El Tico

Energy enthusiast, low carbon energy enjoyer and FOSS proponent since 2010. I know programming and some graphic design. From Costa Rica, a country that is *not* 100% powered by renewables, not even electricity only. Please stop saying it is, it's dishonest especially when you take non-electrical energy into account.

Public Key

npub1ysee63kwsga8ttv0hphcdnulk970a68p5yfux7p44r27ew7h36dsd2urfm

NIP-05 Address

eltico_at_greennuclear.online@momostr.pink

Profile Code

nprofile1qqszgvuagm8gywn44k8msmuxe70mzl87ars6zy7r0q66340vh0tcaxcpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dscck9h2

Publishing to

nostr.mom

nos.lol

relay.damus.io

Author Public Key

npub1ysee63kwsga8ttv0hphcdnulk970a68p5yfux7p44r27ew7h36dsd2urfm

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-07-12 00:50:38 UTC

- reply

"In addition, nuclear power plants can last 80 years or longer (we actually don't quite know yet)"
It depends on the design and alloys, but Rosatom is aiming for 100-year service life for reactors.

2025-12-28 11:02:17 UTC

- reply

HAHAHAHA

2025-12-06 19:18:55 UTC

- reply

Yeah I found a source:
" It features a fertile blanket of lithium-beryllium *fluoride* (FLiBe) enriched to 99.95% Li-7 and is fueled with uranium tetrafluoride (UF4)."
https://www.world-energy.org/article/54333.html
I did remember the Chinese had bought a bunch of FLiBe from ORNL. But now I can say for sure with that source.
So that's why it says "the world's first test of a molten chloride salt fast reactor", this is a chloride salt, while the Chinese experiments use a fluoride salt.
@npub1pnw…qhcz

2025-12-06 19:08:37 UTC

- reply

I think the key is in molten *chloride* salt. If I recall the Chinese use a fluoride salt. Then again if we go for a first in general then it would have to be the MSRE at ORNL.
@npub1pnw…qhcz

2025-11-27 10:28:53 UTC

- reply

"Uruguay has built a power grid that runs almost entirely on renewables [...] the same playbook could work anywhere"
I'd like to see an actual example of a country running on 100% renewables *without* lots of hydro like Uruguay does have. (spoiler: there's none)
I'm all for decarbonization. But thinking this can be achieved without including nuclear energy where needed too is wishful thinking.

2025-11-09 19:20:27 UTC

- reply

I'd like quote formatting.

2025-09-16 05:37:04 UTC

- reply

"as per Electricity Maps Australia had a carbon footprint of 489 grams per kWh on average for 2024"
Even if we go by South Australia alone it's 184 grams per kWh, still over 5 times higher than France's (5.5 to be exact).
@npub15yp…70ts [@The_Sun](https://solarcene.community/@The_Sun )
https://nbg1.your-objectstorage.com/greennuclear-bucket/media_attachments/files/115/212/066/098/863/294/original/21ca33e3c8bacbfc.png
https://nbg1.your-objectstorage.com/greennuclear-bucket/media_attachments/files/115/212/066/098/775/960/original/5354229ee1a6cff4.png

2025-09-04 01:20:06 UTC

"Russia says it will help China overtake the United States on nuclear power" [1]
In 2023, China had 55 GW of nuclear energy capacity, while the U.S. had 96 GW. For China to surpass the U.S., it would need to add around 50 GW of capacity. [2]
This is entirely feasible within 15 years, because that's exactly what France did. France has 61 GW of nuclear energy capacity, most of which was built between 1975 and 1990 under the Messmer Plan, resulting in the construction of 56 reactors.
If China follows a similar path, it could overtake the United States in nuclear energy generation by 2040.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-says-it-will-help-china-overtake-united-states-nuclear-power-2025-09-03/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country#Overview
https://nbg1.your-objectstorage.com/greennuclear-bucket/media_attachments/files/115/143/316/429/645/595/original/96bbd0e65a46fd37.png

2025-08-18 17:46:18 UTC

- reply

yes

2025-07-27 18:19:42 UTC

- reply

Interesting, hopefully someone makes a study about this.

2025-07-26 00:53:16 UTC

- reply

What a steal, and just need to add backups, firming, inertia and storage to make it reliable.

