[Skybird]

The last three reactors are off. And yesterday Habeck has moved the respnsibility for n uclear research from the economic ministry (his) to the climate ministry (also his). The funding gets culled, and it is clear that all nuclear research in Germany now is to be axed next. The next battlefield is also clearly defined, the anti-atom movent wants a ban on nuclear energy in all EU. Since our neighbouring states mostly are pro nuclear, there is hope this fight gets lost.

Note the very last sentence in the following interview (which I could not get into Google site translator). Nomen est omen.



"We Germans are climate policy ghost drivers".

Nuclear physicisst and enterpreneur Getz Rubrecht considers power outages more threatening than reactor risks.

Mr. Ruprecht, this Saturday the last three German nuclear power plants will go off the grid. A great victory for the environment and safety, right?

On the contrary, the decision is irresponsible. Security of supply will suffer, energy prices will rise, and we're also doing a disservice to the climate. We can build as many wind farms and solar parks as we want, which will theoretically generate all the electricity we need. However, it cannot be stored sufficiently. When there are dark periods, we need controllable capacities, preferably low-cost and low-emission nuclear energy. The German government is also aware of this dilemma, which is why it wants to reactivate old coal-fired power plants and build new gas-fired power plants at great expense. So the traffic lights coalition partners, of all things, are backing fossil fuels. That's completely absurd when you have a safe, long-depreciated, well-established clean technology, nuclear power. Instead of shutting down the last three reactors tomorrow, the three that were shut down at the end of 2021 should be brought back online, i.e. six plants should continue to operate.

What about the nuclear risks?

They are calculable and in any case smaller than if there were load shedding and widespread power outages. Nothing is more detrimental to safety than volatile power grids in which fluctuations can no longer be balanced at some point. We must not forget that electricity demand will increase enormously as oil and gas products are replaced by electricity in heating, industry and transport. We must do everything we can to ensure stable generation and stable grids. In theory, this can be done with domestic lignite or fracked liquefied gas, but nuclear power is much more sustainable. Incidentally, more and more countries and environmentalists see it the same way, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Finnish Greens, and Greta Thunberg, founder of Fridays for Future. It's not everyone else who is the energy and climate policy ghost driver; it's us Germans.
Does the Fukushima accident leave you cold?
Of course not, the earthquake was a terrible disaster with many deaths. But the radioactivity released was minimal, no one died from the radiation. Today we know that the hasty evacuations of houses, old people's homes or clinics, where there were many victims, were unnecessary. Earthquakes and tsunamis are highly unlikely in our country. Even the Japanese, who suffered two atomic bombings, are again relying on nuclear technology because they know that nuclear power is controllable and has many advantages.

You are a nuclear physicist yourself. Where does German nuclear research stand?

German nuclear power plants and German research were at the top for a long time; after all, nuclear fission was discovered in Berlin by Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner. There are still great scientists, engineers, practitioners, but many are drawn abroad.

Your company Dual Fluid is also based in Vancouver in Canada.

Yes, I worked there myself at the Triumf particle physics research center. But we are also based and do research in Germany. It's clear that anti-nuclear sentiment has scared off bright minds and led to institutional clear-cutting. Many research institutions have disappeared or been hidden away as sub-departments. Some have renamed themselves so as not to have "nuclear energy" in the title at all. One prefers to speak of "subatomic physics" or the like. There are still small nests, but no more nuclear research worth mentioning in Germany. Why should there be, if nobody wants us? There were cases where the authorities took forever, checked and constantly found something new. In the worst case, such a delay leads to running out of money. Possibly that is exactly what is intended.

How modern is today's nuclear technology?

Not particularly; one could work much more efficiently. The pressurized water reactors still prevalent today are based on old military technology, basically small units for submarines and aircraft carriers. Most of the so-called Small Modular Reactors or SMRs, which are now much reported, are also based on this technology. Pressurized water reactors are well established, but they must be actively cooled and controlled with neutron absorbers, or control rods. The use of the fuel elements is an insane waste because only one percent of the natural uranium, or 5 percent of the fuel, can be used for energy. The rest goes into the nuclear waste repository and continues to radiate there forever because the yield is so low. The military introduced this overpriced technology because the fuel rods can be delivered anywhere like ammunition, and it can afford it. For civilian purposes, the process is not ideal.

What is the alternative?

Interestingly, the inventor of the pressurized water reactor, Alvin Weinberg, already realized that there are better ways. Instead of solid fuel elements in magazines that have to be replaced, he experimented with liquid salts. In this case, the heat is generated in a circuit. This can be controlled much better, and the burn-off runs optimally. There are also other developments with special advantages. These include, for example, high-temperature or sodium-cooled reactors. Six of these types have been grouped together as the "fourth generation," but ultimately they are based on processes that have long been known. They are not yet ready for series production, but many startups are trying their hand at fourth-generation SMRs.

Are you heading in that direction, too?

We see ourselves as a fifth generation. The idea is to expand Weinberg's liquid salt reactor to two cycles. That's why the company is called "Dual Fluid." In our case, one fluid carries the fuel, the other dissipates the heat. This allows us to heat the nuclear fuel to 1000 degrees, which is extremely powerful and economical. This has many advantages, for example, the reactor is ten times smaller than conventional plants, and it can be completely hidden underground. In addition, the system regulates itself: When the fuel heats up in the chain reaction, the liquid expands, which automatically decreases the fission reactivity and the temperature drops again. So we don't need any control rods. In addition, there is a fuse that melts if the liquid does get too hot. Then all the fuel flows safely by gravity into drain tanks, and the chain reaction stops immediately.

What about the dreaded waste?

We achieve almost 100 percent burnup, not just 5 percent as in the pressurized water reactor. Therefore, 90 percent of the radioactivity has decayed after 100 years, and it is complete after 300. So we no longer have to think in terms of millennia. Efficiency is also reflected in the price. We calculate with production costs, the so-called LCOE including investments, of 24 euros per megawatt hour. That is unbeatably low. In addition, we could also produce hydrogen cheaply, which everyone is now counting on. We calculate that the costs are a factor of 4 to 6 lower than for electrolysis with the much-celebrated wind power.

But that's just pie in the sky, isn't it?

We are already quite far along. The company has been around for two years, and 4.5 million euros have been invested. The most important backers are medium-sized companies from German-speaking countries. They remain loyal to us because they don't believe in the current form of energy transition, but are building on openness to technology, including nuclear energy. We are testing the components this year, and the first demonstration plant should be ready in 2026. In 2029 we want to have the prototype ready and go into pilot production. In 2034, series production could be ramped up. By the beginning of next year, we want to raise the necessary funding in the high double-digit millions. We can build the demonstrator within two years, then run it for a year and a half. So in four or five years, the experiment would be complete. It all looks very good.

Where will the plant be built?

Certainly not in Germany! If you are honest, the conditions in all G7 and all OECD countries are not favorable. The sector is completely overregulated, even if the population and politicians are open-minded. This makes it particularly difficult to promote nuclear technology. We have partnerships with Poland, Switzerland and, of course, Canada. But we will not build the demonstrator there. Many emerging countries want to achieve rapid industrial progress. I can reveal this much: We are about to sign a contract with an African country.

-----------------------------

Thats what is being systematically ignored in German discussions: that the deaths in Fukushima did not come from radiation, but were the direct and imminent effects of the tsunami and earthquake themselves. But the Germans atribute all the deaths to radiation. Lies and deception of the public, that is and always was the business model of the Green discussion of nuclear energy. Lies and deception. And defamation of opponents of their views.