EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

Post by p_l » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 1:41 AM UTC

hanniabu wrote: post #66

pydry wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fukushima cleanup costs will be between $470 and $660 billion. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radi... US nuclear power gets a liability cap of $0.2 billion. The nuclear industry will keep telling us it is safe but it will refuse to shoulder the insurance costs beyond a minimal level. That's the taxpayer's job and the taxpayer's job alone. And, EVEN INCLUDING that, nuclear is about 3x more exp…

Yup, and everyone says nuclear is safe but that's only technologically speaking. The technology is safe, but it's the human and regulatory aspect that has glaring red flags... This first link here makes me absolutely furious. There's too much to quote from here, but this succinct excerpt touches on loosening safety tests. It goes into more detail in other parts of the article. The post has numerous example of very co…

Post by Chris2048 » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 1:42 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #200

whatever1 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All plastics can be recycled. Does not mean they do. In fact, we have unmitigated leaking dumps here in the US, but since it is not in your backyard you don't care. Not your problem, someone elses problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site#:~:text=The%20Han... . I can play the environmentalist on the backs of other people as well. Super easy.

Most plastics aren't actually recyclable, which is why they aren't recycled. But we say that we can because it shifts the burden. Companies like Coke have been saying that they'll have 50% recycled material in the next 20 years for the last 60. ~~Fusion~~Full recycled product chain is only 20 years away! Also, 17% of France's energy comes from recycled nuclear (70% from nuclear)[0] [0] https://www.world-nuclear.org/i…

Post by Chris2048 » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 1:46 AM UTC

loeg wrote: post #278

jay_kyburz wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't read that we can't just recapture the carbon by re-planting a bazzilion trees. I'll do some googling now.

The problem with trees-as-carbon capture is: 1. They are only a net store of carbon while they're alive. 2. Because of that, you need to dedicate land to carbon-capture forest, indefinitely. 3. Burning fossil fuels for energy releases more and more carbon into the atmosphere. Like, you get N tons of carbon captured out of a given land area. It's constant per area. So you would need to continually grow the amount of f…

Post by p_l » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 1:55 AM UTC

ducleonctor wrote: post #317

tpmx wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I'll bite: > Is it really so hard to cooperate with or convince the nations involved who own the biggest deserts? In a word, yes. These are some of the most unstable countries in modern history. Then you also need to secure the cables going north from Africa. Take the Suez canal risk and multiply it with a factor of 100-1000x. Then we also have China currently being busy colonizing Africa...

> In a word, yes. These are some of the most unstable countries in modern history. Then you also need to secure the cables going north from Africa. They are indeed unstable - for reasons that may not be discussed - but buying the required sites and securing them should be possible anyways. If local jobs are created in the process, even better. So much effort has been wasted on partially securing much more dangerous c…

Post by Chris2048 » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 2:04 AM UTC

spideymans wrote: post #81

j-pb wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is not finding a place that's geologically stable now. But finding one that's geologically stable in 850.000 years. And to find a place where no post worldwar 5 civilization accidentally diggs is up. And to have a tracking chain where no fuel gets into the wrong hands. Do you know how germany decided on the position of its long term nuclest storage facilities? East germany choose the salt mine closest to th…

>And to find a place where no post worldwar 5 civilization accidentally diggs is up. This is premised on the idea that some future civilization would dig kilometres deep in some random and remote location and just happen to come across some nuclear waste stored in a space that is no larger than a small house. It's also presumes that future civilizations will have no recollection whatsoever of humanity storing nuclear…