Love Begins
⁂
Acquired Stardust
No title available
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
almost home
@theartofmadeline
roma★
Andulka
Game of Thrones Daily
No title available
Misplaced Lens Cap
Three Goblin Art
Sade Olutola
Stranger Things
Jules of Nature
if i look back, i am lost
Today's Document
Keni
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from Türkiye
seen from Canada
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Iraq
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from United States
@nuclearforfuture
Scientists at the US Department of Energy's DIII-D National Fusion Facility have released a new concept for a compact fusion reactor design
An exciting development that may mean nuclear fusion is closer within reach! This brings us closer to the key to solving the climate crisis with cheap, plentiful, clean electricity!
Friendly reminder to villainize nuclear weapons, not nuclear power
Nuclear power is probably the only way we can get to net zero emissions! It does not deserve to be villainised!
I’ve been thinking about this video since I saw it shortly after it went up in March (2021). As someone who was one of the staunchly anti-nuclear environmentalists, back in the 1970s and ‘80s, I object to the click-baiting “Lies” in the title (a ‘lie’ is a deliberate, and malicious, distortion of the truth, rather than a misunderstanding of the truth, or the lack of crucial information that changes perceived truth).
And here is a paraphrase of three points I left as a comment on the video:
50 years ago, when the anti-nuke movement was at its loudest, we did not have the technology, yet, to reuse the fissile material, as they talk about in this video (though it was understood to be theoretically possible).
We were also in the midst of a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union, with no end in sight – unless you count World War 3 and Nuclear Armagedden – and one way to reuse nuclear waste was in bombs (oh, and by then, we’d already learned that the “duck and cover” defense against nuclear fallout that was promoted in the 1950s was utterly useless. Back when I was a teenager the saying was: “In case of nuclear war, bend over, and kiss your ass goodbye.”).
And while we did not have a way to recycle nuclear waste, we already did have solar power, wind power, and geothermal power; we also completely underestimated the influence of the Fossil Fuel Lobby. We had absolutely no reason to believe that, by 2021, we wouldn’t already be in a completely zero-carbon energy world, and we saw investing in nuclear energy as a distraction from that.
And we could have been in a zero-carbon emission world by now, if we had started in the 1970s (when we already had scientific evidence building up for the reality of human-caused global warming).
And the fact that we’ve let it get so bad that we probably need nuclear power to get out of this mess is what makes me so sad.
As with many things, I blame the politics that led to Ronald Reagan.
I couldn't agree more! A lot of the opposition I see to nuclear energy often depicts it as nuclear energy vs renewables, as though every bit of nuclear energy could be viably replaced with solar or wind energy. In truth, though, when nuclear power plants close due to restrictive regulations, the lost electricity is filled with fossil fuels instead of renewables. This means that in truth, the fight is more fossil fuels vs nuclear energy, especially since variable renewable energy needs a base load power source. Nuclear energy clearly wins this fight.
In addition, the fact that building nuclear power plants takes a long time is often used as a mark against it, but if there hadn't been such vigorous opposition to nuclear energy, that wouldn't be a problem. Nuclear energy is probably the only way we can ever get to zero emissions without creating a risky or shoddy electricity grid.
New nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh.
New nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh (between 2.3 to 7.4 times depending upon location and integration issues). Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated (between 9 to 37 times depending upon plant size and construction schedule). In addition, it creates risk and cost associated with weapons proliferation, meltdown, mining lung cancer, and waste risks. Clean, renewables avoid all such risks.
Nuclear advocates claim nuclear is still needed because renewables are intermittent and need natural gas for backup. However, nuclear itself never matches power demand so it needs backup. Even in France with one of the most advanced nuclear energy programs, the maximum ramp rate is 1 to 5 % per minute, which means they need natural gas, hydropower, or batteries, which ramp up 5 to 100 times faster, to meet peaks in demand. Today, in fact, batteries are beating natural gas for wind and solar backup needs throughout the world. A dozen independent scientific groups have further found that it is possible to match intermittent power demand with clean, renewable energy supply and storage, without nuclear, at low cost.
Finally, many existing nuclear plants are so costly that their owners are demanding subsidies to stay open. For example, in 2016, three existing upstate New York nuclear plants requested and received subsidies to stay open using the argument that the plants were needed to keep emissions low. However, subsidizing such plants may increase carbon emissions and costs relative to replacing the plants with wind or solar as soon as possible. Thus, subsidizing nuclear would result in higher emissions and costs over the long term than replacing nuclear with renewables.
While it's true that nuclear energy has its problems and that it is not a magic solution for all the problems of the electric grid, it is nonetheless unwise to discard it out of hand as a safe source of carbon-free base load power.
In addition to safety concerns around nuclear energy itself being regularly sensationalised and blown out of proportion, the cost of building and maintaining nuclear energy power plants is driven up by extremely restrictive regulations. Nuclear power is one of the safest forms of energy available to us, and yet it is subject to regulations so strict that not only are they unnecessary, but they also factor into that high cost and building time. The long approval waiting times and bureaucracy surrounding nuclear power plants only add to the already existing cost and time of building nuclear power plants. Regulations are also due to the high cost of running nuclear power plants. In reality, keeping a nuclear power plant running is cheaper than even natural gas plants, has they have very low fuel and cooling costs. It's these costly regulations that are forcing owners to ask for subsidies or close their plants entirely, causing communities to lose out on plentiful, safe energy and many high-paying jobs.
