@Emil Funny thing, the onboard reactor probably produces more power than the gas it carries could.

But anyway, yes, again, nuclear propulsion for ships is quite obviously a very good match.

@Emil The reactor wouldn't be filled, right? And not under pressure? It would just be a big lump of metal?

@KnitWit @Emil Oh wait, you mean transporting reactor parts per ship? If they are new, they're not even hazardous.

And nuclear fuel gets shipped all the time. If it's new, it's not a problem—very low activity, and water is a good shield—and spent fuel is just kept on site for decades.

@Emil Great, but the AP1000 isn't the only Generation III+ reactor currently in operation, there is also at least the EPR.

@KnitWit @Emil I guess you're not alone, sadly.

However…

A nuclear powered ship probably wouldn't be under ship regulation and supervision, but under nuclear regulation and supervision. Nuclear supervision is much easier to do and harder to circumvent than that of oil. Compliance would be enforced at ports. A ship that cannot dock is useless.

Also, the worst case with a nuclear powered ship is less bad than normal operation of an oil powered ship, and sufficiently improbable.

@tomtrottel @Emil @Tylerdurdon

Well, there we are at the divide between facts and opinion, and that between a civil discussion and ad hominem attacks.

Fact: nobody was ever harmed by spent nuclear fuel. Really. Look it up wherever you like.

Fact: that is not by chance, but by engineering.

Fact: the total amount of all the world's spent nuclear fuel ever, in the shape of a cube, would have a side length of about 35 m (before recycling).

Fact: I have no money invested in nuclear energy.

@tomtrottel @Emil @Tylerdurdon No, it is a classification.

It's like saying »human feces is a huge problem« — well, yes, but that's why we have toilets and sewage plants and so on — it's solved.

As is nuclear waste.

@planet @clojure I am a bit miffed that #CommonLisp is not mentioned at all. It would fit into the article on the measure of both market share and support for functional programming.

@Brownboy13 @Emil Not perfect, but definitely better in every way than oil.

@Emil You know, in a sane world, moving a handful of effectively harmless concrete blocks around wouldn't be newsworthy.

But even in our world, I think that the message should focus more on how little that actually is, how it is all there is, and how obviously it can be successfully done.

Leave some burns on fear-mongers while you're at it.

@Emil OK, it's a start. Once regulatory and economic processes are in place, there will be an option to become much more ambitious here, depending on how other plans turn out. Good.

@Emil This sounds like a sensible, level-headed approach. #Australia, take note!

#auspol #nuclear

@breadsmasher @Emil Yellowcake is not very dangerous, but it's not safe to eat either.

@Lats @ajsadauskas @australianpolitics

Well, right now there is much more derailing of nuclear in the hope of solving storage than derailing solar+wind in the hope of re-enacting a nuclear buildup (like in France, Japan, Germany (1970s-80s), Ontario, China, India…) going on.

Get both on the road, they do not much compete for resources. It will be faster than only one.

@Lats @ajsadauskas @australianpolitics The problem as I see it is that solar+wind+storage alone will not get you there ever. It will go up to 40% solar+wind, then maybe 10—30% with storage+solar+wind (depending on your technooptimism). And then you start replacing everything built every 20 to 30 years. Buys time, but not sustainable.

What you say is true: you need to build up the entire nuclear industry. International cooperation for bootstrapping will be important. Better get started.

@planet @clojure That link seems broken, even if it has a real date. But this one seems to work: https://xtdb.com/blog/dev-diary-feb-24

@ajsadauskas @australianpolitics

What would »grid scale solar & storage« cost, and how long would it take?

This is the competition:

1. Nuclear power plants
2. Storage of the same scale, filled by solar of the same scale

No one in the whole world has ever built (2). There is no mature industry, and no technology even matching the only grid scale storage we have so far (pumped hydro).

For (1), there are several international players with established designs.

I wouldn't stop either one.

@Emil From a pure technical view, it is almost always more reassuring to use the »original«. And that is all this one argues.

But there are other considerations, such as political security for Europe. And diversification of supply is practically always a win for the consumer.

I think Europe should pay a research grant or something like that to whoever develops replacement fuel units.

@Emil This sentence somehow seems wrong: »They are highly radioactive and have long half-lives.«

Halflife and decay rate (and thus radiation intensity) are inversely proportional to each other, and there is the halflife gap in fission products above Strontium-90 and Cesium-137 quite clearly separating »high radioactivity/short halflife« and »low radioactivity/long halflife«.

@Sweetshark @Emil @Diplomjodler

It's almost funny to watch anti-nuclear rhethoric over the years. In the beginning it was »it's unsafe, you're just doing it for profit«, then »it's dirty, you're just doing it for profit«, and now that those points don't hold up, it's »it's unprofitable, you're just doing it for, uhmm…«.