11 ms·
Personally I think closing the nuclear reactors is a terrible idea, considering nuclear is the only clean base load generation we have. But stopping a Russian g
by throwaway894345 5y ago
Personally I think closing the nuclear reactors is a terrible idea, considering nuclear is the only clean base load generation we have. But stopping a Russian gas pipeline seems eminently desirable considering that fossil fuels and Russian hegemony are both really bad things. Perhaps the US ought not to have interfered, but it seems like a desirable outcome nonetheless. Hopefully the energy crisis will result in the recommissioning of those nuclear reactors (if that’s even possible) or some better alternative.
- the-dude 5y ago> Russian hegemony What does this mean?
- Robotbeat 5y agoAsk a Ukrainian!
- datameta 5y agoOr a Georgian, or a Chechen.
- the-dude 5y agoCan we conclude from your example and your parents' that for Germany the term is hyperbole?
- datameta 5y agoI am not quite sure what you are saying or implying. What parent comment is pointing out is that Russia has invaded sovereign nations (cultural and economic allies) in the 21st century. In one instance of such it would go on to vehemently deny its involvement.
- the-dude 5y agoThat is not a hegemony right?
- datameta 5y agoFrom wikipedia: > Hegemony is the political, economic, or military predominance of one state over other states.
- Iwan-Zotow 5y agoLooks like US and NATO doing it all the time - well, till someone like taliban kicks them out
- throwaway894345 5y ago> well, till someone like taliban kicks them out You might want to learn your history if you think Russia has never been kicked out by "someone like the Taliban". Mind you, Afghanistan was a much more peaceful country before the USSR invaded, but I won't fault a country too harshly for the impossible-to-predict consequences of meddling; however, I will fault a country for the motives of their meddling in the first place. E.g., does a country meddle to support or overthrow a violent regime? Do they aspire to liberate or oppress?
- Iwan-Zotow 5y ago> Mind you, Afghanistan was a much more peaceful country before the USSR invaded Really? Where did you get that notion? As far as I know, it was under military junta rule > E.g., does a country meddle to support or overthrow a violent regime? And? Daud regime in Afghanistan was violent, isn't it?
- teekert 5y agoYes, and then we ask an Iranian what being influenced by the US means, and we stop all international collaboration and just focus on the EU. But then we shouldn't ask southern Europeans what northern European influencing is... I get that horrible things have happened, and nations did horrible things to each other. But we are citizens and I wish nothing but the best for citizens of other countries. I don't want war or influencing. I would like my gas to be a bit cheaper and preferably cleaner. Power to Iranian, Ukranian, Russian, EU and US (and all) citizens. I hope we can one day untangle our leaders from the companies in our countries and just make them do what is best for us.
- datameta 5y agoI can see your words are amicable but drawing an equivalence of wrongdoing to another wrongdoer does not exonerate the former (Russia).
- throwaway210222 5y ago> but drawing an equivalence of wrongdoing to another wrongdoer does not exonerate the former (Russia). Incorrect, it completely exonerates them if you are going to merrily let the the other wrongdoer carry on with the offending behaviour. If you disagree, ask what's the moral case for not dealing the other wrongdoer tomorrow morning?
- datameta 5y agoMy deep embarassment at the peace wrecking actions of the other wrongdoer (USA) as a citizen of the country in no way diminishes my absolute condemnation of Russia's actions toward Ukraine, as someone whose ancestry is from both the perpetrator and victim nation.
- throwaway210222 5y agoMy thoughts exactly. So lets deal with Russia today, and de-fang the USA tomorrow at 9am. No? Why not? See?
- throwaway894345 5y ago“Russian influence” would probably been a clearer choice of words.
- the-dude 5y agoSo what is exactly wrong with some Russian influence? As a Dutchie I am continously influenced by Americans, Germans, Frenchmen etc.
- BurningFrog 5y agoRussia controlling much of your energy supply that they can turn off at will gives them power over you. Very different from choosing to watch American movies or cooking French food.
- the-dude 5y agoThey can only do this one time. AFAIK they do not have a history of doing this, only when terms of actual gas deals are not met. Which is common business sense. edit: you are downplaying US influence. Are you aware The Netherlands is a host for US nuclear weapons?
- datameta 5y agoThey used natural gas as a political lever with Ukraine on a constant basis. The same would be the case with Belarussia if they weren't forcefully aligned as political allies (an attempt at which is one of the main reasons of the Ukrainian invasion).
- the-dude 5y agoDo you have sources Russia used this lever even though all terms of the deal were met? ( basically, the bills were paid ).
- 5y ago
- gego 5y ago...this is not what happened - Russia did deliver on time and the reserves were sold off. Now those same people cry wolf and want Exporters to offer more for cheap...
- raxxorrax 5y agoThe energy crisis is because of prices, not necessarily because of ressource limits. The ressources are only a tiny amount, the rest is investments. Gas would be a huge ecological improvement to coal. Nuclear power is too expensive and much of the costs are externalized. It will only be able to compete if you weight co2 beyond any other influence. I think this is mainly US propaganda to be honest. The pipeline isn't needed for a long time to meet demands.