It's important to note that these extremely restrictive regulations are not based on reasonable facts or the reality of nuclear power plants. Instead, they are based on irrational fears around the sensationalised and exaggerated risks of nuclear energy. There is nothing wrong with regulations per se, but if they are designed poorly they could choke out one of our most useful tools in combating climate change.
While it's true that nuclear energy's ramp rate is low, using batteries as a base load or backup is hardly better. On the small scale it may work well, but when batteries have to work for a whole country's electricity grid, their efficiency and performance drops. This is largely due to the fact that batteries have very poor long term storage capabilities. In addition, because they do not produce their own electricity, a lot of them are required to do minor back-up in a grid, which eventually leads to a cycle of needing more batteries and in turn needing more electricity generation, leading to a larger need for batteries. Finally, batteries are not cheap themselves, so that ultimately using batteries and nuclear as base load energy have comparable costs, but with using batteries having a far higher risk of blackouts and brownouts.
This video does a good job of better explaining the problems facing the use of batteries in an all-renewable grid.
As for the issue of nuclear proliferation, there are many types of reactors using different types of fuels, only some of which can be further developed into the right fuel for nuclear weapons. It is entirely possible to build a nuclear reactor fleet with zero risk of proliferation.
All in all, nuclear energy is not perfect, but it's essential if we want zero carbon electricity grids that can still provide for all out power needs. To discount it and to close our existing nuclear power plants typically only results in higher carbon emissions as the high share of power generated by the closed plants in generated by fossil fuel plants. We need nuclear energy to tackle the climate catastrophe!
The hard truth is that we cannot reduce global emissions enough to stop climate change without nuclear power, yet here in the United States, we’re letting nuclear slowly die out.
The nuclear plant closures cannot continue. Not if we care about climate.
Barakah unit 1 entered commercial operation today, the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation has announced. The unit, which is operated by Naw
Welcome, Barakah 1!
Erleichtert über den Beschluss zum Atomausstieg war Martin Knipfer als 12-Jähriger. Doch gute Argumente überzeugten ihn später vom Gegenteil
In Deutschland hat die anti-Atomkraft-Lobby ihre Ziele fast komplett erreicht: das letzte deutsche Kernkraftwerk wird 2022 abgeschaltet. Während Politiker und anti-Atom-Aktivisten feiern, bemerkt niemand, dass Deutschlands Energie zu großen Teilen noch von Kohle gewonnen wird, dass Deutschland viel mehr Kohlendioxid ausstößt als ihre nukleare Nachbarn, und dass die Energiepreise durch teure erneuerbare Energien immer mehr nach oben getrieben werden.
Statt auf Fakten wird die deutsche Energiepolitik auf grundloser Angst und Bauchgefühlen gebaut. Es wird Zeit, dass damit Schluss ist.
This video sums up almost everything I have been trying to say on this blog. Nuclear energy is an incredibly powerful tool to uplift humanity and combat climate change, as well as to strengthen the future of renewable energy. Renewable and nuclear energy are not competitors, because at the end they must work together to defeat a common enemy: climate change. Renewables can't win this fight alone, and neither can nuclear energy. They must be partners, and together we can use them to pave the future way for humanity!
Increased incidences of radiation-related health effects among those exposed from the March 2011 accident at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nucle
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation recently published their 2020 report on the state of Fukushima Daiichi and update their 2013 report on the event. Using improved models and radiation impact data, the committee was able to conclude that the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has resulted in no adverse health effects. The modest increase in thyroid cancer could be attributed to higher screening rates after the accident.
Despite being considered the second-worst accident in nuclear power history, the events at the plant itself have not contributed to adverse health effects, showing just how safe nuclear power really is. While this event should certainly serve as a wake-up call for increased safety in the nuclear industry - and it has - nuclear energy should not be neglected simply because of exaggerated fear in the wake of a highly reported-on event. Now that climate change is a more pressing issue than ever, this source of safe, clean, carbon-free energy should not be discounted.
China will have the world's largest nuclear power fleet within a decade, while most of the units in longstanding nuclear regions - Japan, th
While nuclear power is losing ground in Europe and the United States, it is only becoming more prominent in China. According to IEA, China's nuclear fleet will be the largest and most modern in the world in ten years, an encouraging commitment to decrease carbon emissions, especially since China is currently the largest carbon emitter in the world.
All the nuclear power plants in the US are nearing the end of their lifetimes, are getting old and ready to be taken offline, or being outcompeted by cheaper fossil fuels... We cannot let ourselves lose this valuable source of clean energy and high-paying jobs, especially now that we are facing climate disaster and need every bit of carbon-free power we can get. Let's invest in our nuclear plant fleet!
The planet needs nuclear power.
Welcome to Arco, ID and EBR-I
The first town in the world to be lit by atomic power and the world’s first nuclear power plant.
