solo

joined 8 months ago
[–] solo@kbin.earth 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I think I kinda understand what you say but I have more reading to do. Currently I'm on some relevant wiki pages trying to get a better understanding [Spent nuclear fuel, Radioactive waste, Long-lived fission product].

In case you (or anyone) have any other links to suggest, please do not hesitate.

[–] solo@kbin.earth 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

Thank you for sharing this link. It was very interesting listening to someone from within the US that is head of an office now and started from Shell Solar.

There is a reasoning that I didn't get. Maybe I misunderstood something or I lack some information/knowledge. Anyways, here it is:

At 1:02 they talks about nuclear waste saying that all the nuclear waste produced in the US by the nuclear power plants is like a football field that is 10 yards tall and then he talks about why this waste is not concerning.

Later at 1:07 He mentions that the US is not reprocesing the uranium fuel rods, in which 95% of the energy is still there, and that the US should do reprocessing like other countries do.

Doesn't that mean that these unprocessed rods in the US that are in the "football field of nuclear waste" are therefore a concern?

[–] solo@kbin.earth 1 points 5 months ago

What kind of a moron are you? When you make claims you bring the proof.

Or you know, I could assert that you're, say, a donkey-fucker. If you got proof to the contrary, please provide it.

I am not making claims. I shared an article on a matter that bugs me. I wanted to see what people think and potentially inform myself further.

And your input was definitely invaluable!

[–] solo@kbin.earth 1 points 5 months ago (4 children)

These are not my points, they come from the article. So for example in relation to your question on the

SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power...

they have a couple of paragraphs that give an explanation.

[–] solo@kbin.earth 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I find it difficult to follow your reasoning. Initially you said 77 people died from the Chernobyl disaster.

Now you have opinions related to the different estimations but talk about thousands of people, without retracting your previous position.

[–] solo@kbin.earth 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

My personal stance is that sustainability cannot be achieved within capitalism due to its model of eternal growth. We can have one or the other, but not both.

So creating more energy could not be the solution. Creating less demand would be, and the demand comes from industries.

More often than not, I it seems to me this discussion about clean energy is a deflection of the real problem which is industrialisation under capitalism. We don't question anymore what this energy is needed for.

[–] solo@kbin.earth 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You find "sane and realistic" to claim that 77 people died due to the Chernobyl accident?

[–] solo@kbin.earth 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

Nuclear energy has, by a staggering margin, the lowest death toll of any form of energy generation per kW produced. And almost all of these come from Chernobyl, where 31 people died due to the explosion, then a further 46 died due to radiation poisoning from the cleanup.

The number of people that died on the spot, could be as low as you say. 77 people is far from being the death toll of the Chernobyl disaster, and that is taking into consideration the fatality numbers are disputed.

The World Health Organization (WHO) suggested in 2006 that cancer deaths could reach 4,000 among the 600,000 most heavily exposed people, a group which includes emergency workers, nearby residents, and evacuees, but excludes residents of low-contaminated areas.[26] A 2006 report, commissioned by the anti nuclear German political party The Greens and sponsored by the Altner Combecher Foundation, predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of worldwide Chernobyl fallout by assuming a linear no-threshold model for very low doses.

A disputed Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[29]

[–] solo@kbin.earth 11 points 5 months ago

Well what happens in a war or apocalypse

I don't think you need to go that far. Accidents happen regularly in all industries. Here is a list of some that have been public:

List of nuclear power accidents by country wiki

[–] solo@kbin.earth 2 points 5 months ago

Building large reactors isn’t economically attractive, so maybe SMRs could help with that.

It looks like this is not the case, at least by reading the following:

Some advocates misleadingly claim that SMRs are more efficient than large ones because they use less fuel. In terms of the amount of heat generated, the amount of uranium fuel that must undergo nuclear fission is the same whether a reactor is large or small. And although reactors that use coolants other than water typically operate at higher temperatures, which can increase the efficiency of conversion of heat to electricity, this is not a big enough effect to outweigh other factors that decrease efficiency of fuel use.

From Five Things the “Nuclear Bros” Don’t Want You to Know About Small Modular Reactors

If you have a source that claims otherwise, please share.

 

A realistic understanding of their costs and risks is critical.

What are SMRs?

  1. SMRs are not more economical than large reactors.

  2. SMRs are not generally safer or more secure than large light-water reactors.

  3. SMRs will not reduce the problem of what to do with radioactive waste.

  4. SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power for facilities, such as data centers, bitcoin mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production.

