Mihai Amariutei

Germany is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels, which is a choice it made through policy. I just had a German colleague tell me proudly yesterday that Germany was the first country to "successfully" phase out nuclear. Define successfully... nytimes.com/2026/03/13/bus…

What do you think folks when you watch this? Future historians will be busy researching the left-green ideological madness which heavily damaged European economies, jobs, geopolitical security and relevance, and the climate. HT @JamesEagle17

This is what economic suicide looks like;

Better late than never but: 🇩🇪 did way more than just phase out nuclear at home They spent 2 decades sabotaging nuclear energy across the EU They pushed to remove nuclear from the green energy list in Brussels, funded anti-nuke think tanks in 🇫🇷... Relentless in their mistake

There's a meme in the German anti-nuclear movement, claiming how nuclear is expensive because they've now closed their nuclear fleet and it turns out that the costs are higher than expected to dismantle the reactors and get rid of the spent fuel. Why is it more expensive? Mostly because of regulations they themselves have argued for years to be implemented. Nothing is good enough. This worked great to get the nuclear industry killed. Now it serves as an argument to claim the aftermath is too expensive. It's an amazing display of shooting yourself in the foot for decades. Meanwhile, energy prices have been rising for decades. Not because of the self-inflicted nuclear numbers, but mostly because of the Energiewende that has already cost the German tax payer many times more than the French Messmer plan. Industry has been postponing and cancelling investments for 15 years and is now closing down and just leaving the country. First a trickle, then as a flood. And what do they have to show for it? They still have a 10x higher carbon footprint compared to nuclear France. In fact, relying on French nuclear power has been a foundational pillar beneath their 'Energiewende'. At home they've just managed to replace nuclear with renewables. Bravo. Let Germany serve as a warning for the world of how NOT to go to a zero carbon future. And no, the nuclear industry pays for its own waste stream. This is the international standard, which works fine if you're not stupid enough to close it down.

Learning to swim

@TodaySuveranist @Piticigratis Situația din decembrie a fost rezultatul eliminării Șoșoacei de CCR

@Piticigratis CCR a fost foarte misto in decembrie. Daca nu era CCR , ND nu mai era presedinte acum.

Hai sa ne concentram pe afirmatii cu care suntem toti de acord. Suveranisti, globalisti, comunisti, fascisti, anarhisti si libertarieni. CCR e o ghena plina de fosile ale politicii anilor 90, cozi de topor ale fostului FSN si singurul lor scop e sa protejeze si sa creasca numarul de privilegii al bugetarilor de lux. Un organism care ori trebuie desfiintat, ori reformat complet. Dar toti infectii de acolo trebuie zburati si jumuliti de sporuri, pensii speciale si privilegii. Orice presedinte porneste pe un capital moral pozitiv. Ca a fost ales de peste 50% dintre votanti. Capitalul asta de imagine se erodeaza dupa cateva luni. Dar in aceste luni vor profita sa bage abuzuri pe sub mana stiind ca in creierul analfabetului de rand vor fi asociate cu presedintele. De parca are ala vreun control asupra CCR.

Ce a fost mai ușor a trecut youtu.be/iLkoU0uMJ4M?si… via @YouTube

Săptămâna luminată cu Tăunii 📊 Revoluția Tehnologică: 💳 Datoria Globală 🌍 Rolul Religiei în Politică ⚖️ Credință și Știință 🕊️ Izolaționismul 🔍 Necesitatea Dialogului creators.spotify.com/pod/show/tauni…

TAUNII - PE UNDE SCOATEM CĂMAȘA O nouă ordine mondială se conturează, unde noile puteri emergente, precum BRICS, caută să influențeze mai decisiv ordinea internațională. youtu.be/5Y8JT1tAG8g?si… via @YouTube

În noul episod discutăm despre limba de lemn și impactul asupra comunicării publice. De la imigrație la criza energetică, află cum ne afectează această formă de comunicare. TĂUNII - LIMBA DE LEMN youtu.be/dgJnQXkP824?si… via @YouTube

Europeans urged to be self-sufficient for 72 hours in case of war or other disasters. Link in comm #PreparEU

@aDissentient There is no imperative to use the surplus energy. If there is no better use for it it's just curtailed - by stopping the wind turbine or the solar panels inverters. There are no ill effects such as the thermal stress on thermal generators.

