11–20 of 428 posts
I don’t think nuclear is evil, but Rosie’s look at the financials suggests there are better options: https://youtu.be/quI_8xYSWYE
> I learned that I had been confusing waste from nuclear energy with waste from nuclear weapons. That is a rhetorical tactic that kind of misses the point - it's not that weapons reactors produce fundamentally leakier waste than civilian reactors, it's that the military has a long history of not disposing of dangerous chemicals the right way. It happens with non-radioactive toxic waste too and a lot of bases and the…
I think this part stems from a common response you see from anti-nuclear folks, who frequently point to the issues at Hanford as a reason to be against civilian nuclear power. She's trying to make clear the difference between civilian nuclear power and waste management and historical waste from military nuclear weapons programs. Remembering also Hanford waste issues date as far back as the Manhattan Project during WW…
> I learned that I had been confusing waste from nuclear energy with waste from nuclear weapons. That is a rhetorical tactic that kind of misses the point - it's not that weapons reactors produce fundamentally leakier waste than civilian reactors, it's that the military has a long history of not disposing of dangerous chemicals the right way. It happens with non-radioactive toxic waste too and a lot of bases and the…
It tends to be a lot harder to detect too. With radioactive waste, we're fortunate to have very cheap and extremely sensitive instruments that can detect the tiniest leaks. This allows the nuclear industry to be held to a much higher standard than most other industries.
This is also the reason we can say with a high degree of confidence that first-world militaries have actually been very good at handling nuclear waste for a while now. The Manhattan Project era and a few years after that were very messy, but they have demonstrably cleaned up their act and figured out how to do things safely. Meanwhile the non-radioactive chemical pollution continues largely unabated. Never live near a military base if you value the well-being of any children you might have.
> I learned that I had been confusing waste from nuclear energy with waste from nuclear weapons. That is a rhetorical tactic that kind of misses the point - it's not that weapons reactors produce fundamentally leakier waste than civilian reactors, it's that the military has a long history of not disposing of dangerous chemicals the right way. It happens with non-radioactive toxic waste too and a lot of bases and the…
> It happens with non-radioactive toxic waste too It tends to be a lot harder to detect too. With radioactive waste, we're fortunate to have very cheap and extremely sensitive instruments that can detect the tiniest leaks. This allows the nuclear industry to be held to a much higher standard than most other industries. This is also the reason we can say with a high degree of confidence that first-world militaries hav…
The military has no problems detecting the chemicals that get leaked around bases, taking soil samples might be more expensive than walking around with a Geiger counter but it's well within the budgets of even local municipalities. The problem is that they don't really care all that much. Even something as simple as "standing far away from the pit where you're burning plastic," a practice that even law-breaking rural trash burners can manage, was too much for them in Iraq, shows you something about their institutional culture.
Can nuclear waste undergo fusion to turn it back into whatever it was before by using energy from renewables, thereby acting as a form of energy storage?
> The decay of heat and radioactivity over time means that after only forty years, the radioactivity of used fuel has decreased to about one-thousandth of the level at the point when it was unloaded. Less than 1% is radioactive for 10,000 years. The portion that stays radioactive for longer is about as radioactive as some things found in nature and can be easily shielded to protect humans.
Thank you. I believe all environmentalists need to curb their fear and absorb a healthy dose of science. It would limit the outpouring of outrageous, fear-mongering statements to leave some room for serious adult discussions on how to tackle the energy problems we face as a species.
I think it’s condescending to claim that environmentalists are guided mainly by emotions and people who share your view are guided by science. The problems surrounding nuclear waste is not as clear cut as the article suggests.
I recommend you read "The Wizard and The Prophet" as it chronicles the dawn of the environmentalist movement in an engaging and insightful way. That environmentalism was largely funded by wealthy folks, most of whom had only a rudimentary understanding of science, should be a clue towards how much science factors into those discussions.
> Aim for 50% nuclear at least, as per the science.
Which suggests a pretty cavalier attitude to "the science".
edit: I take it back, she's in cahoots with Shellenberger and GWPF so it's the fossil fuel industry that she's supporting.
I thought the timing was mysteriously exact for both her and Shellenberger to be running the same "I used to be an environmentalist" story:
https://www.netzerowatch.com/gwpf-welcomes-newfound-realism-...
> In recent days, former Extinction Rebellion spokesman Zion Lights has announced her conversion to the cause of nuclear energy, while so-called “eco-modernist” Michael Shellenberger has gone further, and apologised for the years he spent scaremongering over climate change in a long article at Forbes website.
> Welcoming these developments, GWPF director Dr Benny Peiser said:
> It’s great to see these prominent green campaigners disavowing the eco-extremism that has done such damage to the world. When Michael Shellenberger says that climate change isn’t even the biggest environmental problem the world faces, he’s echoing a view that the GWPF has highlighted since our inception.”
Extinction rebellion have a page on her (NSFW warning for some nudity in the banner image):
https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2020/09/16/statement-on-zion-...
> There have been a number of stories in the press in the last few weeks with criticisms about Extinction Rebellion by Zion Lights, UK director of the pro-nuclear lobby group Environmental Progress. It appears that Lights is engaged in a deliberate PR campaign to discredit Extinction Rebellion.
> For any editors who might be considering platforming Lights, we would like to make you aware of some information about the organisation she works for and her employer, Michael Shellenberger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It happens with non-radioactive toxic waste too It tends to be a lot harder to detect too. With radioactive waste, we're fortunate to have very cheap and extremely sensitive instruments that can detect the tiniest leaks. This allows the nuclear industry to be held to a much higher standard than most other industries. This is also the reason we can say with a high degree of confidence that first-world militaries hav…
> we're fortunate to have very cheap and extremely sensitive instruments that can detect the tiniest leaks. This allows the nuclear industry to be held to a much higher standard than most other industries. The military has no problems detecting the chemicals that get leaked around bases, taking soil samples might be more expensive than walking around with a Geiger counter but it's well within the budgets of even loca…
Thank you. I believe all environmentalists need to curb their fear and absorb a healthy dose of science. It would limit the outpouring of outrageous, fear-mongering statements to leave some room for serious adult discussions on how to tackle the energy problems we face as a species.
I think it’s condescending to claim that environmentalists are guided mainly by emotions and people who share your view are guided by science. The problems surrounding nuclear waste is not as clear cut as the article suggests.
One can make an argument that this is necessary to get the majority of people to care about the intractable hyperobject that is climate change, but I think it very clearly deserves condescension and ridicule when it becomes clear that these emotional appeals from environmental activists have been accidentally fighting legitimate possible solutions (nuclear) which has indirectly helped the fossil fuel industry that they're supposed to hate.