vortex schreef: ↑24 oktober 2024, 10:48 Oeps, valt daar alweer een miljarden lijk van Tinne uit de kast stekker eilandje zal iets meer gaan kosten, maar geen probleem, wordt doorgerekend in de factuur

Woz schreef: ↑24 oktober 2024, 11:28 Misschien moeten we het eens vragen aan de bouwers: Elia, Jan De Nul, DEME,...?

Woz schreef: ↑24 oktober 2024, 11:28 Misschien moeten we het eens vragen aan de bouwers: Elia, Jan De Nul, DEME,...?

vortex schreef: ↑24 oktober 2024, 10:48 Oeps, valt daar alweer een miljarden lijk van Tinne uit de kast stekker eilandje zal iets meer gaan kosten, maar geen probleem, wordt doorgerekend in de factuur

Woz schreef: ↑24 oktober 2024, 15:16 Van zodra ik in de media bericht zie verschijnen dat Jan De Nul, DEME,... overal ter wereld offshore kabels mogen leggen en energie eilanden aanleggen dan zal ik het hier posten.

Innovatie, het is blijkbaar een moeilijk thema.

Woz schreef: ↑24 oktober 2024, 15:16 Innovatie, het is blijkbaar een moeilijk thema.

vortex schreef: ↑24 oktober 2024, 15:29

Woz schreef: ↑24 oktober 2024, 15:16 Innovatie, het is blijkbaar een moeilijk thema.

Ach, je noemt dat innovatie Kijk eens naar onze noorderburen, die bouwen ook offshore energie connectors aan minder dan de helft van wat ons betonnen eilandje zou kosten.

One can understand the appeal of nuclear power to those who are unfamiliar with the history of the technology. Nuclear power has been with us for many decades, supplying large amounts of emission-free power across a wide number of democratic, developed countries in Europe and North America. Why wouldn’t we make use of a power source that can be turned up and down independent of the weather and which other developed nations have used for decades?

What many Australians probably don’t realise is that almost all of these nuclear power plants were constructed in the 1970s and 1980s. The technology was then largely abandoned as an option for new power supply. Over the 2000s there was talk of a renaissance of the technology as concerns around global warming grew, and the industry unveiled new “generation 3” designs to address nuclear meltdown risks. Yet this expected renaissance never eventuated, with just five generation 3 nuclear power plants under construction over the past decade across Europe and North America.

There is a very good reason for why the appetite to build new nuclear power stations in western nations that already have nuclear power is minimal. Fans of nuclear like to think this is just because of irrational fears of reactor meltdowns and radiation. But in reality it’s got more to do with the fact that nuclear power plants cost too much to build.

What several countries, particularly France and the United States, encountered during their nuclear build programs over the 1970s and 1980s was that the promised costs for nuclear reactors turned out to be badly underestimated. They also found that things didn’t improve as they built more of these reactors – instead they got worse.

Oxford University professor Bent Flyvbjerg, an expert in construction management, has built up a large database of the time and budget records for 16,000 major construction projects across the globe covering a wide array of fields. He finds that nuclear reactors encounter the greatest budget and time blowouts in his database of construction projects, with the exception of just two other project types. One, worryingly, is nuclear waste repositories, which Australia would also need to build...