2025-07-13 12:32:54 UTC

- reply

Yeah well, I know the dose rate of spent nuclear fuel goes down by around two orders of magnitude after 300 years, and that even if it didn't, we can still deal with it with either a deep geological repository or deep borehole disposal. And so the idea that spent nuclear fuel is an unmitigated risk is wrong. That's my opinion and that's the point @npub1pnw…qhcz was making. If you agree with that much then there's nothing to argue about.

2025-07-13 12:11:12 UTC

- reply

"There are a variety of other errors in your claims. For example, oxygen does not have an infinite half-life; SOME isotopes of it do, but others do no."
Alright smarty pants, I meant oxygen-16, the stable and by far most common isotope of oxygen, which is what any reasonable person would had assumed from my example. I really don't understand why you need to be this pedantic when I was clearly just trying to make a simple explanation.

2025-07-13 07:24:56 UTC

- reply

the key is "radiologically harmless", even after 300 years it might still be a little bit radioactive, but not by a dangerous amount. Anti-nuclear people love to fear-monger saying things like "uranium-235 has a half-life of 700 million years!" implying that for that entire time it will be dangerously radioactive. But the truth is radioactivity is inversely proportional to the half life. Or in simple English terms "the longer the half-life the less radioactive it is", if that still sounds counter-intuitive, think of it like this: oxygen has an infinite half-life, every stable element has an infinite half-life, the longer the half-life, the more stable and therefore less radioactive they are.
So now you can read that again and see why "it only needing safe storage for 300 years before it becomes radiologically harmless" it's actually true, after 300 years the stuff with short half-lifes (and therefore really radioactive) are gone leaving behind the stuff with longer half-lives and therefore less radioactive, to the point of not being radiologically dangerous to someone just standing next to it anymore.
That said, even IF it was infinitely dangerous forever (like cancer-causing forever-chemicals are, watch "The Biggest Chemical Cover-up in History" by veritasium) we actually do have ways of getting rid of them forever. Either a deep geological repository if the geology allows for it, and if not, then deep borehole disposal, which can be done pretty much everywhere.

2025-07-13 01:25:01 UTC

- reply

"It is therefore the wrong approach to respond against anti-nuclear arguments with facts. Believe me, I've tried. You can reply to worries about nuclear waste (spent fuel) for example with facts - like it being manageable just fine, or it only needing safe storage for 300 years before it becomes radiologically harmless, or it being able to be recycled perfectly fine, or its volume being negligible... If you get a denial of these facts, just stop bothering as people are just being dishonest with you."
Yeah anti-nuclear people are impossible to convince, they didn't reach their conclusion with science and so they can't be reasoned with using science. This is only productive if someone else is listening, so that you respond to educate a third person, but otherwise it's hopeless.
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired - Jonathan Swift

2025-07-12 23:01:58 UTC

- reply

"All energy sources have toxic waste streams. Nuclear has the fewest and best managed. It is a 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 to the problem of how to minimize our impact on the environment."
True, and not only that, but also because of the incredibly high energy density and capacity factor of nuclear energy compared to the low energy density and low capacity factor of wind and solar. And the fact that wind and solar require lots of mining as well, and that there's radioactive material everywhere in nature especially when you mine even if it's for the rare earth that wind and solar need, together with all the copper each wind turbine needs. This ends up with multiple studies showing that, and quote "the public dose from wind and solar is higher than what you have with nuclear energy" And that's not me saying it, that's a PHD in nuclear engineering saying it with a source to back it up. And here's the video with the TLDR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTTHqOfcUDI

2025-07-12 22:49:22 UTC

- reply

"The third world, primarily Africa, is going to explode in energy consumption as they economically develop themselves (at long last) this century and, if we don't want them to burn coal for decades, nuclear energy is a 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 to this problem."
Indeed, and not only that, but considering it was developed countries that used (and continue using) most of the carbon budget, developed countries now don't have any moral standing trying to deny developing countries from using fossil fuels, just like the world bank does by denying these investments which can even save lives as people move from charcoal to gas. So the best and only approach developed countries have is to help developing countries build nuclear plants so that they may skip fossil fuels as much as possible from the tech tree. As well as help them invest in geographically dependent sources like hydro, geothermal, wind and solar too if available.
Related video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq87IM2pib0

