In general, renewable sources (wind, solar, hydro) are the future because they are clean, make the energy mix more self-sufficient and less dependent on global political changes. However, nuclear plants are necessary to keep a stable energetic foundation for economy and the citizens in Armenia. Hope they keep them as earthquake-resistant as possible, otherwise both the county and the region are doomed in case of a 1988-like earthquake
T-nash on
>However, the most definitive finding is the near-unanimous support (94 percent) for maintaining nuclear capabilities regardless of political pressure.
Article doesn’t mention it, but the real reason Armenians support it by 94% is because Turkey wants it to shut down, for the same reason they are against a constitution change, even though there’s valid points to be made for both. We’re just against it because our enemies are commenting about it, says quite a bit about our attitude, ego based, not pragmatic based.
In reality the nuclear power plant does indeed pose a risk to everyone, even after evaluation of safety (remember what happened in Japan).
Same for the constitution, the last time it changed, voting was rigged.
Yes, fuck tr, az, but we also don’t have to be blinded by it.
heatherKnockers on
Good, time for Armenia to get some nuke weapons too.
e39_m62 on
Nuclear is the future, and it should definitely continue to be the present. The thing has been modernized, inspected, and can operate in the interim.
Replace it with a new reactor. French ideally. Nothing else will be able to take its place.
What’s also hilarious to me is how many of the posters clearly live in the SFV here but also aren’t aware about the Experimental Sodium Reactor failure by Chatsworth/Simi Valley : )
The fearmongering sometimes isn’t warranted.
It’s the better practice to be *cautious* and err on the side of safety, but I really wonder if some of the comparisons to Fukushima or Chernobyl are necessarily deserved… those are different risks that don’t apply to us. There’s no follow up tsunami risk to disable any power supplies or cooling structures, nor do we really run the risk of running into a Chernobyl scenario. Again, modernizations have been made, redundancies put into place…
…besides, shouldn’t the concern and criticism here be as to what exactly Rosatom has done to ensure safety as part of modernization as opposed to the complaint about the existence of the plant itself?
**EVERY** nuclear power plant faces some sort of risk – be it earthquake, Tsunami, Hurricane, missile strike, or any act of God – what matters is how they’re mitigated.
This whole topic comes off as intentional misdirection (cough, cough, Turkey) – something to keep citizens confused, the government bogged down, and an act as a blocker to political integration and other internal goals (with an added hint of appeal to ethos via the disaster and ecological concerns).
We all know we need the power, we know we don’t have the money, resources, or infrastructure to utilize renewables, or even coal to power things *without* a **Herculean** effort to redo everything in ~10 years, knowingly accepting power instability for that period.
So, the only path forward is the atoms. How does this topic keep coming up every few years?
unabashedlib on
Ô·ÖƒÕ¡Õ® Õ°Õ¡Õ¾Õ« Õ®Õ«Õ®Õ¡Õ²Õ¨ Õ¯Õ£Õ¡!
I can’t believe Armenia won’t invest in a new nuclear reactor. I don’t care how much it costs, this is something they need to invest on!
PlasmaMatus on
I don’t understand why in Armenia you don’t have outside shutters (for windows) in the cities. The AC would be much less needed if many people installed external shutters and closed them during the summer. Renovation for summer heat and winter cold would make importing energy much less expensive for Armenians.
6 Comments
In general, renewable sources (wind, solar, hydro) are the future because they are clean, make the energy mix more self-sufficient and less dependent on global political changes. However, nuclear plants are necessary to keep a stable energetic foundation for economy and the citizens in Armenia. Hope they keep them as earthquake-resistant as possible, otherwise both the county and the region are doomed in case of a 1988-like earthquake
>However, the most definitive finding is the near-unanimous support (94 percent) for maintaining nuclear capabilities regardless of political pressure.
Article doesn’t mention it, but the real reason Armenians support it by 94% is because Turkey wants it to shut down, for the same reason they are against a constitution change, even though there’s valid points to be made for both. We’re just against it because our enemies are commenting about it, says quite a bit about our attitude, ego based, not pragmatic based.
In reality the nuclear power plant does indeed pose a risk to everyone, even after evaluation of safety (remember what happened in Japan).
Same for the constitution, the last time it changed, voting was rigged.
Yes, fuck tr, az, but we also don’t have to be blinded by it.
Good, time for Armenia to get some nuke weapons too.
Nuclear is the future, and it should definitely continue to be the present. The thing has been modernized, inspected, and can operate in the interim.
Replace it with a new reactor. French ideally. Nothing else will be able to take its place.
What’s also hilarious to me is how many of the posters clearly live in the SFV here but also aren’t aware about the Experimental Sodium Reactor failure by Chatsworth/Simi Valley : )
The fearmongering sometimes isn’t warranted.
It’s the better practice to be *cautious* and err on the side of safety, but I really wonder if some of the comparisons to Fukushima or Chernobyl are necessarily deserved… those are different risks that don’t apply to us. There’s no follow up tsunami risk to disable any power supplies or cooling structures, nor do we really run the risk of running into a Chernobyl scenario. Again, modernizations have been made, redundancies put into place…
…besides, shouldn’t the concern and criticism here be as to what exactly Rosatom has done to ensure safety as part of modernization as opposed to the complaint about the existence of the plant itself?
**EVERY** nuclear power plant faces some sort of risk – be it earthquake, Tsunami, Hurricane, missile strike, or any act of God – what matters is how they’re mitigated.
This whole topic comes off as intentional misdirection (cough, cough, Turkey) – something to keep citizens confused, the government bogged down, and an act as a blocker to political integration and other internal goals (with an added hint of appeal to ethos via the disaster and ecological concerns).
We all know we need the power, we know we don’t have the money, resources, or infrastructure to utilize renewables, or even coal to power things *without* a **Herculean** effort to redo everything in ~10 years, knowingly accepting power instability for that period.
So, the only path forward is the atoms. How does this topic keep coming up every few years?
Ô·ÖƒÕ¡Õ® Õ°Õ¡Õ¾Õ« Õ®Õ«Õ®Õ¡Õ²Õ¨ Õ¯Õ£Õ¡!
I can’t believe Armenia won’t invest in a new nuclear reactor. I don’t care how much it costs, this is something they need to invest on!
I don’t understand why in Armenia you don’t have outside shutters (for windows) in the cities. The AC would be much less needed if many people installed external shutters and closed them during the summer. Renovation for summer heat and winter cold would make importing energy much less expensive for Armenians.