To do this, they will have to use the surplus electricity. As I pointed out in an earlier thread, one way to do this would be to boil large pots of water away. Another, less embarrassing way, would be to make hydrogen.

A few weeks back I wrote a long thread about overproduction in the renewables sector, and some murkiness surrounding the responses to the problem. It has now become very murky indeed. (THREAD)

@HopfJames The Rolls Royce SMR has about the same size and components as an AP1000 but less than half the power output. It's value proposition isn't clear at all.

Czech Republic power utility CEZ is buying a 20% share of Rolls Royce's SMR company. Interesting arrangement; a public utility having a stake in a private company. Are there other examples of that? Article link in reply.

@Mugski @AngelicaOung @simonahac The Rolls-Royce SMR RPV it's a little larger than Westinghouse AP1000, 4.5m diameter and 13m height vs 12.2m. By this yardstick AP1000 is also a SMR.

@AngelicaOung @simonahac Agreed, that is where Rolls Royce has been clever, making the biggest reactor that can easily be moved from factory to site

THE PROBLEM WITH DUMPING THE PUMP For a long time, I’ve brought into the line that the BWRX-300 is just the tenth evolution of the tried-and-true Boiling Water Reactor (BWR). “The closest thing to a sure thing,” was how I described it, in comparison to the current crop of SMRs. After hearing the latest episode of @DecoupleMedia featuring MIT’s Koroush Shirvan, all of a sudden I’m not so sure. You see, the BWRX-300 is different from every single other BWR currently in service in a pretty consequential way: it has done away with pumps, relying instead on natural circulation. At first, that sounds nice. You don’t need as many wires and piping and pumps. So what’s the problem? The nice thing about pumps is that you can move things around faster. If you are relying on passive rather than forced circulation, you cannot remove heat as efficiently. This “reduces the energy density that you can have in your core.” Translation: now you are going to have a much larger reactor pressure vessel. Add on the safety systems required by the regulators, all of a sudden you have an “SMR” that is not just tall, but also obese: the shaft diameter for the civil works excavation to contain the reactor is now 36 meters in diameter, “wide enough to the exact same size as an ABWR reactor.” Except the ABWR produces 1,350MW to the BWRX-300’s 300MW. And it doesn’t need to be buried in the ground. The reason it has to be buried is because the thing is so damned tall…you want the spent fuel pool to be in line with the water level i the reactor and with a tall reactor pressure vessel you can’t have it hanging out in the sky. Even wind and aircraft impact is a factor. And so you have to dig. And suddenly each different site presents a different challenge, another bane to standardization. Help make it make sense for me? It’s not small, it’s not modular and it seems if you’re going through all that trouble why not build an ABWR? Even if your grid is rightsized for 300MW just stick some data centers or hydrogen electrolyzers next door to sop up the extra. Why go through big trouble to build small??? After being a cautious booster of the BWRX-300, am I now being too mean? What do people think?

@AndyGraumann @AngelicaOung Others learned from the experience and target somewhat larger reactors.

@AngelicaOung Nuscale were the first who had to put a firm price tag on their thing, and it was >$20k/kW. I have a suspicion the others arnt far behind, and SMRs are a waste of time. There is nothing wrong with APR/EPR.

@kallemets @AngelicaOung Hitachi does offer ESBWR AFAIK. The customers are missing.

@AngelicaOung Really don’t understand point of this SMR-bashing spree. There have been small reactors and they have been profitable in Switzerland, Netherlands, etc. Yes, ABWR is a great desing, but is it offered by Hitachi? No, its not. Neither is ESBWR, so pointless comparison.

@tomekandfriends @AngelicaOung ESBWR vessel is already over 27m tall.

@AngelicaOung Yeah, the ABWR vessel is 21m tall, while the ESBWR and BWRX-300 are both 27m tall. I don't know about the Swedish ones, but I would expect similar height and different radius depending on power.

@tomekandfriends @AngelicaOung It's partly in basement, about 10m or so deeep. Most of the reactor is above ground while the opossite is true for BWRX-300.

@AngelicaOung To play the devil's advocate: the reactor containment may be as large as that of ABWR, but at least you don't have to build the surrounding reactor building or seismic class I auxillary buildings And the ABWR is already partly underground (note where the facing on the RB ends)