Jean?

It sure as fuck shouldn’t be. Jetition is in the works!

“Once you’ve got a task to do, it’s better to do it than live with the fear of it.”
-Logan nine fingers (Joe Abercrombie)

Helped me a lot in dark times…

Dunno,
maybe
ther is
something
to it

I’ve heard Telegram is better for distributing Russian/right wing propaganda, so there is that…

You should hate bigger…

Wer verliert mehr Wähler?CDU oder AFD?

Reddit nuker, this one is for Chrome but there are others.

It will never be built, it will go the way of all nuclear “innovations” and die expensively.

I guess i’d rather have them waste their money on low CO2 nuclear than on coal. But in reality, I would like them to not waste their money (and time) and build renewables.

Yes

Carbon neutral has to mean carbon neutral, its rather easy. If you can’t achieve that then you can’t advertise with it.

Actually, they just can’t be ramped, neither fast nor slow. What is done is just wasting part of the (heat)-energy that is produced. If you want to utilize NPPs you need storage, just like with renewables but more expensive to build.

Its nonexistent because its expensive and impractical. Every cent spent for nuclear is a wasted cent because you would get twice the power from renewables. LCOE.

Renewables and storage is what is gonna happen, you can argue against that as much as you want. Growth of renewables is exponential, growth of nuclear is nonexistent.

And hydrogen, and batteries, and overbuilding, and geographic distribution and a lot more but nukeheads gonna nukehead.

Let’s take Europe (because I’m familiar with the data in Europe). Much of the continent is very flat. Denmark, Southern Sweden, Netherlands, and Northern Germany, for example, cannot take advantage of hydro storage, and this comprised the largest storage component of the proposed solution.

But an additional effect you have when considering the whole of europe is interconnection. The geographic spread of renewables lowers storage requirements.

We need new battery technologies or other means of economical storage to make such a grid work in Europe. I suspect the numbers are similar in the U.S. Biomass and geothermal help close the gap, but not nearly enough.

The EU will use hydrogen, I am not a huge fan of that but it is what it is…

https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-systems-integration/hydrogen_en

As a sidenote, I don’t expect batteries to play a huge role in energy storage. Propably more frequency regulation and peak shifting and basically no long term storage.

But we will see…

A

One cannot prove a negative. Can you prove that god does not exist? Typically the burden of proof lies with the one making any positive claims such as you are.

Of course it would be possible to proof that something isn’t economicly viable exept in this case, because it is.

Here is a model of an economicly viable stand-alone system.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352152X22007836

The link above was about how insanely expensive Nuclear is compared to, well, everything else.

False. There is currently no technology which enables an economically viable solution for 100% renewable grids.

Do you have any proof of this other than your own conclusions? Because a lot of experts see this very differently.

It seems Denmark is doing fine at the moment, so I don’t really see your argument there.

By the way, the EU wants to develope hydrogen for long term storage.

If you want expensive, sure you can use nuclear.

https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/