@electrify2025 @BNW_Ben Plus the development time for nuclear is between 4 and 8 years nominally. Longer build times are the exception. Most reasons raised to choose something else over nuclear are mostly solvable problems. https://t.co/50rjjZ4TgA
@peerderijk @KCel65 @vibweb @krispijnbeek @larsroobol @g_zwartsenberg Dat is hoe jij het graag wil zien, en er zijn vast mensen die er zo over denken. En toch bestaat de industrie nog en is ze uiterst succesvol in niet westerse landen. Je kunt daarvan vind
@peerderijk @g_zwartsenberg Dit is de werkelijkheid zoals jij ze wil zien. Dit is wat wij "cherry picking" noemen. Er zijn meer dan voldoende plants die goedkoper waren dan hun vorige unit. https://t.co/50rjjZ4TgA https://t.co/X2mFTry80I
@JesseJenkins @Atomicrod @spirilis @jlhulford1 Did you read Peter E. Lang Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone? https://t.co/50rjjZ4TgA I think it is perfectly reasonable to suspect the possibility of a Nucle
@gilbeaq 174 billion of which could have been avoided if our nuclear buildout had continued: https://t.co/0NK77hPpru
RT @Knjshiraishi: 国別かつ、より新しいデータの論文はこちら。今回のケースは$10,000/kW ($10/Watt)に当たる。 https://t.co/44EJOtp9cV https://t.co/J0nmvG4C6N
@mzjacobson @ErikLindy Nope. None of what you presented proves the validity of Lazard's estimates Cost estimates for a whole industry can't be based on just one country (USA) which is what Lazard did. Here's another cost study which shows Lazard's estimat
@maalouf_tony @BillGates @mitenergy Had we continued deploying Nuclear energy at rates during the 1970's, 9.5 million lives could have been saved and 174 Gigatonnes of emissions avoided: https://t.co/nLVmHKkA5d
@factmaniac An additional 9.5 million deaths and 18% of total global emissions could have been avoided, along with complete decarbonization of the US electricity sector, had we continued early 1970's deployment of nuclear power: https://t.co/nLVmHKkA5d
Good paper. https://t.co/nILghdMQ5P
RT @catandman: Interesting paper from Ozzy MechE pointing out nuclear costs in volume will inevitably fall, to between 5 & 15% of today's c…
RT @catandman: Interesting paper from Ozzy MechE pointing out nuclear costs in volume will inevitably fall, to between 5 & 15% of today's c…
Interesting paper from Ozzy MechE pointing out nuclear costs in volume will inevitably fall, to between 5 & 15% of today's cost, as other such infrastructure does, and as renewable subsidy parasites fail to deliver w/o their fossil host's 100% support
@yestiseye @simonahac @WhistlingWhist @Chomskyter @HMike01 @Boldsilver99 @corybernardi @Greenpeace @FoEAustralia @CSUnucmed Cheap gas might be the problem for nuclear incumbents but in Australia of course there are neither incumbents nor cheap gas. Here ne
@WE_ARE_THE_BORT I spend way too much time arguing Nuclear Power on twitter. That being said though, this paper basically explains that we screwed up bad because of the anti-nuclear movement: https://t.co/nLVmHKkA5d 18% of emissions and 9.5 million additi
RT @BraveNewClimate: What might have been... https://t.co/CEIlL7lp8B
RT @gabriel_hgs: La energía nuclear ha evitado el vertido de 64 Gt de CO2 que a su vez evitó unas 1,84 millones de muertes por complicacion…
RT @gabriel_hgs: La energía nuclear ha evitado el vertido de 64 Gt de CO2 que a su vez evitó unas 1,84 millones de muertes por complicacion…
RT @gabriel_hgs: La energía nuclear ha evitado el vertido de 64 Gt de CO2 que a su vez evitó unas 1,84 millones de muertes por complicacion…
La mejor fuente de energía de la que disponemos acá y ahora. https://t.co/lbOdZRLsid
RT @gabriel_hgs: La energía nuclear ha evitado el vertido de 64 Gt de CO2 que a su vez evitó unas 1,84 millones de muertes por complicacion…
RT @gabriel_hgs: La energía nuclear ha evitado el vertido de 64 Gt de CO2 que a su vez evitó unas 1,84 millones de muertes por complicacion…
RT @gabriel_hgs: La energía nuclear ha evitado el vertido de 64 Gt de CO2 que a su vez evitó unas 1,84 millones de muertes por complicacion…
RT @gabriel_hgs: La energía nuclear ha evitado el vertido de 64 Gt de CO2 que a su vez evitó unas 1,84 millones de muertes por complicacion…
RT @gabriel_hgs: La energía nuclear ha evitado el vertido de 64 Gt de CO2 que a su vez evitó unas 1,84 millones de muertes por complicacion…
La energía nuclear ha evitado el vertido de 64 Gt de CO2 que a su vez evitó unas 1,84 millones de muertes por complicaciones asociadas a la contaminación atmosférica. Si no se hubiese retrasado su desarrollo podríamos haber llegado a las 174 Gt de CO2: htt
Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone. Jt: opportunities lost https://t.co/R4zyPTIVEj
@JoGoebel Wie Peter Lang das macht, erläutert er in seinem Paper: https://t.co/NjkUcU01E6.
RT @PJogs: #Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone https://t.co/r032h6Z3Gp #uranium #thorium h…
#Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone https://t.co/r032h6Z3Gp #uranium #thorium https://t.co/0i1pC3v0o7
RT @jrth232: #Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone https://t.co/lsJDrAlpJX #uranium #thorium…
RT @jrth232: #Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone https://t.co/lsJDrAlpJX #uranium #thorium…
#Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone https://t.co/lsJDrAlpJX #uranium #thorium https://t.co/tcJ0dhj3Ty
RT @jasnoen: Kontrafaktisk: Hva hadde skjedd dersom miljøbevegelsen og reguleringer ikke hadde bremset kjernekraften? Peter A. Lang har for…
What if environmentalists hadn't attacked and set back switch to nuclear power? ☢️ “In 2015 alone, nuclear power could have replaced up to 100% of coal-generated and 76% of gas-generated electricity, thereby avoiding up to 540,000 deaths and 11 Gt CO2.” ht
RT @jasnoen: Kontrafaktisk: Hva hadde skjedd dersom miljøbevegelsen og reguleringer ikke hadde bremset kjernekraften? Peter A. Lang har for…
Kontrafaktisk: Hva hadde skjedd dersom miljøbevegelsen og reguleringer ikke hadde bremset kjernekraften? Peter A. Lang har forsøkt å regne på det. https://t.co/Pfa0OSaZfW
RT @BraveNewClimate: What might have been... https://t.co/CEIlL7lp8B
RT @BraveNewClimate: What might have been... https://t.co/CEIlL7lp8B
@PeterLang19 The graph I posted originates from the Lang et al article in https://t.co/jxnf8aR7UV
@AnthonyBriggs @charlieg_oz @Ikemeister @6point626 @Daniel_W_See @simonahac @sennekuyl @JohnDPMorgan @OskaArcher @BNW_Ben @JvDorp @markcojuangco @luisbaram https://t.co/jxnf8aR7UV That graph is somewhat outdated, the nuclear Renaissance is real and necess
RT @Cognomada: En efecto. En el siguiente estudio, por ejemplo, los autores indican que se habrían podido evitar 9.5 millones de muertes pr…
En efecto. En el siguiente estudio, por ejemplo, los autores indican que se habrían podido evitar 9.5 millones de muertes producidas por las fuentes de combustibles fósiles si se usara en su lugar la energía nuclear: https://t.co/7X77GNUtP6 https://t.co/BS
RT @PJogs: Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone https://t.co/4zqRDRaYCq #nuclear #uranium #t…
Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone https://t.co/4zqRDRaYCq #nuclear #uranium #thorium https://t.co/Pk1mbp6fWb
@colin_boyle_ @EricHolthaus At 1970 deployment rates we could have replaced 100% of coal and 76% of our natural gas by 2015. https://t.co/nLVmHKkA5d
RT @BraveNewClimate: What might have been... https://t.co/CEIlL7lp8B
@NuclearInvestor @votelau @Nuclear_Matters Had the US continued building nuclear power plants at 1970 rates an estimated 540,000 deaths could have been avoided and 100% of coal and 76% of natural gas could have been replaced. https://t.co/nLVmHKkA5d
Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone https://t.co/BVpLIpiRFF #nuclear #uranium #thorium https://t.co/thU9GssKrX
RT @BraveNewClimate: What might have been... https://t.co/CEIlL7lp8B
RT @BraveNewClimate: What might have been... https://t.co/CEIlL7lp8B
RT @BraveNewClimate: What might have been... https://t.co/CEIlL7lp8B
RT @BraveNewClimate: What might have been... https://t.co/CEIlL7lp8B
RT @BraveNewClimate: What might have been... https://t.co/CEIlL7lp8B
RT @BraveNewClimate: What might have been... https://t.co/CEIlL7lp8B
Had nuclear power progress continued at early rates, it could now be at 10% of its current cost to implement. In 2015, nuclear power could’ve replaced 100% of coal- & 76% of gas-generated electricity. Rapid progress was previously achieved & could
What might have been... https://t.co/CEIlL7lp8B
RT @thiesbeckers: @6point626 @Atomicrod Which is best described here : https://t.co/91YjwONVs7
@6point626 @Atomicrod Which is best described here : https://t.co/91YjwONVs7
@futurism Nuclear power has saved millions of lives, and could have saved an estimated 9.5 million more if we had converted the US to nuclear energy at 1970 deployment rates. https://t.co/nLVmHKkA5d
RT @ThorconPower: The disruption in nuclear power growth in the late 1960s reversed the slope of the learning curve, shows Peter... https:/…
RT @symons_jon: New study by @PeterLang19 finds annual carbon emissions would be about one third lower if nuclear deployment of 50s and 60s…
RT @symons_jon: New study by @PeterLang19 finds annual carbon emissions would be about one third lower if nuclear deployment of 50s and 60s…
