solo

joined 8 months ago
[–] solo@kbin.earth 4 points 6 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 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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 2 points 6 months ago (1 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 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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 12 points 6 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 6 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?]

37
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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

[–] solo@kbin.earth 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

There is this conversation about nuclear power that bugs me. The downvoting part in this section motivated me enough to talk about the following.

The way I see things humanity does not have an energy issue, industries do. We don't need more energy to heat our homes, for example. More energy is needed for the industries to be able to expand. So I don't understand why this SMR "adventure" is so well perceived by the public or even environmentalists.

We know that businesses, corporations etc care only about their monetary profit, and not about the environment or humans. Governments take tones of money to enforce these kind of policies worldwide. Some bribes have even evolved to taxable salaries.

Why are people so eager to defend SMR like it's a solution? It's like pretending that the problem is not related to the eternal growth model of capitalism. No?

As you can tell, I cannot see an ecological solutions withing capitalism. Is there anyone who can? If yes, how would those solutions bypass or change the eternal growth model, to a sustainable one?

I might need to change my point of view, this is why I shared this rant.

[–] solo@kbin.earth 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Environment Minister, Paulina Hennig-Kloska, said the investment would be in the public interest and align with Poland's energy and climate policies.

Some more greenwashing then, in the name of _ public interest._

 

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 [...]

[–] solo@kbin.earth 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Left bias yes, but even Media Bias Fact Check the score they give for Jacobin is high:

Factual Reporting: HIGH MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

[Edit - In relation to this article's historical content here is another source:

Jewish Voice for Peace - Nakba Fact Sheet

Jewish Voice for Peace - Our Approach to Zionism]

[–] solo@kbin.earth 7 points 6 months ago

I suppose greenwashing works? in the sense creates favorable stats, not that it helps the environment.

 

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. [...]

 

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 ›