dsimonot.bsky.social
783 posts
24 followers
28 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
On the bright side it won’t be a world war.
The US has no allies to come to their aid if needed.
comment in response to
post
I don’t know why California continues to be a member of the US. They could survive on their own.
comment in response to
post
It’s worth mentioning that Molten Salt Reactors can use conventional uranium fuel as well as thorium.
comment in response to
post
That’s political. First Germany has a stellar safety record with their NPPs. Second it was the response to the accident at Chernobyl that cause harm to human lives. Same with Japan.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
comment in response to
post
And… what technical issues forced the closure of Germany’s NPPs?
comment in response to
post
What was the technical reason?
comment in response to
post
If you have evidence that disproves my comment I’d be glad to see it.
Siemens reactors are among the very best in the world. Germany had an impeccable safety record. There was no technical reason to stop the nuclear program.
It was purely political.
comment in response to
post
Really?
There’s already about 5,000,000,000 solar panels on earth. They still aren’t free.
comment in response to
post
The nuclear power program in Germany was cancelled purely out of political interests.
There were no technological reasons for doing so.
Does it matter which politicians fought to close them?
comment in response to
post
Are you saying a talker building requires less materials than an equal size building on the ground?
Which is more complex to construct?
comment in response to
post
Think about it.
comment in response to
post
Wind and sun are intermittent and dilute. That is not a technical issue and as such has no technical solution.
comment in response to
post
Energy density has been calculated for all forms of energy.
We know the inherent energy in sunlight and wind in regard to our methods of harvesting that energy.
Cooling water is a technical issue and as such will have a technical solution.
comment in response to
post
You don’t think 400,000 wind generators have a greater environmental impact than 400 NPPs when those wind generators produce less than the nuclear plants and only seasonally?
comment in response to
post
I’ve not said anything incorrect. The nuclear plants in Germany were closed purely for political reasons.
The Siemens reactors have one of the best safety records in the world.
comment in response to
post
Are you saying there’s zero mining involved in the existence of solar panels or wind generators?
What do those mines look like compared to a decommissioned uranium mine?
www.orano.group/canada/en/ou...
comment in response to
post
You tell me.
comment in response to
post
But it is her legacy. That and the sorry state of Germany’s power grid today.
comment in response to
post
It regards to his comment which talked about polls. You never mentioned polls. You only said there’s no referendums.
comment in response to
post
What’s the energy density of sunlight and wind?
The energy density of your fuel determines its environmental impact.
The greater the energy density the less the environmental impact.
comment in response to
post
Money in their pockets.
That’s what motivates all politicians.
Why did Merkel build Nordstream 2 when the rest of the world was sanctioning Russia?
comment in response to
post
Bro didn’t say that. He just said the will of the people.
comment in response to
post
Uranium is dirt cheap and used sparingly.
Nat gas is expensive and needs constant replenishment.
Two totally different things.
comment in response to
post
Then how can you say it was public will that allowed the closing of the nuclear plants?
comment in response to
post
Merkel had a deal with Russia for nat gas. That was the jist of the “political choice”.
comment in response to
post
It was a political choice. Was it backed by public will? That I can’t say. I don’t recall there being a referendum.
comment in response to
post
What history are you referring to?
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
comment in response to
post
I’d gladly store my share.
cna.ca/2019/06/25/y...
comment in response to
post
Not true. It was fear and lobbying by greens that caused the loss of German nuclear power.
comment in response to
post
They think that’s the reason they will lose in the midterms? Pay attention much.
comment in response to
post
Not at all. I’m 100% for new technology being used in nuclear power design and manufacture.
One could say you are the Luddite clinging to technology that’s been around for well over a century.
comment in response to
post
Ah yes. Fusion. Another technology that only works in the future.
comment in response to
post
It’s important to the environment. Which, as a capitalist, you don’t care about.
comment in response to
post
If anyone has swallowed all the bullshit about renewables it’s you.
I’ve been talking to people like you for years now and it’s always the same story.
The future is the only place that renewables work.
Not the past. Not the present. Only the future. Always the future.
comment in response to
post
Your ad hominem aside it is capitalists like you who are causing all the harm our earth is currently experiencing. You, and your ilk, only see the economic benefits and not the ecological harm. That’s why you dismiss energy density off hand.
comment in response to
post
You’re not considering the environmental impact of mining and manufacturing all those batteries, solar panels, and wind generators. The impact is huge due to the massive amount of components needed to meet our needs. Not to mention end of life considerations.
comment in response to
post
Fear mongering? Talking about radiation without talking about dose is nothing but fear mongering. You still follow the disproven LNT hypothesis for radiation. That’s why you’re so afraid of it.
comment in response to
post
I’m not arguing anything. You haven’t been able to refute my original statement about the importance of energy density.
comment in response to
post
And just like Amazon, Apple, etc once they claim market share they increase costs to consumers. Disruption is not good for consumers. It’s a lie that consumers buy into. Solar, wind, and batteries will end up costing consumers more.
comment in response to
post
It was not disruption that replace coal with natural gas. It was GHG emission activists.
Nuclear power would have replaced coal decades ago if not for fools like Jane Fonda and other environmental fools.
comment in response to
post
Solar does not replace the burning of fossil fuels. It doesn’t do the same work. Plus, I know you don’t want to hear it, the sun goes down every day. And where I live it’s gone for months on end.
comment in response to
post
Pipe dreams. Disruption is damaging. That’s the point of it.
comment in response to
post
It wasn’t disruption that replace burning wood with coal usage. That was pure common sense. Coal has a much higher energy density than wood. That meant you could do more with less.
comment in response to
post
That 4% statement is nonsense. But I notice you didn’t answer my question. That tells me lots about you.
comment in response to
post
That is disruption. Just like DOGE is disruption. Somethings don’t benefit from disruption. Somethings are made worse by disruption. Power grids are made worse by disruption.
comment in response to
post
I think your biggest stumbling block is you’re a capitalist and only see things is dollars and cents. If nuclear free would you support it?