100TWh

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) just went radioactive on "nuclear waste." Here's the title plus two sub-titles of the article if you pay for a subscription ( I have one but. . . ): "A Nuclear-Powered Revival Brings Back an Old Problem: What to Do With the Waste. Tons of radioactive refuse goes into temporary storage every year." Here's how I responded on the WSJ article. "Nuclear Waste" is a national treasure not a problem. The nuclear industry is the only one that collects their emissions and then accounts for every ounce of them. There is no emitting them into the environment. It's only waste if you waste it, 95% of the energy still remains in that solid slightly used fuel. That's enough to provide the US with all its electrical needs for hundreds of years. And it's heavy because it's dense, but it could all fit in a Walmart store - that's 75 years worth. Anti-nuclear commentary likes to talk about how much it weighs but avoids how small its footprint is. It's perfectly safe right where it is, and not a single person has ever been harmed by used nuclear fuel because we store and transport it using known technologies. It can be recycled as we once started to do in the US, and as France does now using our former technology. Or we can melt it right in with the sodium or molten coolants to be used Generation IV reactors, and not only produce enormous amounts of energy but pull isotopes out of it for medical use. What's left is a small amount and would be harmless in about 400 years instead of thousands. And for what is left of that material, we can slide it into deep bore holes without building massive underground caverns. The security around current used nuclear fuel casks is where the expense is, and most of it is totally unnecessary. The photo is of me in front of a cask used for low-level nuclear waste. I was at the 2023 World Nuclear Exhibition in Paris doing research for my second novel which I am working on now.

🚨 #EDF : le risque c'est de voir flamber les factures si EDF disparaît. ➡️ Des élus inconscients des réalités économiques, ou très conscients (encore) de leurs enjeux électoraux personnels, font leur pub en se constituant en collectif pour reprocher à EDF de chercher à survivre en vendant sa production. ➡️ Où étaient ces élus quand le gouvernement a forcé EDF à vendre à perte sa production via l'#ARENH ? Ont ils protesté quand il a saigné EDF à forcé de dividendes exorbitants ? Quand il a contraint EDF à financer Hinkley Point sur fonds propres, ce qui équivaut encore aujourd'hui à subventionner le contribuable anglais à hauteur de 5 milliards d'euros par an ? ➡️ Aucune entreprise ne peut vendre durablement à perte. Aucune. Les entreprises françaises qui font la fine bouche devant les #CAPN refusent en pratique d'acheter au coût de production sur du long terme, mais voudraient acheter au coût de production quand le marché est haut (guerre en Ukraine), et en dessous du coup de production quand le marché le permet (surproduction notamment liée aux ENR intermittentes). Ça n'est pas possible. On attend des elus une vision long terme. Pas des tambouilles politiciennes. Ni des coups médiatiques. Si on tue EDF 🇨🇵☢️, la poule aux œufs d'or, plus personne n'aura d'œufs (=> de courant pas cher). Il faudra aller les chercher auprès du privé. Tout le monde aurait intérêt à bien se souvenir que le taux de marge attendu par #TOTAL ou #LVMH pour leurs actionnaires n'a rien à voir avec celui d'EDF pour financer ses investissements dans l'outil de production.

The EU is battling high energy costs because of renewables Yet, they have the temerity to claim they will reduce power bills with more renewables Renewables are the problem: as they only work sometimes, they necessitate backup, which means paying for two power systems https://archive.ph/9m07Z https://lnkd.in/dchM-xAj https://lnkd.in/dxKtyRfF