What do you think about the use of nuclear energy?

First of all I would like to let you know that I am currently working in the Offshore Wind industry.Despite the potential of this market, I do want to lose the following.

Without nuclear power, we simply cannot afford to meet all climate goals.I do not mean that what is in the Paris agreement, because even if all the measures envisaged therein (because they are not hard agreements, but promises that the will is there), this would trigger a fraction of the necessary reduction in temperature To turn global catastrophe off. Extrapoleer The energy transition and the costs SO far to what we should do and what THAT will cost. In theory it is possible to supply the world with sun, wind and hydro of energy, but in practice not (not affordable and not time).

The electricity prices of Denmark and Germany are an example of this.I don’t know how you think about it, but I don’t want to pay â ‘ ¬ 500â € “800 per month for energy! The electricity prices in France, on the other hand, are the lowest in Europe (Iceland excluded, but we do not all live on a volcano where one can make very easy with Thermo-unlimited water steam). France does this with nuclear energy and on the map of CO2 emissions, France is always the best of the paint!

Denmark is often taken as an example of how it can be.It is often claimed to extract 100% of their energy from sustainable sources. This is NOT TRUE! This is true for their flow, but that’s roughly 25â € “30% of a country’s energy needs. The rest is still CO2 emissions and compare what this Denmark has already cost. So they have to spend another 300â € “500% more than what they have already done if they also want to have energy reserves for when the wind is not blowing and the sun does not show itself well over Europe for a few days.

Nuclear power has been given a bad name by propaganda from various groups that had an interest in not replacing fossil fuels.It is the ONLY technique we have in hand that has the ability to make humanity of crude oil independent (until nuclear fusion is available, but every year the expected availability of 25â € “50 years with the same amount shifts ).

What if I would tell you that we already have the techniques to filter out CO2 from the air and make it fuel again?We can easily make CO (carbon monoxide) and then convert it into alcohol (methanol/ethanol). Then we already have a hydrocarbon that is used in Formula 1. Then we have techniques to make the hydrocarbon chain longer. Ethanol-> Gasoline-> Diesel-> Jet-fuel-> Plastics!!! In theory We can make plastic from air!!! This can in theory also by using the energy of windmills, etc. Only it is a very inefficient process and can in practice only be used in combination with an inexhaustible, inexpensive, reliable, clean, CO2 neutral energy source… nuclear energy. I consider the stock readily available Uranium and Thorium that can supply energy for several tens of thousands of years (not just power, but EVERYTHING) at current use conveniently as inexhaustible.

Let me immediately tell you that this synthetic fuel is almost as clean as it burned as hydrogen!In fact, there are no contaminants in it that are in crude oil. End Fine dust! CO2, but we had already taken it out of the air, so is net zero!

Current reactors are very inefficient, they don’t even use 1% of the fuel!The rest is garbage.

There are new reactors in development (GEN 4 reactors).Most of these can use this waste again as fuel and some get an efficiency of almost 100%. This means that 99 times as much energy from this ‘ waste ‘ can be extracted from the ‘ fuel ‘ ever. The resulting waste has to be retained for 300 years instead of 10,000 + years. This is to plan, 10 millennia is not to plan. Even in geological terms, it is no longer a short time to mention, and I do not think that the world is a place where it is safe to store for so long.

New techniques are possible in the future to allow this waste to react even further until it is ‘ just ‘ waste. Undoubtedly still dangerous goods or heavy chemical waste, but we know what to do with it.

The nuclear waste problem an sich is already sufficient reason to develop and market these reactors.

About Thorium is becoming more and more spoken.This can be found virtually everywhere, is almost not radioactive, but it is very radioactive to make and could serve as a fuel. The often mentioned benefits that are attributed to the use of Thorium as fuel for nuclear power is partly true. The benefits are still there, but are attributable to the GEN 4 reactors, especially the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) has many advantages.

The new reactor types cannot get a melt-down.Chernobyl could no longer happen (then it didn’t have to happen anyway if the safety regulations had not been exceeded) and Fukushima Daiichi was also not gone wrong if the tsunami had not destroyed all backup generators.

The new reactors can be mass produced, not like the current generation where 1 reactor is spent 10 years.

Here is an old movie, but still extremely relevant!The first 5 minutes is a summary of what is explained the 2 hours afterwards, but is worth watching!

THORIUM REMIX 2011-DOCUMENTARY

What nuclear power can mean to us is e.g. unlimited clean water, not max 3 minutes may showering in the future, without guilt with the plane around the world on travel, environmentally friendly transport for everyone, clean and affordable energy for Developing countries.They cannot develop with expensive renewable energy. Rich countries have been able to quickly industrialize using cheap dirty energy and can create rampant wealth. How can we justify saying to third world countries that they should use sustainable energy, also for us. They cannot afford that, we will have to do so. You also have to count these costs in the energy transition, because only the rich countries are making a sustainable move. It is mainly the emerging markets that are going to have the greatest economic impact (albeit in a positive or negative sense).

Now I have to give China credit that they are developing the Thorium Molten Salt reactor further.They do not do this primarily for the environment/climate. The fact that it is good for this is a nice side note. China is already becoming a super power. Just wait until they have access to unlimited clean and inexpensive energy.

I have now typed enough.If more info is desired, let’s know

Edit 1-Typos and addition on particulate matter

Edit 2-Adding information

Appropriate and necessary.

