja maar echt.

“Toen deze, huidige centrale in 1969 gekocht is, is tegen leverancier KWU gezegd: bouw wat je hebt. Het was een turn-key opdracht.” De bouw van de kerncentrale Borssele duurde maar vier jaar.”

Dit is hoe je het goed doet. Geen experimenten, gewoon bouwen wat is uitgekristalliseerd en waar ervaring mee is.

€90 miljard. Dat zijn 11 EPR’s, misschien wel meer, die gezamelijk 275 TWh aan elektriciteit en lage temperatuur warmte kunnen leveren. Oftewel 50% van de elektriciteit en 40% van de totale energiebehoefte tegen 2050.

En dit gaat alleen over de infrastructuur van wind-op-zee he? Wat een klucht.