|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Didn't they salt the reactors they shut down to ensure no backsies? I dont know what this means, but the context clues makes me go lol. Sounds like the equivalent of russian agents tricking germans cut their legs and arms off for reasons?
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
PhazonLink posted:I dont know what this means, but the context clues makes me go lol. Sounds like the equivalent of russian agents tricking germans cut their legs and arms off for reasons? A lot of decommissioned reactors get washed with boric, making the core pressure vessel unusable. But yeah, the Germans and now the Austrians are too busy bailing out their coal industry to accept that they are hosed emissions wise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:A lot of decommissioned reactors get washed with boric, making the core pressure vessel unusable. Why? PWRs in normal operation put a bunch of boric acid into the coolant to regulate activity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 04:58
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Why? PWRs in normal operation put a bunch of boric acid into the coolant to regulate activity. The relative quantities are the distinction. Small amounts of boric acid are of course useful and necessary for nuclear power, as they are used to reduce and control the reaction rate. But high amounts of boric acid will eventually eat away at the steel pressure containers and ensure that they can never be used again. The German process for decommission has been to turn off the facility, fill the reactor with boric acid, and then walk away. There's still tons of deactivated reactors throughout Germany that are basically untouched and left to future generations to dismantle, except that they were intentionally poisoned and cannot be used.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 09:39
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Why? PWRs in normal operation put a bunch of boric acid into the coolant to regulate activity. Yes, but its normally mixed with water. They basically wash the core in high strength boric acid to permanently poison it and render it dead. Its basically out of legislative spite.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 13:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yes, but its normally mixed with water. Hmm, I doubt that that is the reason for it. There probably is a safety reason for doing so. This thread's belief in a global conspiracy against nuclear power is a little nuts. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 13:36
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yes, but its normally mixed with water. man, I know what you intended but acids are solutions of water always and you meant high concentration boric acid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 13:38
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:man, I know what you intended but acids are solutions of water always and you meant high concentration boric acid. Yes, that is what I meant. silence_kit posted:Hmm, I doubt that that is the reason for it. There probably is a safety reason for doing so. This thread's belief in a global conspiracy against nuclear power is a little nuts. No, there really isn't. It doesn't change anything about decommissioning the reactor. It doesn't make the core's metal less neutron saturated. Its entirely about ensuring you can never change your mind and bring it back online.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 13:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, there really isn't. It doesn't change anything about decommissioning the reactor. It doesn't make the core's metal less neutron saturated. I seriously doubt that that is true. I don't really find you to be a trust-worthy source--a lot of the stuff you have posted in this thread has been wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 13:45
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I seriously doubt that that is true. I don't really find you to be a trust-worthy source--a lot of the stuff you have posted in this thread has been wrong. That's okay, I don't find you to be one either: silence_kit posted:Nuclear electricity is very expensive electricity. If you are ideologically committed to powering the US with nuclear electricity, then it makes a lot of sense to implement a carbon tax. Because you are also often wrong. But since you decided to jump in and make assumptions, maybe next time you'll at least bring some evidence. I am fallible as any human source is, but you didn't even bother to make an argument. In other news, Germany is shooting themselves in the foot. https://twitter.com/mark_lynas/status/1545345583262695424?s=20&t=dciToJ83HBMsaIDOqprnxw CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Jul 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 13:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
and yet the O&G illuminati are blamed almost entirely for nuclear resistance rather than the green movements that have good intentions but are just horrifically wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 14:39
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:and yet the O&G illuminati are blamed almost entirely for nuclear resistance rather than the green movements that have good intentions but are just horrifically wrong. This just makes absolutely no goddamn sense whatsoever. Has there ever been any kind of nuclear accident in Germany’s plants ever that might account for this absolutely pants on head stupid approach to environmental activism? Yeah yeah Chernobyl, but IN GERMANY? This is like religious loon levels of cognitive dissonance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