@Atomicrod I'm sure you've seen it, but this one found that had we kept building reactors at pre-1970 rates our energy sector would be almost carbon-free by now: https://t.co/nLVmHKkA5d
RT @ShellenbergerMD: New study finds that had nuclear energy's deployment continued at pre-1970 rates, 4.2 to 9.5 million lives would have…
Article: what the world lost when the nuclear transition stalled in the 80s. Sad, but worth knowing this research... https://t.co/PCKDqYi88c
RT @ThorconPower: The disruption in nuclear power growth in the late 1960s reversed the slope of the learning curve, shows Peter... https:/…
RT @ThorconPower: The disruption in nuclear power growth in the late 1960s reversed the slope of the learning curve, shows Peter... https:/…
RT @ThorconPower: The disruption in nuclear power growth in the late 1960s reversed the slope of the learning curve, shows Peter... https:/…
RT @ThorconPower: The disruption in nuclear power growth in the late 1960s reversed the slope of the learning curve, shows Peter... https:/…
The disruption in nuclear power growth in the late 1960s reversed the slope of the learning curve, shows Peter... https://t.co/i0l3rrmzPC
RT @ShellenbergerMD: New study finds that had nuclear energy's deployment continued at pre-1970 rates, 4.2 to 9.5 million lives would have…
RT @ShellenbergerMD: New study finds that had nuclear energy's deployment continued at pre-1970 rates, 4.2 to 9.5 million lives would have…
RT @OskaArcher: @GHCuthbertson @chrispydog @KathMorrow90 As recently put in this paper. https://t.co/Bejf4CVYvn
@GHCuthbertson @chrispydog @KathMorrow90 As recently put in this paper. https://t.co/Bejf4CVYvn
RT @ShellenbergerMD: New study finds that had nuclear energy's deployment continued at pre-1970 rates, 4.2 to 9.5 million lives would have…
Cool! You don't happen to know Mark Sonter do you? https://t.co/pFc4tXqLo8
@wingod There are many supporters of thorium technology here I think. I reckon first step should be good old off-the-shelf nuclear and serious reflection on https://t.co/z8UxDerxMU and cost-cutting.
nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost. The additional nuclear power could have substituted for 69,000–186,000 TWh of coal and gas generation, thereby avoiding up to 9.5 million deaths and 174 Gt CO2 emissions https://t.co/6KEKOosRGX
RT @ShellenbergerMD: New study finds that had nuclear energy's deployment continued at pre-1970 rates, 4.2 to 9.5 million lives would have…
RT @ShellenbergerMD: New study finds that had nuclear energy's deployment continued at pre-1970 rates, 4.2 to 9.5 million lives would have…
@VioletZer0 It's even more infuriating than that: "nuclear power could have substituted for 69,000–186,000 TWh of coal and gas generation, thereby avoiding up to 9.5 million deaths" https://t.co/HaOFmsQM4f
RT @curryja: New paper: Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment rates: Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone https://t.co/tW8uIOojNS https:…
RT @ShellenbergerMD: New study finds that had nuclear energy's deployment continued at pre-1970 rates, 4.2 to 9.5 million lives would have…
Nuclear Power: Global Benefits Forgone Deployment rates changed in the late-1960s. Had the early rates continued, nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost and could have replaced 100% of coal-generated & 76% of gas-generated electrici
RT @JvDorp: Crazy as this sounds, I suspect that there may come a time when it could actually happen. If it does though, it will be many de…
Startlingly positive estimates around the forgone build rates & benefits for global #nuclear energy since the 1970s. Another paper for Prof Q to dismiss on his blog after glancing at the abstract? https://t.co/Bejf4DdzmV
@conradhackett @sethbannon Need another chart with death by omission. For example, per this study, had nuclear energy's deployment continued at pre-1970 rates, 4.2 to 9.5 million lives would have been saved from premature air pollution death. That's 84,00
RT @Nuklearia: Studie: Hätte man nach den 1960er/1970er Jahren Kernkraftwerke mit derselben Geschwindigkeit weitergebaut, lägen die Baukost…
RT @Rainer_Klute: Wer trägt eigentlich die Verantwortung für diese 9,5 Millionen Toten? Die böse Atomlobby kann es ja nicht sein … ഥ ☢ ⚛ ht…
RT @ShellenbergerMD: New study finds that had nuclear energy's deployment continued at pre-1970 rates, 4.2 to 9.5 million lives would have…
RT @Rainer_Klute: Wer trägt eigentlich die Verantwortung für diese 9,5 Millionen Toten? Die böse Atomlobby kann es ja nicht sein … ഥ ☢ ⚛ ht…