Nuclear power is cheaper, safer, more environmentally friendly and reliable than virtually any other alternative.Anyone who looks at the statistics objectively can only agree. It is [mathCO_2 [/math-neutral, ridiculously safe, has no harmful emissions and is inexpensive and extremely reliable.

The only reason why we are not massively committed to nuclear energy is because of feelings of fear and all sorts of fallacies.We feel unsafe by two non-representative incidents â € “Chernobyl and Fukushima â €” while the alternatives often make và © à © l More victims, but those are much less visible. Compare it to fly versus car use. Autoâ €™ s make many more casualties, but aircraft accidents are more visible.

In view of the very high energy needs and in view of the environmental and health crises that cause other forms of energy generation, nuclear energy is an absolute necessity.The alternatives are too polluting or too unreliable.

The analysis of Alex Van den Bossche and Chris Verkruissen is M.I. correct.But the biggest problem with nuclear energy is political and financial. Politically, because the parties have never bothered to rebut the nonsense that is being spread over nuclear power, either for lack of technical insight or more likely, political courage and especially opportunism. We will pay a high price for this.

As Chris rightly points out, green energy alone does not solve the problem because it cannot cover current needs: solar cells sometimes produce only 2% of their peak performance in the summer months in January.You can possibly bridge the day-night cycle with a house battery, but that does not succeed for the summer-winter cycle. In addition, there are also problems with regard to grid stability, a technically complicated subject, but no detail. The power frequency of 50Hz is determined by the permanent balance between consumption and production; The only buffer in the system is the kinetic energy of the turbines in the power plants. The balance is critical to the stability of the network: in case of deviations of +/-2Hz (4% thus), subnetworks are switched off to safeguard the stability of the whole. For this reason alone, a permanent presence of a reliable production capacity is essential, itself if all green energy systems can generate more than enough electricity, usually and on average .

The biggest problem today, however, is financial.As a prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt 25 years ago, the Belgian nuclear power capacity with a pen pull to the trash, and later Angela Merkel a few days after Fukushima with a handy move the Grünen politics cut off the pass, then this has been so Consequences. No financial consortium of banks and financiers will still want to risk a major investment in energy production, because you never know what democracy has in store for them tomorrow. Mr Verhofstadt has recently noted that he was a™ that Private © companies would be in the energy industry, but to his astonishment this has not happened. So you can better let other people think. Recently the Belgian Energy Minister Marghem has a law to allow the government to invest themselves (in gas-fired plants!). Qed.

Whether someone wants to invest private capital in gas-fired plants is at least dubious, because tomorrow, if the CO2 problem is still a little bigger and the water on the lips (or even the dikes), these power stations are also referred to the Trash.Not so. What implies that taxpayers ‘ money will be spent by a short-sighted political class for a bad investment.

On the other hand: nuclear energy is a very costly investment, but in the longer term (and in energy production there is only a longer term, NL. 30 to 50 years) unavoidable and in variable costs, inexpensive.

As for the Electric Autoâ €™ s: without considerable additional electrical production capacity they will not drive: the energy consumption in the European transport sector amounts to 39% of the total energy consumption, electricity and gas each 22%, and Renewable Energy 8%. If we ever want to drive electrically, we will only be able to do that with nuclear energy.And that still takes some time.

My final consideration is that in the west we fully give up our technological leadership from our own will and with our full cooperation, and this under the influence of political brokers with a high opportunistic content, but blind to science and Technology.This is expensive and not funny.

In the years 80 We had to have completely turned to nuclear power.Then we could have developed nuclear fusion and had been electric for years now. No ugly windmills needed and no earthquakes in Groningen.

In the meantime, it is becoming uneconomical.Ten years ago, solar power was still four times as expensive as atomic power. Today it is exactly the other way around… Solar power is still taking off in price and nuclear energy continues to rise slowly.

Of course, sun and wind have an important disadvantage for the time being, because they are unstable sources and storage in batteries or-even better-as synthetic fuels are technologies that are not yet completely or not yet.But if something is cheaper many times, the history of the free market learns that there will always be a smarmerik that fits a sleeve.

Investing heavily in (even more) nuclear R & D seems to me to be a predicament, where governments should not waste (even more) taxpayers ‘ money.

A choice for a nuclear option would also mean for our planet that nuclear reactors will also be in the future in cities such as Raqqa or Caracas.Would that really be as safe as the nuclear engineers always tell us? Would ISIS handle it wisely?

I agree with the answers that are positive.In my opinion, the nuclear option is the best. The advantages surpass the disadvantages in many.

Use is fine.Generation and waste is the problem.

I have experienced Harrisburg, Chernobyl and Fukushima in my life.Terrible disasters that could have been much worse. What do you think of the Netherlands when one of the plants in northern France gets a meltdown and the wind is Southern. Right, the whole of the Netherlands is sprinkled with fall out. All agricultural land and all surface water is poisoned. People get scary illnesses that can have consequences for generations.

What happens to Borsele after a dike breakthrough, the same as in Fukushima?What happens if terrorists blow up or fly an airplane? I read pieces of on technique-loving men, but the risks are really way too big. The more you put down there the greater the probability statistically that it goes wrong once.

Compare it with flies, which is very safe and is getting safer, but sometimes it goes wrong and if it goes wrong then it’s a drama.Nuclear power is very safe and is becoming safer, but if it goes wrong it can be a devastating catastrophe.

Fine.Nothing wrong with that. Left must stop fundamentalist whine about this. Nuclear power is great.

Leave a Reply