Svante

There comes a time where you have to stop accepting things you can't change, and start changing things you can't accept.

Pronouns: he/his/him/er/sein
Degree: Dipl.-Chem.
囲碁: 二段
空手: 初段

Public Key

npub1hnnyl28a35qd9cz7xjpxd57fls65s7vz0xef6j9a7am0sytle2uqu9uh9f

NIP-05 Address

ardubal_at_mastodon.xyz@momostr.pink

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsteej04r7c6qxjup0rfqnx60ylcd2g0xp8nv5afz7lwahcz9lu4wqprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0d4hhxarj9ecxjmntfd3vez

Publishing to

relay.momostr.pink

Author Public Key

npub1hnnyl28a35qd9cz7xjpxd57fls65s7vz0xef6j9a7am0sytle2uqu9uh9f

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-08-03 21:50:50 UTC

- reply

My point is that those are just blown-up propaganda items (a.k.a. »lies«) designed to bad-mouth one of the most effective, clean, and safe energy sources we have.
Propaganda that is a relic of the cold war, where it was employed to sabotage the West's advantage in that area.
Propaganda that was sadly very effective in installing bad vibes about nuclear power.
Propagande that you are apparently a victim of.
You were blunt, so I reply bluntly, sorry.

2026-08-03 20:13:07 UTC

- reply

There is not a real problem with cooling. There are just limits that are designed to keep the ecological footprint negligible. There is no real danger of cooling loss in any of these cases.
Wildfires are also not a real concern for these sites, because they do not stand in forests (the site stands on a so-called island made of concrete.).
And even if an accident could happen, Three Mile Island and more recently Fukushima have shown that containment works.

2026-06-26 16:35:26 UTC

- reply

France has shut down two of its over 50 reactors in order to meet regulations designed to prevent stress on the local ecosystem with a wide safety margin.
Because it has the capacity to do that while still meeting demand.
So, yes, I think that you can green your way out of the Climate Crisis, and France did exactly that 40 years ago, using nuclear power. If everyone had done the same, we'd be in a much better place today.

2026-05-27 20:10:59 UTC

- reply

I think you might have missed a D in the second-to-last word.

2026-02-10 17:52:34 UTC

- reply

I keep thinking about how one might /guess/ this missing digit to be the at first implausible sounding 7. I imagine that if it was an 8 (or later), it would be too late for some further context of the stone?

2026-02-10 14:05:19 UTC

- reply

Nuclear power is already scalable and non-experimental for decades. Why bet on something that /might/ become available in 10 years, and neglect the thing that already works, and which /must/ be started now if the other bets don't show massive results?

2026-02-09 10:09:26 UTC

- reply

Storage has still a long way to go until it (plus massive overbuild) can /maybe/ compete with the simple generation from nuclear power.
When the main problem is that some nuclear plants take 20 years to build, while others (most even) take only 5—7, then the question is how to do it right, not whether to do it at all.

2026-01-20 19:57:25 UTC

- reply

Wasn't there a library virtually implementing (i. e. no GUI) this, I think called "cells"?

2025-12-20 00:31:52 UTC

- reply

That makes it sound as if it was somehow a very hard thing to do.
And the picture looks as if there were giant halls full of used fuel casks.
(Both are untrue.)

2025-12-14 19:45:44 UTC

- reply

Apparently not really free — I got Access Denied, probably because I block all the fingerprinting and tracking.

2025-11-27 11:28:41 UTC

- reply

I wonder how many banks still have such anti-nuclear policies.
This kind of thing could be a major part of the reason why nuclear new builds were so rare in recent decades.

2025-10-28 21:18:27 UTC

- reply

I like this outcome, but I won't boost an image of the orange menace.

2025-09-29 13:10:11 UTC

- reply

Huh, this wouldn't be the world's first, would it? E. g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle_in_France

2025-08-17 20:03:03 UTC

- reply

[continuation]
All we need to do is sub out the dirty fuels of the past with clean ones. It's not rocket science, unless you count nuclear as rocket science, which, let's be real, it kind of is.
[end]

2025-08-17 20:01:38 UTC

- reply

TL;DR
Degrowthers drive me nuts. In my experience, they almost always come from energy-rich societies and yet somehow romanticize poverty, like it's some kind of spiritual awakening. Contrary to what proponents of this philosophy may tell you, using lots of energy isn't inherently bad. In fact, energy abundance is the secret to human happiness and equality. We've already figured out how to grow economies without increasing emissions.
[continued]

2025-08-03 15:12:34 UTC

- reply

»We are installing lots of solar panels« is obviously not half of the real story.
Where is the rest? Or is it just being leveled out by complete immersion into the italian grid?

2025-07-22 15:07:59 UTC

- reply

The »world nuclear waste report« doesn't look like a serious source.

2025-05-10 14:29:05 UTC

- reply

Is there a better translation somewhere, or the original?

2025-05-08 21:33:48 UTC

- reply

I've seen some solar guy explaining that the inverters that create alternating current from solar (and wind, although that's more complicated) are very good at /following/ the phase and frequency of the grid, but in that, they /amplify/ disturbances. Turbines (hydro, nuclear, gas etc.) on the other hand have a lot of inertia, /dampening/ disturbances.
So, »stability« is not just about reliability, but also about inertia — »rotating mass«, as some call it.

