Heck, if people want to store the waste in Taipei, then I am all for more nuclear. reap what you sow type situation. But it is 100% safe, so no worries Taipei. I say go for it! Literally no sarcasm.
I say the same with garbage. you make it, you store it or deal with it. it forces efficiency. It is a disgrace, however, when things arent safe or healthy and one group gives another group health risks. as a pure number game without ethics, it is logical to fuck 100,000 people instead of a few million. However, this retarded mindset only impedes improvement and slows progress. if we live in our own shit, shit is turned to gold pretty much over night. by way of “miracles” lol. fancy that.
hence the issues, it’s about selfishness and greed, not about science. once that changes, I am pro nuclear.
Like I’ve mentioned many times before, I’m not against all nuclear energy, I’m just against uranium/plutonium based fission since Taiwan’s geology is unsuited to guarantee both the safety of that kind of nuclear plant as well as spent fuel and waste storage.
I was questioning the 10B NTD number as having any relevance in discussing this subject.
Taiwan basically dropped the ball and went with German path of destroying the Earth by burning coal while slowly building wind power.
I was always curious, how long will it take for customers of Taiwan’s exports to start questioning the carbon footprint.
Well, the pressure is rising.
Again, not accounting for costs after energy production.
Like, for example, carbon emissions induced climate change destroying ecosystem, air pollution killing people or coal ash containing more radioactivity than nuclear waste.
BTW China has 6GW nuclear power plant (Fuqing, 6 reactors) 200km from Taipei. It is strategically located at the coast. For the tsunami safety reasons, I’m sure.
" Orano : 60 years of high-tech industrial experience
Undestanding the waste conditioning and disposal value chain
Following recycling operations, 96% of spent nuclear fuel (95% uranium + 1% plutonium) can be reused to manufacture new fuel, which will then supply more electricity in turn.
High-level radioactive waste (4%) is vitrified, then conditioned in stainless steel canisters and stored at the La Hague site, pending disposal. This conditioning is certified by 10 safetyauthorities worldwide. It allows high-level waste to be managed in optimum safety conditions over the very long term, during both the storage and future underground disposal periods. As a result of these operations, the volume was divided by 5 and the long-term toxicity by 10.
The metal structures from fuel assemblies (long-lived intermediate-level waste) are compacted and conditioned in steel drums. They are also stored pending disposal.
The foreign waste from spent fuel that is processed at Orano La Hague is returned to its country of origin.
Waste from fuel cycle operations is conditioned using various technologies, mainly homogenous cement encapsulation or encapsulation by injection, placed in metal containers or concrete shells, then stored or sent to existing surface disposal centers. Orano is constantly developing and optimizing its waste conditioning solutions in order to reduce volumes and conditioning inertia.’
It’s awesome to have steel drums holding your high-level waste in the deserts of California, Nevada, or even along the Mediterranean where the weather is nice and dry. Not so great when it’s stored right on the coast of Taiwan.
I have no idea how fast it gets how hot, but it needs to be pretty hot to get good efficiency. Over 373° C is ideal. One duel well costs about 10 million to dig with a 20% failure rate, but that’s peanuts compared to nuclear. Lots of engineering problems to overcome before it can be used in places without obvious signs like hot springs. But Taiwan has money and not at least trying a few test wells there would be stupid.
It works of course, but all things being equal you’ll get more than 10x the power with supercritical water. You can use much less space and get much more power by getting deep.
Yes, but it’s also 25,000 vs 250,000 homes or more. I’m inclined to shoot for the latter, but I also believe we’re not at some critical tipping point with emissions and global warming. YMMV
