They are only expensive because externalities of other solutions are not captures or are subsidised. Wind and solar are expensive if battery storage is included in most of the world.
Waste is mostly a solved problem. Much more solved that waste management for coal plants in any case (whom also produce a lot of radioactive waste in addition to producing tons and tons of co2)
We have more than enough uranium. Currently only a small fraction is economically mineable but we have played that game before with oil.
To say that they're _potentially_ safe by waving at the US Navy is a fallacy for several reasons.
1. It's p-hacking. E. g. with the same technology the Soviets destroyed five of their reactors.
2. The world of civilian operators is completely incomparable.
3. Civilian power plants use different technologies.
> Waste is mostly a solved problem.
Not as far as I know. In Germany, for example, the search for a final disposal site is still completely open-ended, and the first final disposal site will not open until 2074 at the earliest, while, at the same time, the already collapsed storage facilities consume an enormous amount of money. I personally think it is absurd to assume that an underground nuclear waste storage facility can be operated safely over geological time scales.
Needless to say there isn't even a single one worldwide for highly radioactive waste.
And to compare them with coal plants is classical whataboutism. "They can't be bad, because I found something other that's bad as well."
You're right about the minable uranium. That has changed over the last years, so the current estimate is 2080 in a high demand scenario.
But your criticism about the externalized costs falls short as well. Regarding the externalized costs, that is really hard to quantify and I don't know of reliable estimations. How do you want to come up with a number if you don't even know if humans still exist on the planet at that time?
What is clear is that for nuclear energy the majority of the costs is externalized. The bulk of the costs stem from the decommissioning of power plants, final disposal, and accident-related expenses. All three are typically passed on entirely to taxpayers.
The former German vice chancellor even said, he would agree [to build a new nuclear power plant] if <political opponent> found a private operator willing to build a nuclear power plant entirely without government guarantees, subsidies, or liability coverage.
High level waste disposal starts this year in Finland. The site is 400m underground in bedrock. It will not be really operated in geological timescales, but filled with sealing clay after the disposal is finished in 100 years or so. It is financed by the national nuclear waste management fund, which has been fully capitalised by the nuclear generation companies during plant operation.
Germany doesnt want the waste storage to be found. Otherwise it'll just allow storing in Herfa Neurode. What you think is absurd or not is irrelevant. It's up to scientists to decide, eg. ones that built Onkalo.
And to compare them with coal plants is classical whataboutism. "They can't be bad, because I found something other that's bad as well." - considering germany still has both gas & coal and no country matched french emissions, the statement is fine.
"You're right about the minable uranium. That has changed over the last years, so the current estimate is 2080 in a high demand scenario." - this is just about uranium at ± current prices. Uranium above 100ppm is sufficient to outlive the sun
The bulk of the costs stem from the decommissioning of power plants, final disposal, and accident-related expenses.
1 is paid by operators. 2- too. 3 - insurance+asset liability
"The former German vice chancellor even said, he would agree [to build a new nuclear power plant] if <political opponent> found a private operator willing to build a nuclear power plant entirely without government guarantees, subsidies, or liability coverage." - that's bullshit. German npps were built and operated without special subsidies and were insured by law + full asset liability on top.
Germany is still among worst EU polluters after 25y of ewende. France did the job in under 20 for far less money
I still don't understand, this is a list of accidents so what? How many people are injured/died? How does that compare to other sources of energy, other sectors? How many of these were due to human incompetence and how many where due to natural disasters that killed more than the resulting nuclear accident? How old are all these plants? If we would iterate on the design of these reactors how safe can we get them after 1000 plants?
> And to compare them with coal plants is classical whataboutism. "They can't be bad, because I found something other that's bad as well."
I disagree, I am saying we should replace coal with something that is orders of magnitude safer. Nation who will disregard nuclear will be stuck with coal/nat gas for a very long time. For most of the world there aren't even theoretical models for getting to 100% wind/solar if stable grid is required with CURRENT demand, let alone future demand.
I don't have a source handy but I disagree we only have supply until 2080. Maybe with current known reserves and without reprocessing.