2025-04-28 12:25:41 UTC

- reply

This raises a question: why can't they keep themselves running? Why require a constant external power source that is probably much less reliable than they themselves?

2025-04-23 15:48:25 UTC

- reply

What does »organic« mean in this context?

2025-03-20 23:40:06 UTC

- reply

Figuring out what?

2025-03-19 23:25:50 UTC

- reply

2/2
https://6-28.mastodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/114/191/669/217/813/024/original/bf0c375a3a825b20.webp
https://6-28.mastodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/114/191/669/674/274/389/original/bc7227f63982f58d.webp
https://6-28.mastodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/114/191/670/196/780/370/original/421616c338d8f5cc.webp
https://6-28.mastodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/114/191/670/630/721/297/original/d7f0e57beafdac04.webp

2025-03-19 23:22:54 UTC

- reply

Here is the text, it is easiest to add as alt text on the actual images (because of character limits), so I'm repeating them here.
Feel free to copy them into your posts, I'd delete mine afterwards.
https://6-28.mastodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/114/191/647/917/987/554/original/dbe57ef61207315f.webp
https://6-28.mastodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/114/191/648/376/010/576/original/df88211a936064e1.webp
https://6-28.mastodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/114/191/649/281/873/398/original/6f8eab40372bf879.webp
https://6-28.mastodon.xyz/media_attachments/files/114/191/649/858/080/949/original/ec18378603cb498f.webp

2025-03-15 22:13:31 UTC

- reply

To be honest, I think this is horribly overengineered. Also, you shouldn't make future fuel this inaccessible.
On the other hand, it shows that even a maximalist safe-beyond-all-sanity disposal is economically feasible.

2025-03-05 02:00:23 UTC

- reply

Yeah!
And Italy is overturning its ban. Germany might, too.
The dark decades of nuclear slump, orchestrated by green-conservative/fossil interests, may finally be over.
If we still have a civilization in 50 years, it will be mostly powered by hydro (where it makes sense) and nuclear power.

2025-02-26 13:04:58 UTC

- reply

They just need to show Germany as a bad example. That should convince anyone.

2025-02-10 20:11:24 UTC

- reply

Side note: nuclear power is also Europe's largest electric energy source (25%).

2025-01-23 21:47:57 UTC

- reply

The problem is that these people /believe/ (as in religion, not as in science) that
- »100% Renewable« is possible, and
- that it is cheaper than anything else.
Habeck et al. see themselves as »temporarily embarrassed energy superpower«.

2025-01-13 17:52:31 UTC

- reply

2 being built?

2024-12-18 23:00:54 UTC

- reply

I think that »if only a small fraction…« arguments are in most cases bullshit. You just have to make the base magnitude big enough to claim anything.

2024-12-11 21:29:12 UTC

- reply

Ugh. Preview shows Trump. Don't do that if you want me to share.

2024-12-05 07:48:44 UTC

- reply

No, in fact, it is quite fast in its reaction time.
Faster than all fossil plants (except maybe for very dirty fossil gas »peakers«), second only to hydro.
Fast enough to do normal load balancing; it was even a design criterion in Germany.

2024-12-04 09:49:40 UTC

- reply

If it was only about total amount of energy, then yes, there are more pressing places than the north.
But the characteristics of generation also matter. Getting dispatchable energy sources means that you can also accommodate more volatile sources.
The driving force behind the order of restarts is availability, of course. This is not about what is most pressing, but what can be done the fastest.

2024-12-02 20:55:41 UTC

- reply

I believe almost any design can do district heating. You just have to use the heat.
Steady Energy in Finland is doing it with a specific design that's for nothing else, and because they don't need high pressures anywhere, it is very simple.
But it can also be a re-use thing. China has at least one installation heating an ever wider area every year, on top of electric energy production. I think it's also being done in eastern europe.

2024-11-28 23:42:48 UTC

- reply

Something like a well-written and nuanced blog post on a specific question.

2024-11-07 11:31:29 UTC

- reply

I don't have time to watch it right now, but my impression is that Biden, Harris, and Walz were consistently pro-climate, pro-nuclear, while Trump and Vance etc. are only pro-profit and anti-science.
They will probably drop nuclear wherever fossil money flows.

2024-11-05 11:07:03 UTC

- reply

The effectiveness of wind and solar is highly dependent on their penetration. At around 40% of direct electricity demand, the output peaks hit the demand curve. Above that, it gets /progressively/ harder because of the added need for storage, transmission, and overbuild. Given the limited timeframe due to their short lifetime, a »100% solar and wind« system seems effectively impossible. But that's OK, we have other sources, such as nuclear.

2024-11-05 09:50:23 UTC

- reply

Sorry, that was probably too abbreviated to be unambiguous.
We need all the short-term reductions in CO₂ emissions from installing solar panels and wind turbines. We need all reasonable hydro power, geothermal etc. We need nuclear where and when those don't reach.

2024-11-05 07:40:25 UTC

- reply

Political security (we will not make your investment worth negative billions in a few years), better financial modelling (reducing cost of finance, which makes up more than half of the building costs), building in progressive series alongside the supporting industry.
Regarding which clean technology is the best solution: »all of the above«. We need everything.

2024-11-04 22:24:34 UTC

- reply

Nuclear plants usually get more powerful over time, due to those small improvements. And as for the big improvements, last I looked, there are currently around 70 companies worldwide with a wide spectrum of new designs.
But that's just to illustrate that hope for future improvements is not confined to one technology. Building proven Gen. III+ reactors in series is worthwhile by itself, for the things the other sources can't do.

2024-11-04 21:55:17 UTC

- reply

The same is true for nuclear power. It gets better all the time, and there is still a lot of untapped potential for small (e. g. better fuel usage, designs, materials, processes) and big (e. g. alternative fuel cycles, recycling) improvements.
Nuclear heat can also be used directly, e. g. district heating or industrial use.
It is needed, just as much as every other mostly clean energy source.

2024-11-04 21:29:09 UTC

- reply

Maybe, but a nuclear power plant has a lifetime of 60—100 years, while batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines are limited to 20—30 years. Every single solar panel, wind turbine, and battery block installed now will be gone by 2050 and needs replacement, and then again in 2080 etc.
Each such cycle is much more resource intensive than a nuclear plant.
It is faster in the short term, yes, and we need that, but sustainability is achieved with diversity. Nuclear is needed too.

2024-10-16 07:36:21 UTC

- reply

This is great news, as it means that we get a first mover on this new development, instead of the usual »yeah, we'll take the fifth run so that the first kinks are already ironed out«.
What could go wrong: the AI hype winding down, Google might suddenly decide to drop out, leaving the project in limbo, but I hope that Kairos has sufficient leverage in the contract that they wouldn't go under from that.
The current rate of new nuclear projects shows that they have an economic case.

2024-09-15 14:17:41 UTC

- reply

It would be the job of the government to ensure that this clean capacity is not destroyed when the AI hype is over.

2024-09-14 16:57:39 UTC

- reply

Consumer prices are not the entire truth, yes, but spot prices are much worse.

2024-09-14 16:16:55 UTC

- reply

That's spot prices, i. e. the cost of securing short-term missing supply. That's only a small part of the whole and has only very little connection to what the end user pays.
(Most energy needs can be projected and is ordered at different prices months ahead.)

2024-09-02 16:00:32 UTC

- reply

Funny to see the »oh noes, nuclear bad« sentences strewn into the otherwise entirely upbeat article. Is it cognitive dissonance, editorial demands, or tongue in cheek?

2024-08-29 09:55:33 UTC

- reply

I don't see how having a vertically integrated direct and complete competitor is necessary for sanctions against Rosatom. Just sanction them.
And of course, support »western« nuclear industries, mostly by removing purely political obstacles.

2024-08-27 10:19:01 UTC

- reply

Oh, that's right. Here is a different one: yewtu.be

2024-08-27 10:10:35 UTC

- reply

They usually have a link to a different one or to an overview page with health info. I think they are often under attack/restriction by yt, so evading seems like the sensible thing to do.

2024-08-25 13:57:08 UTC

- reply

Thinking about it, those 90% are probably not a key figure. Instead, they probably currently just don't /use/ much energy, but that will change soon as they lift themselves out of energy poverty.
So, it's not just about increasing energy output by another 11%. It's probably about doubling or tripling it, and at the same time, increasing reliability. The same holds for most other African countries.

2024-08-25 13:44:06 UTC

- reply

I think the Kenya situation warrants studying: they apparently already have 90% so-called renewables, and still see they need something else to get to 100%.
It is also a country where the making of a nuclear industry will be interesting to watch: I think they need to invest and hire aggressively local, to build up involvement and deeper understanding of the people around. And since tourism is already there: include a visitor centre from the start.

2024-08-21 19:25:47 UTC

What I'd like to see is a site that collects and reviews real studies about #energy, especially clean sources like #nuclear, #wind, #solar, and supporting tech like batteries, transmission, and synthetic fuels.
Something where you can direct people who throw the latest »The Guardian« mood piece around like it's distilled truth from the gods.
Something that refrains from flashy web animations.

2024-08-20 08:26:26 UTC

- reply

Yes, but again, that doesn't mean that current Gen III have excessive or problematic water requirements, or that uranium resources are somehow severely limited.

2024-08-19 21:23:29 UTC

- reply

That's good, but I think it should be made clear that already any Gen. III reactor is for all intents and purposes also safe and clean. This is just one example of interesting new developments that show that nuclear power is not standing still.

2024-08-15 12:44:33 UTC

- reply

That's not what you wrote.
This new non-argument is a »faulty generalization« (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization#Hasty_generalization).

2024-08-15 12:38:22 UTC

- reply

You do realize that that is not an argument at all, right? It's like a textbook example of a non-argument. Please allow me to refrain from congratulating you on that.

2024-08-15 11:23:55 UTC

- reply

Certainly cleaner than any other energy source, because it is orders of magnitude less, and much more easily contained, and it decays.