  5. SMRs do not use fuel more efficiently than large reactors.

[Edit: If people have links that contradict any the above, could you please share in the comment section?]

20
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by solo@kbin.earth to c/europe@feddit.de
 

Nuclear power leaves a long and toxic legacy.

Mr Ruskell said: “There is nothing safe, secure or green about nuclear energy, and many people across Scotland will be dismayed and angry to hear that the Secretary of State is seeking to open a new reactor in Scotland.

“Aside from the brazen entitlement and the message this sends, it ignores that people in Scotland have long rejected nuclear energy. I hope that all progressive parties will unite in condemning this environment wrecking overreach.

“A new reactor would not only be unsafe, it would be extremely costly and would leave a toxic legacy for centuries. It would also distract from the vital work we need to do to boost clean, green and renewable energy.

“That is why I hope all progressive parties can rule out any return to nuclear power once Torness has been decommissioned.

“The Hinkley point shambles has exposed the UK government’s total inability to deliver nuclear programmes on budget or on time. We would be far better investing in the huge abundance of renewable resources that we already have here in Scotland.”

 

Companies are becoming ever craftier in their efforts to pose as more climate-friendly than they are

The name of the ruse: a taxonomy of greenwashing

Mechanism

  • Misleading information
  • Attention deflection
  • Attention reduction (absolute)
  • Attention reduction (peer-overshadowed)
  • Attention timing

Classic application

  • Misleading claims made by firms themselves
  • Greenshifting of blame on to demanding consumers
  • Limited disclosure of worthy ambitions
  • Decent disclosure but substandard vis à vis peers
  • Delayed disclosure

Sophisticated application

  • Greenlabelling by third parties, which certify firms’ performance
  • Greenlighting of good-news case studies
  • Fuller disclosure, but with greenhushing of details
  • Greencrowding: substandard disclosure en masse
  • Greenrinsing: headline-grabbing targets get gradually diluted

Archive link

 

Google layoffs in 2023 affected about 6% of the company's global workforce, or about 12,000 people, starting in January.

Google's layoffs aren't necessarily a signal that the company isn't doing well. The company's market cap has nearly quadrupled since 2015, reaching $1.7 trillion.

[–] solo@kbin.earth 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Just a clarification. The term “Zionism” was first coined by the Viennese writer, Nathan Birnbaum in 1885.

[Source: United Nations - Historical timeline on the question of Palestine]

 

Altogether, 14 journalists from seven countries analysed the most up-to-date EU figures and created an interactive map of Europe’s aquifers. The conclusion is that our water is disappearing and what remains is facing near-irreversible pollution. Over 15% of the aquifers mapped are in poor condition — dangerously overexploited, contaminated or both. This figure represents 26% of the aquifers by surface area. And the worst affected are important crop-producing countries, like Spain, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

But the picture is incomplete. The EU requires all member states and Iceland and Norway to give data on the state of their aquifers. Out of these 29 countries, 16 submitted full, publicly accessible data, with Germany’s and Portugal’s only partially accessible. Eleven countries are not included in the map at all [...]

 

Israel was founded with the Nakba, a series of atrocities that ethnically cleansed Palestinians from their homeland. Today we are witnessing Israel engage in ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza on an even larger, more violent scale.

The Second Nakba

While Palestinians have always feared the prospect of a second Nakba, which several Israeli officials have threatened over the years, most never imagined that it would unfold before their eyes in broad daylight, believing that ethnic cleansing belonged in the past century.

They were wrong. For eight months since last October, Israel has massacred and displaced more than three times as many Palestinians in Gaza as it did in all of Palestine during the Nakba. [...]

 

A research team at Stanford is developing a new AI-assisted holographic imaging technology it claims is thinner, lighter, and higher quality than anything its researchers have seen.

the Stanford tech is currently just a prototype

 

The German government and establishment are stepping up the repression of pro-Palestine Jews including Israelis, but it's all about anti-Arab/Muslim racism by proxy, says Udi Raz, a Jewish activist who spoke to The New Arab in Berlin.


“Germany is very much engaged in an attempt to self-define itself through the exclusion of other minorities. In the 30s and 40s, it was the Jews, and now it is Muslims,” explained Raz, adding that Germany is eager to protect Jews but only to the extent that those Jews are also “willing to produce anti-Muslim racism.”

Calling the last seven months a culmination of a decades-long oppression of Palestinians in Germany, Raz believes that this marginalisation of Palestinians also targets the entire Muslim population living in the country. [...]

view more: next ›