Az atom olcsó, állandó teljesítményű, és alaperőmű, míg a szél drága (jelentős állami támogatással veszik át), időleges és maximum kiegészítő erőmű. Gyakorlatilag elképzelhetetlen.Ī szél és az atomenergiát nem lehet és nem is szabad összehasonlítani. Egy újabb Csernobil bekövetkezésének az esélye egy modern erőműben a nullával egyenlő. Valamint a modern reaktoroknál már biztonsági kockázatról sem beszélhetünk. A legújabb fejlesztésű erőművek rendkívül hatékonyan képesek felhasználni a fűtőelemeket és a sugárzó hulladékot, gyakorlatilag csak jelentéktelen mennyiségű alacsony sugárzású hulladék marad hátra melyek elhelyezése semmiféle gondot nem okoz. Egyszerűen az a helyzet, hogy messze az atom a legolcsóbb energiaforrás, ráadásul teljesen környezet kímélő energiatermelési módszer. Szóval, az új paksi blokkokra szükség van. As long as a perpetum mobile is accomplished by 99.99%.Įlőször is bocs, hogy nem angolul írok, de már elég késő van és nincs energiám megerőltetni magam. This will also boost the related R+D sector to go on with the developing. The regulations can then be redeclared and made annually more and more rigorous according to the latest technology. At that point, regulations could already be made so that only those new buildings shall be permitted by the authorities that are able to ensure a limited amount of emitted/lost energy. The current technology is a bit too expensive at present but by building up a subsidy system step-by-step boosting the demand for this kind of houses will most likely decrease the prices on the passive house market. The idea of state subsidy is a great thing, indeed. They were talking about average cases not high-tech. However, lately I've listened to experts talking on the radio and what they had to admit themselves was that a qualified passive-house with an up-to-date energetic system costs up 15 million. I'm actually fond of passive house technology. It is astonishing that we are considering a 6-8 bn EUR investment into nuclear energy FROM THE BUDGET/LOAN yet the PRIVATE SECTOR would easily put similar amounts into wind. Ad absurdum, we could cut a deal with them to build powerlines to the Alps and have our reservoirs there for a fee. In Austria they pump water up into reservoirs and release them utilizing gravity when there is no wind. One of the major problems is storing excess production when the (local/nearby) network cant take it. Yes, there are problems with wind but absolutely no risks, not to the tune of nuclear waste anyway. 4 GWs of wind would come at a cost of 1200 Mrd at the MOST. Recently they've begun talking about adding 2GWs of nuclear capacity to Paks. This could be done in 3-4 years, at which point double digits of the whole year's consumption would come from wind. Typically a 2 MW plant costs 6-800 M Huf, so 1 GW would translate to 300-400 Mrd HUF, but the good part is that for at least 2 GWs we could use the private sector, maybe even beyond. If we were to put up 1000x2 MW, that would probably create thousands of jobs. 1 or 2 GW could be installed within a few years, the rest later. We have a few MWs, most supplying the Austrian network.Īccording to a study I read, we have 4 (!) GW of excellent/good capacity waiting to be installed. Austria currently has 1 GW of wind power capacity installed.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |