Reposted by GP500 πΊπ¦πβοΈβπ
Ilmasto kiittÀÀ: βWith four nuclear units soon to be operating, Romania is expected to avoid 20 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per yearβ www.euractiv.com/section/poli...
0 replies
1 reposts
3 likes
Don't know about aemon, but what csiro has published is really rubbish and misguiged in construction.
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
Fission needs a much higher determination from nations if we still want to get to netzero.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
It also has a lot to do with high prices and industry relocating.
And this is only current electricity use, much to do.
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
This is only electricity.
That part is only possible with RE plus Nuclear.
Hope for rectification of all nuclear.
And much more new build.
It's European grid question, which needs real determination on all energy sources.
Belgium has a lot of fossil chemical industry.
That's a tough one!
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
NY nuclear is a group trying to astablish new builds, as it seems some parts of indianpoint have been sabotaged to block restarts.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Indianpoint was forced offline, by revoking water permits by cuomo.
They had decades more in them.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
No there not halting, there restructuring.
Also the natiolized EPR had other historic political reasons that emptied the coffer from EDF, as energy provider.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Bs
Germany could have shutdown 20GW of fossil capacity extra, by now.
And because of the higher cap factor, RE would be better integrated.
Germany is depended on high import.
NY however also replaced the shutdown of indianpoint 1&2 with new gasplants
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Ah yes, remember reading something about that now.
Well executed by those officers.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Yep, build more stable clean energy, like nuclear reactors.
Start and start and start.
Never stop building.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Wondering what was implied.
Guess everything can be considered scary.
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
Many walked into a reactor, was this the no real concern 3-mile island reactor.
3 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
You are saying don't remove the ban on nuclear, then your positions is against it at any time.
Even while the science and institutes conclude it's also needed.
Like the ipcc and iea.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
A dogma, what a shame.
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
Sry I meant the current coalition.
But yes the media Γ»nder murdoch are not really quality press, neither is the guardian unfortunately except for some journalist like monbiot.
0 replies
1 reposts
2 likes
Still wonder if you would want to lift the ban if nothing else.
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
It was intense, yet not correct.
On science, studies and of achieving netzero.
That's not just electricity, also industrial heat and materials fabrication.
On electricity it might be the least complicated expensive continent to achieve it with minimal fossil/biomass.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
The shortsighted csiro ordered report, not p2p paper.
A system cost analysis, it's not.
Are you at all open to let nuclear be able to proof itself, revoking nuclear ban in AUS.
Let's stick with science.
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
Nuclear energy is a great tool for that, would not exclude it, because it feels like a colored subject for now.
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
I also see your opposition party has been lying and using fear-tactics about the subject nuclear.
Not enough factual debating going on. πΆ
1 replies
1 reposts
0 likes
It's certainty a clean and sustainable energy source.
And we need it if we want to achieve our global net zero goals.
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
Judge the regulations
If appealed.
I would highly doubt that any form of Nuclear operation, medical, engineering, industry or electricity would change any of there work.
There all also under Iaea agreements, not just nrc.
And non-proliferation laws.
It's not good to spread fear, needs insight.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Reposted by GP500 πΊπ¦πβοΈβπ