2025-07-12 22:36:49 UTC

- reply

"If humanity is to have a future, the future will have to be nuclear."
People hate absolute statements like this, but it's the truth. Once you truly understand these graphs, you know it's either nuclear energy, mass starvation, or a complete destruction of the environment.
https://nbg1.your-objectstorage.com/greennuclear-bucket/media_attachments/files/114/842/611/147/299/864/original/6543a6c42cc724e1.jpg
https://nbg1.your-objectstorage.com/greennuclear-bucket/media_attachments/files/114/842/611/157/975/588/original/faf707d3f514baf6.png

2025-06-24 06:28:09 UTC

- reply

Actually I have a question, you said it was a (singular) dam that never produced electricity and wasn't equipped to do so. But the Banqiao dam failure ended with 62 dam collapses, I'd assume at least some of them were meant for electricity, and it looks like that was the case because Wikipedia says (with 3 sources) "was launched to prevent flooding and to utilize the water for irrigation and generating electricity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

2025-06-22 21:13:22 UTC

- reply

I'm not (too) worried until Russia is willing to openly say they're going to give nukes to Iran. Or that they have already given Iran nukes. I think Russia knows if Iran uses a nuke on anyone it will immediately kickstart WW3 with a high possibility of tactical nukes, and they may not necessarily have the support of China. I think they know they can't trust Iran to have the nuke just as a deterrent and that it would be a coin-flip. Call me optimistic but I think we're still at a coin-flip chance of WW3 in the next 5 years rather than an almost definitive chance.

2025-05-19 09:12:34 UTC

- reply

🎉 🎉 🎉 🎉

2025-05-19 08:05:19 UTC

- reply

B-BELGIUM? "we don't need nuclear" Belgium?

2025-05-09 22:40:39 UTC

- reply

No rules were broken so probably just some power-tripping moderator who thinks wind and solar is everything we can use and we can't even debate about it.

2025-02-28 02:07:35 UTC

- reply

LMFAO, after the boost it got after the election I thought it would remain high for at least 6 months to a year before crashing again. I'm always overly pessimistic or overly optimistic, before the election I didn't thought tesla would get any bump at all, I really thought they were finished and would had been lucky if they could maintain the stock. Nothing ever makes sense with these overhyped pump and dump companies.

2025-02-24 02:10:08 UTC

- reply

I hope the greens are out of government and that this stops https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-002175_EN.html

2025-02-06 11:16:43 UTC

- reply

I'm actually more worried about one particular VVER, you probably know which one, an old one unit plant. I don't even want to say which one because I don't want to jinx it 😂

2025-01-13 20:34:33 UTC

- reply

Hopefully Scotland reconsiders nuclear energy before they turn every last tree to "renewable biomass" to make space for wind turbines.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/19/snp-chopped-down-16m-trees-develop-wind-farms-scotland/
https://woodcentral.com.au/16m-trees-cut-scotland-looks-to-wind-to-power-all-uk-energy-needs/
https://www.gov.scot/publications/eir-202400407867/
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/anger-17-million-trees-chopped-32774066.amp

2025-01-11 18:57:36 UTC

- reply

California, New York, Germany and now Taiwan, it's almost like energy density is a thing and it's just impossible to replace nuclear energy with renewables regardless of how much anti-nuclear people and politicians promise it will be the case.

2025-01-11 18:50:03 UTC

- reply

wait, is volker seriously comparing capacity without taking into account capacity factor or lifetime? This is so deceptive it should be illegal.

2025-01-11 04:12:32 UTC

- reply

24:33
Canceled to have funding for a war that was lost anyway. God damn it, humans could had been on mars by now, but we just really needed to kill each other with napalm and brutal traps in the jungle first.

2025-01-06 17:35:00 UTC

- reply

I just hope Seamus O'Regan can remain in government.
https://greennuclear.online/system/media_attachments/files/113/782/608/869/609/517/original/88f5a8b17c287147.mp4

2025-01-06 08:58:20 UTC

- reply

the problem is the justice system, it should be accesible for david to sue them and win such a clear cut case

2025-01-03 09:52:04 UTC

- reply

w-why tho
india builds big reactors for the cost the west hopes to build small reactors. But then again, maybe india can find a way to build small reactors as cheap as gas or diesel power plant, maybe?

2025-01-02 04:30:34 UTC

Hoy aprendí que los peruanos tienen reactores nucleares para la producción de isotopos medicinales.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSDlKclZwtA

2024-12-30 06:29:02 UTC

- reply

You mean the thread about species extinction? There's nothing in there that says anything close to nuclear energy being a cause for that. And the only emissions to a river from a nuclear plant is the same river water but slightly warmer, the same can not be said about coal, coal on the other hand puts a bunch of nasty stuff into the air, including radiation and heavy metals, and yes, radiation too, because coal contains small amounts of uranium and thorium. Coal plants even put more radiation into the air than nuclear plants, because of different regulations that are much more relaxed for coal plants, read about NORM.

2024-12-30 06:16:46 UTC

- reply

I'm sorry but if you honestly believe any biological process, or even all of them combined can reduce co2 concentrations in any meaningful way in a timeframe that would actually be relevant to the problem of rapid climate change, then you just don't understand the sheer magnitude of the emissions, it's been known that the idea you presented won't work, even as far back as the 70's, it's a simple napkin calculation really. Both uranium and CO2 can be found naturally in the environment, but it will be CO2 what (at best) turns the entire world into Brazil, as in high humidity and temperature all year round, and that's the absolute best and not so likely scenario. While uranium is just one factor in the natural background radiation in which we all evolved with.

2024-12-28 00:43:37 UTC

- reply

https://greennuclear.online/system/media_attachments/files/113/727/675/212/583/891/original/32bab313506ad458.png

2024-12-24 20:02:50 UTC

- reply

Wind and solar require more inputs from mining per unit of energy, and greenpeace pushes for wind and solar while blocking every mining development, that's the contradiction.

2024-12-24 19:50:49 UTC

- reply

Hopefully Argentina signs the declaration to triple nuclear energy by 2050 next COP, so far from latin america only El Salvador has sign it, Mexico and Brazil should sign it too.
https://world-nuclear.org/news-and-media/press-statements/six-more-countries-endorse-the-declaration-to-triple-nuclear-energy-by-2050-at-cop29

2024-12-23 21:05:28 UTC

- reply

"A group of male students decided to go into a girls' restroom to take a Snapchat of their own, similar to what the transgender student did, as a form of protest."
"On April 4, a group of male students began to enter the restroom. Only one male student actually proceeded past the door frame. The other male students followed behind him and were not yet in the restroom. A female student (not the transgender student) was exiting the restroom at the time the first male student began to enter. The female student kicked the first male student in the groin. The male students turned around and left the area."
"Based on the results of the investigation, school administration issued discipline on April 8 to both the female student and to seven male students involved in the incident. The male students were disciplined for attempting to enter the restroom. There was not evidence that the male students were threatening any student or using any type of force toward other students."
Thanks, that link does give a lot more context than just the screenshot. 👍

2024-12-23 10:46:31 UTC

- reply

inb4 the usual German anti-nuclear troll:
https://greennuclear.online/system/media_attachments/files/113/701/734/602/449/095/original/091e4d8e0d0ff7ba.png

2024-12-23 10:42:27 UTC

- reply

Catawu and the other user have a scary cult-like behavior blocking people that didn't even said a word and mostly just linked sources. Being an atheist, I have no patience for such religious behavior, so it's a favor getting blocked by such people.

2024-12-23 03:02:06 UTC

- reply

It came (to the grid) 😛

2024-12-23 01:51:58 UTC

- reply

hahaha Catawu blocked me just for sharing two links. Enjoy living in your echo chamber where facts are not allowed. Typical anti-nuclear behavior, just like all the anti-science people.
https://greennuclear.online/system/media_attachments/files/113/699/632/920/302/803/original/971089029919f023.jpeg

2024-12-23 01:39:06 UTC

- reply

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191201/capacity-factor-of-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-us-since-1975/
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
https://greennuclear.online/system/media_attachments/files/113/699/579/675/875/963/original/7ef9779cf55f1cc5.png