All this is after Germany just spent the entirety of the G7 summit lobbying to loosen international fossil fuel financing rules (apparently they have their eyes set on projects in Senegal and Turkey). The SDP and the Greens appear to be presiding over the biggest expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure in Europe since NordStream 1, which they were also responsible for. The FDP tried to push against it, but they were overruled. Politically, things have been shifting quickly in Germany over the last few months. Support for Scholz and the SDP has cratered, with voters fleeing to Habeck and the Greens due to Scholz's close ties with Russia and unwillingness to support Ukraine. Support for the CDP has crept upward, and as the largest party it remains a contender for any alliance-building if the traffic light coalition falls apart. While the Greens have been quick to embrace a more progressive military policy in regards to Russian aggression, their embrace of coal and gas power is allowing conservative parties to flank them on the left when it comes to environmentalism and energy security. If the state elections are any judge, the federal election in or before 2025 will be an interesting one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
Edit: Whoops nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:and yet the O&G illuminati are blamed almost entirely for nuclear resistance rather than the green movements that have good intentions but are just horrifically wrong. You continue to just ignore that these two things are inextricably connected. Silence kit if there is a good safety reason to do the thing you could probably find out more about it with minimal research and share with the class instead of continuing your unsourced ideological crusade against vague ideas of what goons believe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:You continue to just ignore that these two things are inextricably connected. I'm not ignoring, I just firmly believe the effect is way overstated. The yanks bribed Marcos to build a reactor in the Philippines so it is not like the GEs / Areva or other big industrials are above nefarious games such as astro-turfing, regulatory games, etc. They have bucket loads more influence, money, etc as well and yet coal is able to win the race to peoples hearts over nuclear. The focus on O&G helping fund useful idiots is a way to cope about the fact that useful idiots are warm and fuzzy and want to protect the environment and that funding is a tiny part of why (for eg) French green protestors were able to organise protests in 70 cities when activists were evicted off a proposed nuclear dump facility http://www.nukeresister.org/2018/02/22/hundreds-of-french-police-smash-nuclear-dump-protest-camp-raid-support-house-and-arrest-opponents/ . If the posts in the thread were focused on how to turn the green movement around with an odd smattering of "gee gotta get the O&G dickheads to stop funding them" I would be totally on board. But it is mention the challenge of getting the greens to wake up and soon enough "whata bout O&G opposition? It's all their fault!". O&G does not give so much a poo poo about nuclear anyway, the only reason O&G is evoked over coal companies (those that actually lose out big time to nuclear reactors) is it is pretty obvious to all that thermal coal companies do not have the same quotable evil names as Exxon, Total, BP, Shell, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 18:09
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I'm not ignoring, I just firmly believe the effect is way overstated. The yanks bribed Marcos to build a reactor in the Philippines so it is not like the GEs / Areva or other big industrials are above nefarious games such as astro-turfing, regulatory games, etc. They have bucket loads more influence, money, etc as well and yet coal is able to win the race to peoples hearts over nuclear. The focus on O&G helping fund useful idiots is a way to cope about the fact that useful idiots are warm and fuzzy and want to protect the environment and that funding is a tiny part of why (for eg) French green protestors were able to organise protests in 70 cities when activists were evicted off a proposed nuclear dump facility http://www.nukeresister.org/2018/02/22/hundreds-of-french-police-smash-nuclear-dump-protest-camp-raid-support-house-and-arrest-opponents/ . Agreed, but in Germany's case they listened intently to Gazprom who lobbied hard to ensure the nuclear plant shutdown was accelerated for the obvious reason that it now leaves Germany in a lurch. But Germany, once they commit, they tend to stay committed. Hell, Greenpeace in Germany going to bat for Natural Gas was insane enough, buying into false promises that it would eventually be all biogas, despite the fact that it still remains largely 96% fossil gas. There has been a strong push by Gas and Oil to undermine nuclear which does tend to be cheaper for energy production and doesn't bring in the money, so it tends to favor nationalizing power generation, which they don't want as well. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Jul 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:O&G does not give so much a poo poo about nuclear anyway, the only reason O&G is evoked over coal companies (those that actually lose out big time to nuclear reactors) is it is pretty obvious to all that thermal coal companies do not have the same quotable evil names as Exxon, Total, BP, Shell, etc. Well... the thermal coal companies, at least in the US, are pretty well neutered. Most (possibly all) of the major ones have gone bankrupt over the past decade or so. Even today you could probably add up the market caps of every thermal coal miner in the US and it wouldn't exceed that of a single larger O&G like, say, Occidental. They will probably make money hand over fist this year though. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:In other news, Germany is shooting themselves in the foot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:The summary in the tweet is wrong. The vote was about reactivating some coal power plants now and changing the priority of what power plants can generate power. Previously, some coal power plants were held in reserve as they produce more CO2. Now, they can instead turn off some gas power plants and hold them in reserve in order to use less gas. The nuclear power plants are still producing right now and are unaffected by this vote. The problem is exactly that. That they are unaffected by this vote. That they refuse to extend their lifetime, they'd rather double down on those coal plants than address the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yes, but its normally mixed with water. CommieGIR posted:The problem is exactly that. That they are unaffected by this vote. That they refuse to extend their lifetime, they'd rather double down on those coal plants than address the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:The vote was about doing something with an immediate effect on gas usage as a reaction to the lowered deliveries by Russia. The coal plants are not being reactivated in order to be able to turn off the nuclear power plants at the end of the year. The summary in the tweet is wrong. The summary reflects that they plan to continue to close the plants on schedule, which will require more plants coming online to make up the difference. That is reflected in the summary. There is no case where Germany will be able to close the plants on schedule AND not add more plants, especially in Winter. This is part of why the Dutch are asking them to put off the shutdown of the last 3 plants. In the end, this will both result in Germany massively missing their emissions goals and falling back on more fossil fuels for energy generation Do you think the demand those reactors are satisfying right now will just disappear when they are shutdown, which is scheduled for the end of this year? Even more, do you think its okay, in the middle of a growingly more apparent climate crisis, to handwave away the sheer madness of accepting emissions increases by burning lignite coal to replace them? After all, Germany and Austria are not mad over the inclusion of Nuclear in the EU Green Energy portfolio, after Germany fought so hard to ensure Natural Gas was also included: https://twitter.com/Leigh_Phillips/status/1545182217902497792?s=20&t=Mu-tDjTV1VXC_V5_W8o6lg DTurtle posted:Can you post a source for this? I've tried finding information about this several times and haven't found anything about it. This is standard process for removing nuclides in contaminated metal, once its done the reactor is toast. Its commonly done relatively quickly after Power Off once the fuel is removed, and once its done there's no going back. https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-12/decontec.pdf CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jul 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Can you post a source for this? I've tried finding information about this several times and haven't found anything about it. Are they reactivating coal plants, and deactivating nuclear plants at the end of the year? If the tweet summary is inaccurate about causation, but accurate about the effects, then this is largely an academic clarification. Which is useful sure, but....
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:You continue to just ignore that these two things are inextricably connected. The enemy of my enemy etc but that doesn't mean the environmental movement doesn't have ideologies of their own. The environmental movement has also undeniably had successes against the interests of business so it's wouldn't be accurate to view it as an extension of O&G. For instance this year Sri Lanka decided to go all in on organic farming with predictable results. It wasn't O&G that decided to eliminate a customer or the Sri Lankan government that randomly had a cool idea. Some parts of the environmental movement operate on a naturalist idealist ideology and nuclear is just fundamentally incompatible with it. Fortunately it's cheap and easy for middle-class westerners to push their ideal society without consideration since the costs are either abstract or they don't have to personally pay them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 20:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The summary reflects that they plan to continue to close the plants on schedule, which will require more plants coming online to make up the difference. That is reflected in the summary. quote:There is no case where Germany will be able to close the plants on schedule AND not add more plants, especially in Winter. This is part of why the Dutch are asking them to put off the shutdown of the last 3 plants. In the end, this will both result in Germany massively missing their emissions goals and falling back on more fossil fuels for energy generation. The fact that nuclear power plants are several orders of magnitude better than coal, oil and gas power plants with regards to CO2 emissions is out of the scope of the problem being addressed by that law. That is something that was decided due to a slow societal development spanning half a century, ended by a haphazard back and forth by the CDU that cost the tax payer billions. quote:This is standard process for removing nuclides in contaminated metal, once its done the reactor is toast. Its commonly done relatively quickly after Power Off once the fuel is removed, and once its done there's no going back. Jaxyon posted:Are they reactivating coal plants, and deactivating nuclear plants at the end of the year? "The SDP-Green coalition has won a vote in the Bundestag backing more coal burning so that the three remaining nuclear plants can be switched off as planned this year. " Emphasis mine. That signals intent, which isn't there. I also like that they left off that the FDP are part of the coalition (and voted for the law), and that the Left (part of the opposition) also voted for the law. They are making it possible to (re)activate some coal plants that have been shut off or are held in reserve - if there is an acute lack of gas. It there is no acute lack of gas, nothing changes in comparison to before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 20:50