NASA's Perseverance rover successfully touched down on Mars yesterday, 203 days after being launched from Cape Canaveral in Florida. The rover, which is powered by a Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator developed and fuelled in partnership with the US Department of Energy, will explore the Jezero Crater and collect samples that will eventually be returned to Earth.
The Perseverance rover now exploring the surface of Mars is fuelled by a power system converting the heat of decaying plutonium into electricity, devised by the Idaho National Laboratory. It should be able to fuel Perseverance for 14 years, allowing it to study the red planet and expand humanity’s horizons on Mars.
Thus, nuclear energy is not only our best shot at facing climate change and obtaining clean, pollution-free energy here on Earth, but also a way to pave humanity’s path to the stars.
Some Republicans want you to think wind turbines caused the Texas blackout. Here’s why they’re wrong.
Lili Pike at Vox:
As the energy crisis in Texas deepened this week, leaving millions without power, heat, and even running water, conservative commentators and politicians persistently peddled a myth that wind turbines are to blame.
“It seems pretty clear that a reckless reliance on windmills is the cause of this disaster,” Tucker Carlson said Monday on Fox News. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott also used wind power as a scapegoat for the crisis when he appeared on Fox Tuesday night, but he later walked back his comments.
Let’s get the facts straight. Every type of power plant — whether powered by coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, or wind sources — in Texas was impacted by the ice and freezing temperatures that arrived with Winter Storm Uri over the weekend. But it was natural gas — the state’s top source of electricity — that failed most significantly as wellheads and power plants froze over. Wind turbines, meanwhile, were responsible for 13 percent of the total lost electricity output, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state’s nonprofit grid operator.
But there is nothing innate about wind power — or natural gas — that caused these power plants to fail. It’s merely a matter of preparation, Hui Hu, a professor of aerospace engineering at Iowa State University who studies wind turbines, told Vox.
Places reliant on wind energy that are no strangers to cold and ice — from Sweden to Iowa — are proof that the freezing of turbines in Texas was not inevitable. The difference: Unlike in Texas, those turbines were weatherized to operate in the cold.
Does this mean that, as wind power contributes a greater and greater share of electricity in states like Texas, all wind turbines have to be storm-proofed to avoid a future mass blackout like this week’s? This is ultimately a risk calculation that lawmakers and scientists will have to make going forward, but the scale of the damage from this blackout suggests the upfront investment would be worthwhile.
[…]
How some of the coldest regions keep their turbines turning
So, how do wind farms respond to these different types of ice, to keep their turbines from shutting down as they did in Texas?
In wetter places like Scandinavia and Scotland, some turbines are filled with hot air while others have a special coating to prevent ice from forming. These winter-ready turbines cost about 5 percent more than regular turbines, and the heating process uses up some of their energy output, Stefan Skarp, who oversees wind power for Swedish utility Skellefteå Kraft, told Bloomberg News. Hu’s team is working on more energy-efficient technologies that could be cheaper.
Because Iowa is blessed with drier ice, wind farms there haven’t had to invest in such elaborate measures while reaching the highest share of wind electricity generation in the country: 42 percent in 2019.
Midwestern utility company MidAmerican Energy Company has shown that wind energy is highly reliable, even in harsh Iowa conditions. In 2020, 80 percent of the utility’s electricity was generated by renewable energy — the majority of which comes from its 3,300 wind turbines, said Geoff Greenwood, a spokesperson for MidAmerican Energy.
“This year it’s been cold, but our wind fleet continues to generate clean energy for our customers,” he said. All that’s needed is a few extra measures in the turbine design to make sure certain components don’t freeze up.
Some Iowa wind operators use flashier action movie techniques to keep their turbines going. Helicopters and drones swoop over turbines dropping hot water or de-icing chemicals. But this is typically just a one-off measure if bad ice hits, Hu said.
The US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation are to hold a joint inquiry into the operations of the bulk-power system during the extreme winter weather conditions currently being experienced in parts of the USA. The severe cold weather has contributed to power outages affecting millions of electricity customers.
This event highlights the importance of taking precautions for all situations. The cold snap in Texas took a majority of the state’s electricity generation offline due to the effects of cold weather, which could have been mitigated with proper weatherproofing.
One such electricity generation taken out by the cold was reactor 1 of the South Texas Project nuclear power plant, which tripped due to the cold damaging the feed water pumps in the non-nuclear side of the plant. Although the damage has been resolved and the reactor is back online, an inquiry is being held into this to ensure it will not repeat itself.
Japan's energy minister has said he considers nuclear energy "indispensable" if the country is to meet its target of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Speaking to the Financial Times, Hiroshi Kajiyama said power shortages last month due to heavy snowfall highlighted Japan's need for nuclear.
Although Japan put most of its nuclear power plants out of operation after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi, its energy minister now makes it clear that Japan must return to nuclear energy or risk not reaching its climate goals.
In places such as Japan, where geographical conditions, such as insufficient land area and deep oceans make sources such as solar and wind infeasible, nuclear energy is the only realistic carbon-free power source. This makes it a necessary tool for any nation wanting clean, breathable air, a safe environment, and an end to the climate crisis.