Germany won't find a story site because they don't want to find one. They are looking for something perfect, that is guaranteed to last 1000s of years. Meanwhile, waste water from mining and refining is just dumped in old quarries, lakes, the ocean. PFAS just gets dumped everywhere. All kinds of toxic waste that lasts forever, just dumped no one cares. But when its about nuclear waste suddenly everything has to be secured against the apocalypse.
Look we can argue about this forever, meanwhile China is building more plants that whole west combined and in a few decades they will be energy independent using 100% clean energy.
Serious question, when has there been a serious nuclear accident? Fukushima was caused by a natural disaster that killed far more people than the nuclear failure did. Chernobyl was pure communist stupidity. This level of incompetence would never happen in a well functioning country. So that leaves Three Mile island?
Meanwhile coal kills millions each year (mostly the old and children).
And what are these predictable green alternatives? Only hydro is reliable and is heavily restricted by geo. We’d need massive breakthroughs in battery technology to make solar and wind reliable in most of the world (by population).
Look up historical weather patterns days with no sun and no wind, you need massive, massive amounts of energy storage.
My point is that since we have had so few nuclear incidents, but they have done massive damage, it is very possible that we don't actually know much worse it could get. We have only seen a few points from a distribution that could be much wider than we think. Compared to renewable failures for which we have a pretty good idea.
What do you mean? 2021-22 was peak of the employment market. At least here in Europe. To get a job all you had to do was be breathing. It was insanity. SQL was and still is highly relevant. Especially in data related fields.
Yes, exactly. It works great. But it is not cookie cutter enough for most orgs to adopt which is what led to Scrum, SAFE and what else. And then organisations take those frameworks (often change them to get even more agility out) and adopt them like it is gospel.
I have worked at an org where team members were not allowed to create tickets because that was the scrum master's job and the product owner had to approve all tickets etc. Who can even think that is a good idea??
Not sure what the solution is. There might not be any.
I am unfamiliar with Wero. Can you explain why it is an engineering fiasco?
Side note: Looking at their job listings I don't see any engineering positions (with the exception of a security engineer which is a grey area in a bank IMO), only managers and business roles.
what ever "money extraction business" means - wero is a real thing people (me included) are already using and developed jointly by many european banks.
Old Dutch banks and their Belgian suckers, mostly. You can see a list on their website.
I am not deep into this, but I heard multiple times that the choice of the pan-european payment system was largely political and technnically suboptimal. Old Europe pushed for the aging iDEAL against a much more advanced Blink, so Eastern European banks led by Poland left the consortium.
In the end, iDEAL rebranded as Wero was dead on arrival because a successful system needs to be supported by everyone.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have been using Wero for a while in France and it works just fine and is completely free.
It's basically instant bank transfer without any fee or limitation on how many you can do.
I can recommend doing this! It really is not hard to learn the basics of electronics and you will have a better understanding of how the things around you work.
It supports docker swarm, but I've never used it like that.
As I may need multi node in the future, I was asking the question to see if it would make it 'easy' to orchestrate multiple containers.
The simplicity of Dokku is hard to beat, however.
edit: Well, it would appear that the very maintainer of Dokku himself replied to the parent comment. My information is clearly outdated and I'd only look at this comment[0] to get the proper info.
Dokku is multi node. It supports docker-local (single node) and k3s (multi-node) as schedulers, with most features implemented as expected when deploying to k3s.
I read the “The Art of Multiprocessor Programming” and I don’t recommend it. It is very theoretical. There is no mention of practical performance considerations on real hardware.
Large parts of the theory focus on lock-free and wait-free data structures. Which, while interesting, are not necessary for beginners.
They are only expensive because externalities of other solutions are not captures or are subsidised. Wind and solar are expensive if battery storage is included in most of the world.
Waste is mostly a solved problem. Much more solved that waste management for coal plants in any case (whom also produce a lot of radioactive waste in addition to producing tons and tons of co2)
We have more than enough uranium. Currently only a small fraction is economically mineable but we have played that game before with oil.
reply