this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
97 points (96.2% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yah but we can manage Nuclear waste. We can’t manage runaway climate change. CO2 is the enemy.
Really? How?
Unless it's a reprocessing plant, the waste is not managed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
But the important part is that we can not manage CO2, the existential threat.
Still mad that the visitor centre was closed when I stayed basically nextdoor to it.
Will the Polish waste be stored there? If not, it's not managed.
Yes, we can. It called renaturalization. Has countless other benefits.
That’s the model. Poland and other countries can build similar projects. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
They don't. Therefore it's not managed.
Your need to lash out with personal attacks shows that you know that your argument holds no water.
My argument is that we CAN manage nuclear waste. That facility shows that we CAN. Poland CAN build such a facility. Ergo we CAN.
More importantly we CANNOT manage CO2.
I asked if you were being intentionally obtuse because you tried to reframe my argument as we ARE managing nuclear waste in all places properly. Everyone knows we are not. But the good news is that we can.
Nobody has ever successfully managed nuclear waste for 100,000 years. All you CAN do is make baseless claims and lash out with insults.
your argument boils down “Humanity has not managed nuclear waste for for 100.000 years. Therefore humanity can not manage nuclear waste for for 100.000 years“
If you feel in your heart of hearts that this is your strongest argument so be it.
I don’t feel this is a strong argument at all. I believe humanity can use the Finnish model and will do well. Hell we built tombs that have remained intact for over 2000 years. Those were built with Bronze Age technology. With modern technology I believe we can do even better.
This all being said the larger issue is that we CANNOT manage CO2. CO2 is the existential threat we must face.
As for insults I don’t want you to feel insulted. I believe people who read this thread will see that I was not insulting in any way.
A) Baseless claim.
B) Alternative to fossil enegery is regnerative, not nuclear power where the entire feasibility study of locking away waste is "trust me bro".
I would argue that the alternative to fossil fuels is “both and”.
We should use both renewable, nuclear, and other approaches as we develop them. We need to keep an open mind here. Climate change is a major threat.
You keep on acting like there is no way to manage nuclear waste. Is building out a real and complete storage facility with 100.000 year management plan “trust me bro” in your mind? Because I see it as more than that.
The Finnish model exists and is well regarded. You can’t just pretend it does not exist.
You argue a lot of things, as long as nuclear waste comes out as totally fine.
Well regarded by nuclear fans, of course. Nobody is denying that. Totally unproven to work because nobody tried it, yet. That thing's construction isn't even finished. Check back in 100000 years until making further claims. I'll revoke my misgivings once it's proven to work. Until then don't pile up new waste.
CO2 is not an existential threat, corporations and financial entities are because what we call polution, they call it life.
Yes CO2 is the existential threat. Even in socialist countries CO2 is produced.
Economic systems and forms of production do not make energy sources clean. Socialist and capitalist countries both ought to and must fight against CO2 production.
Socialist countries? Of course definitions vary, so which ones are you referring to?
Also neo-libs don't want any state interference on business, unless it involves bailing them out with tones of money. So which capitalist country will do otherwise with so much lobbying going on?
Whatever ones exist now or have ever existed as defined by you.
Your answer is a conversation stopper and I will respect that.
I respect your position. But for clarity, the reason I offered you such a choice is to offer you the best opportunity to present a strong case.
We hide it under the carpet and future generations will deal with it. This strategy has worked superbly for climate change.