cwbe coordinatez:
866
1551575
1303683
7731164
7731778

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA
permissions
you: r,
system: public
net: yes

neurons

stats|by_visit|by_K
source
tiamat
K|my_K|given_K
last
commanders
polls

total descendants::3
total children::1
show[ 2 | 3] flat
Musim priznat, ze potencial to ma riadny. Pekne popisane to je tu: Obnoviteľné zdroje energie - s chladnou hlavou od strany 188
Ale:
Uz vidim tie vladne dotacie, ktore by isli do tych novych bezpecnejsich jadrovych reaktorov.
Navyse to podporuje zavislost od dovozu paliva.
Plus jadrovy odpad.

Preco radsej nepodporit male decentralizovane druzstva, ktore okrem energetiky zabezpecia aj vacsiu sebestacnost? Peniaze tak ostanu u ludi a nepojdu velkym transnacionalnym korporaciam do danovych rajov.
Toto nie je vizia, ze za 10 rokov to mozno bude fungovat. Toto je sucasna realita u nasich zapadnych susedov: K energetickej nezávislosti cez energetické družstvá




000008660155157501303683077311640773177807732853
ma
 ma      17.10.2014 - 09:39:27 , level: 1, UP   NEW
ja som urcite za decentralizaciu. ak by sa vedeli spravit bezpecne jadrove elektrarne v malom, navyse ako naznacuju postupom casu by to mohlo byt bez odpadnu, tak by to len tu decentralizaciu podporilo a nemuseli by sa stavat obrovske reaktory - no uvidime ako sa bude darit...

00000866015515750130368307731164077317780773285307732898
k0zmonAut
 k0zmonAut      17.10.2014 - 10:19:02 , level: 2, UP   NEW
Bezpecne jadrove elektrarne mi pridu ako oxymoron (najma po Fukushime).

Preco jadrove reaktory a nie obnovitelne zdroje energie ako mala biomasa, male vodne elektrarne a solarne panely na strechach budov? Kam s jadrovym odpadom? Preco byt zavisly od dovozu uranu? Preco investovat do zariadeni, ktore nemozno vymenit rentabilne najblizsich 50-60 rokov?

Akurat citam, ze veterna energia je lacnejsia ako plyn, jadro a uhlie, ak sa zapocitaju externality: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/13/wind-power-is-cheapest-energy-unpublished-eu-analysis-finds?CMP=EMCENVEML1631

0000086601551575013036830773116407731778077328530773289807733186
ma
 ma      17.10.2014 - 14:26:22 , level: 3, UP   NEW
tak skusim copy-paste z clanku:

Lockheed estimates that less than 25 kg (55 lb.) of fuel would be required to run an entire year of operations. The fuel itself is also plentiful. Deuterium is produced from sea water and is therefore considered unlimited, while tritium is “bred” from lithium. “We already mine enough lithium to supply a worldwide fleet of reactors, so with tritium you never have too much built up, and that’s what keeps it safe. Tritium would be a health risk if there were enough released, but it is safe enough in small quantities. You don’t need very much to run a reactor because it is a million times more powerful than a chemical reaction,” McGuire notes.

Although the first-generation reactors will have radioactive parts at the ends of their lives, such as some steel elements in the shell, McGuire says the contamination situation “is an order of magnitude better” than that of contemporary fission systems. “There is no long-lived radiation. Fission reactors’ stuff will be there forever, but with fusion materials, after 100 years then you are good.” Contamination levels for fusion will improve with additional materials research, he believes.