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Quoting the sentence of the tweet I am objecting to: As I said, you are technically correct about the tweet being misleading. The best kind of correct! But the larger picture is accurate. Germany is bringing fossil fuels on line directly due to shutting down nuclear plants.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:The law passed is about potentially activating coal plants in case there is not enough power available due to a lack of gas. If there is enough gas, then they will not be activated. You are getting into technicalities: At the end of all this: Germny is refusing to extend the lives of its last few nuclear plants, and is instead setting up coal plants as standbys. Those nuclear plants will go offline at the end of 2022 as they are currently scheduled. Germany is setting itself up to depend more on fossil fuels. quote:Quoting the sentence of the tweet I am objecting to: There's nothing inaccurate there? The plants are scheduled to go offline at the end of this year. What exactly are you actually arguing is wrong? The SDP-Green's could instead extend the closure of the nuclear plants till 2024 or beyond and avoid a lot of this. They are not. And given Germany has been extremely vocal about their commitment to shutting down their nuclear plants, they don't need to say explicitly as to why they are spinning up standby coal plants. Its obvious as to why. Find something better to nitpick about the tweet other than Germany's commitment to double down on fossil fuels rather than deal with their fear about nuclear plants which emit 1/100th the emissions. What are you defending or attacking here? Germany is in the wrong with their current strategy. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Jul 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 21:06
|
|
|
Seems like you're trying to oversimplify a complicated causality. There are lots of reasons to do different things, many can be true at the same time. Not having enough power due to gas supply is still also not having enough power because you shut down your nuclear plants for no good reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 21:23
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Seems like you're trying to oversimplify a complicated causality. There are lots of reasons to do different things, many can be true at the same time. Germany is experiencing a power supply crisis, in part due to fossil fuels. It is also reducing it's capacity. The capacity it is reducing is nuclear. The capacity it is increasing to address that crisis is fossil-based. These are two very connected, if not directly cause-and-effect. The impact is what it is, and what's going to be relevant to society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
Don't worry,  will help! ... up until they point we run out of water, which is increasingly likely to happen in the next few months.lol lmao 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:As I said, you are technically correct about the tweet being misleading. The best kind of correct! CommieGIR posted:There's nothing inaccurate there? The plants are scheduled to go offline at the end of this year. What exactly are you actually arguing is wrong? The SDP-Green's could instead extend the closure of the nuclear plants till 2024 or beyond and avoid a lot of this. quote:They are not. And given Germany has been extremely vocal about their commitment to shutting down their nuclear plants, they don't need to say explicitly as to why they are spinning up standby coal plants. Its obvious as to why. The CDU and SPD bet big on (Russian) gas, while the CDU and FDP deliberately killed off the vast majority of the German renewable industry. Shortly after they did that, the CDU and FDP also put the final nail in the coffin of the German nuclear power industry as a reaction to Fukushima. Due to these things, Germany is a lot more dependent on fossil fuels and especially Russian gas than if those things hadn't happened. quote:Find something better to nitpick about the tweet other than Germany's commitment to double down on fossil fuels rather than deal with their fear about nuclear plants which emit 1/100th the emissions. What are you defending or attacking here? Germany is in the wrong with their current strategy. There has been no commitment to double down on fossil fuels by the current government. There has been a commitment to double down on renewables.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
you keep avoiding that they could leave the nuke plants operational and not need to spin up the coal plants. The planners are not imbeciles without imagination. They considered all the options in the event of lack of gas and their answer was not "leave the nukes on to cover the gas shortage" it was "make a law to reopen coal plants to cover the gas shortage". Just because the later does not have the word "nuke" in it does not mean it is not conscientious decision to favor coal over nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:There has been no commitment to double down on fossil fuels by the current government. There has been a commitment to double down on renewables. Which they haven't done and are not going to be able to do. Germany's renewables only plan is not only in utter shambles, they are re-opening and bailing out their coal industry. They hosed up. Its over for at least the next decade or more. The vast majority of the EU is actively doubling down on Renewables + Nuclear and trying to get away from coal at all costs, Germany doesn't seem to be capable of both reading the room and admitting they are now in a bind from a half-assed plan based on fearmongering and lobbying by the fossil fuel industry. You are defending someone cutting off their nose to spite their face here. Germany could save those plants and these coal plants would be totally unnecessary. Your country is addicted to fossil fuels in the worst way and instead of admitting they made a bit mistake they keep making the mistake and say that they have the best plan. Sorry, you are absolutely out of your mind. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211231-germany-to-close-nuclear-reactors-despite-energy-crisis DTurtle posted:The SPD-Greens-FDP-Linke have made it possible to turn on some coal plants in case there is an acute lack of gas (if Russia decides to turn off gas completely or not turn it back again after routine maintenance). They did not make it possible to turn on coal plants so that they can turn off nuclear plants. Which they wouldn't even have to do if they hadn't doubled down on shuttering the nuclear plants at the end of the year. One of these things affects the other despite the fact that the word nuclear doesn't appear in the article. You can look at both and realizing removing nuclear baseload means adding baseload elsewhere. These things are distinctly connected. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jul 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Which they haven't done and are not going to be able to do. Germany's renewables only plan is not only in utter shambles, they are re-opening and bailing out their coal industry. They hosed up. Its over for at least the next decade or more. The vast majority of the EU is actively doubling down on Renewables + Nuclear and trying to get away from coal at all costs, Germany doesn't seem to be capable of both reading the room and admitting they are now in a bind from a half-assed plan based on fearmongering and lobbying by the fossil fuel industry. Yeah it's not a super weird totally amazing coincidence that the country known for it's large fossil fuel production industry is turning to fossil fuels in a time where we are undergoing a crisis created by fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Yeah it's not a super weird totally amazing coincidence that the country known for it's large fossil fuel production industry is turning to fossil fuels in a time where we are undergoing a crisis created by fossil fuels. Yeah I'm not even sure how they are managing to miss that. Not to mention the rise in NIMBYism against the expansion of Renewables in Germany which are not solving the problem in the first place at this point. 3+GW is gonna disappear at the end of the year and they are just gonna make up that shortfall while already in an energy crunch....by adding renewables which is why they are bailing out and turning on their industry fueled by lignite coal. Jesus. Their plan is utterly insane. If they gave a gently caress about Climate Change they would've put the brakes on this already, instead they doubled down, and Austria is threatening to sue the EU over adding Nuclear to the Green Energy standard (alongside Germany's favorite: Natural Gas, which they lobbied to add as Green Energy). No, they are not mad, why do you ask? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jul 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Which they haven't done and are not going to be able to do. Germany's renewables only plan is not only in utter shambles, they are re-opening and bailing out their coal industry. They hosed up. Its over for at least the next decade or more. The vast majority of the EU is actively doubling down on Renewables + Nuclear and trying to get away from coal at all costs, Germany doesn't seem to be capable of both reading the room and admitting they are now in a bind from a half-assed plan based on fearmongering and lobbying by the fossil fuel industry. The doubling down on renewables plan was literally passed this week by the new government. Nuclear power provides 5-6% of power production. Coal currently provides ~30% of power production. Renewables (despite the "do nothing and see what happens" plan) provides 50% of power production. Gas provides 10-15% of power. How is nuclear supposed to replace gas or coal in the short-term? There is a short-term crunch due to the "buy cheap Russian gas" plan imploding due to a war. quote:https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211231-germany-to-close-nuclear-reactors-despite-energy-crisis Jaxyon posted:Yeah it's not a super weird totally amazing coincidence that the country known for it's large fossil fuel production industry is turning to fossil fuels in a time where we are undergoing a crisis created by fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 23:42
|
|
|
Your country has shuttered more nuclear plants than it will ever replace with renewables. Sorry man, they are putting those coal plants on standby because they intend to close the last three in some stupid dedication to sheer madness. I don't care what they passed, what they've done is have a worse carbon footprint than France next door, and they double down on closing the very things that make France one of the lowest emitters in the EU. Their goal to decarbonize their energy is now going to be a decade behind because they openly made themselves dependent on Russian gas to enable them to shutter nuclear plants, and here we are and they are reaping it, and there answer is to double down on lignite coal. COAL! At least admit shuttering their last 3 nuclear plants is bad, that's 15% of their total Electricity load. You have to at least admit that. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Jul 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 23:45
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Germany didn't have a renewables only plan. Germany had a "do nothing and see what happens" plan with a healthy addition of "buy cheap Russian gas in order to promote peace and democracy in Russia" plan. Which portion of that 50% of renewables is wood pellets?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 23:46
|
|
|
Looking for a good source on china's thorium project. Sorry if this was already covered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Looking for a good source on china's thorium project. From 2021: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w I want to say its not running yet and is still under construction for the experimental one. quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMSR-LF1 CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Jul 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 23:58
|
|