- throwaway894345 5y ago> Gas would be a huge ecological improvement to coal. Normally I don’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, but we need to ramp down emissions quickly and natural gas doesn’t get us near enough to the goal line. This seems like we need to be going for bust on clean energy, but it will be expensive. > I think this is mainly US propaganda to be honest. How do you figure? My post didn’t have anything positive to say about the US (because for some reason it reduces one’s credibility to acknowledge anything positive that happens in the US), but only that the result seems to be desirable.
- raxxorrax 5y agoI meant the article and its framing, not your post. We cannot ramp down co2 emission to zero. The co2 balance of building nuclear power plants will only amortize when we already hit 1,5°C warming and it is questionable if it helps at all considering the unknowns about operating periods and other influences. Overall if we just look at Germany it wouldn't even matter, the nation is too small, it wouldn't even make a dent. It is still necessary to reduce emissions, but if you zero them all, it would be less than 2% of overall world wide emissions, even if it is on place 6. Not for long though and it will be completely dwarfed by the US, China and India.
- throwaway894345 5y ago> The co2 balance of building nuclear power plants will only amortize when we already hit 1,5°C warming and it is questionable if it helps at all considering the unknowns about operating periods and other influences. This is why it’s sad to decommission existing plants, but I don’t think there’s any legitimate question as to whether nuclear is harmful. It’s a pretty well-understood quantity, but I’m not sure which “factors” you’re describing. > Overall if we just look at Germany it wouldn't even matter, the nation is too small, it wouldn't even make a dent. It is still necessary to reduce emissions, but if you zero them all, it would be less than 2% of overall world wide emissions, even if it is on place 6. Not for long though and it will be completely dwarfed by the US, China and India. No Germany alone won’t make a dent directly, but it can model leadership. It’s a lot easier for other countries to get on board when someone has paved the way.
- Jedd 5y ago> nuclear is the only clean base load generation we have. I'm assuming from your phrasing that you're using nuclear to refer exclusively to nuclear fission. Are you really suggesting that it's 'clean' in the sense of no greenhouse gas emissions, or radioactive (negative health impacts) from the acquisition of the necessary fuel, the building of fission power stations, or the operations of same?
- nradov 5y agoClean enough compared to the alternatives.
- belorn 5y agoIn comparison to burning fossil fuels which is the basis of the energy crisis, the emissions, radiation, acquisition of fuel, and operate seems all cleaner for a nuclear reactor than the fossil fuel which it replace. Per GW/h, a fossil fueled power plant is producing a lot of pollution that goes into the air and poison the people and land around it. The outcome from this can be plainly seen in the death per GW/h produced. The only "100%" clean base load generation we have is actually hydro, but there are a few problems with it. We have already maxed out, and even if we tried to build more it would cause significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions from topsoil decomposition. It also happens to have one of the highest deaths per GW/h, although thankfully we tend to attribute that to the weather rather than the technology itself.
- Teknoman117 5y agoThis. Nuclear fission isn't "perfect" due to the potential risks involved, but it's one of the best things we have going for us right now. The climate crisis is here, and we have to do something pretty much immediately. We don't have time to argue over what's best anymore. Build things we know work and replace those with something else when something better comes along.
- throwaway894345 5y agoIt is on par with solar with respect to the emissions per kW. Nuclear power plants emit virtually no radiation when properly operated and maintained (indeed, coal power plants emit more radiation into the environment). In rare cases, accidents happen, but the risk adjusted cost of those accidents is negligible compared to fossil fuel power. I’m not sure what “radioactive impacts” derive from mining Uranium, but I doubt it’s non-negligible compared to the harm imposed my fossil fuels.
- Asmod4n 5y agoThere is no solution to deal with the life killing waste of nuclear power plants.
- thecopy 5y agoDrill a 5km deep hole, drop it in there.
- Asmod4n 5y agoYou can’t predict if that hole will be there for the trillions of years it’s toxic.
- throwaway894345 5y ago> You can’t predict if that hole will be there for the trillions of years it’s toxic. Trillions of years is the wrong timescale. The earth is only a few billion years old, and anyway the nuclear waste won't be radiotoxic in 1-10 thousand years much less 1 trillion. I'm pretty sure the Earth won't be habitable (as we understand 'habitable', anyway) in 1 trillion years. Anyway, climate change poses an existential threat in decades or centuries.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Asmod4n 5y agowhile uranium isn't that toxic compared to the other stuff it has a half-life of 4 billions years. And while the earth has long forgotten about humans other species will still be endangered by it.
- qwytw 5y agoStill infinitely preferable (even if the number was accurate) to poisoning earth's current inhabitants by burning coal .
- DeWilde 5y ago> Personally I think closing the nuclear reactors is a terrible idea, considering nuclear is the only clean base load generation we have. Yes >Perhaps the US ought not to have interfered, but it seems like a desirable outcome nonetheless. No, freezing in an European winter isn't an desirable outcome. Yes, gas bad and Russia evil, but shooting of your arm because your fingers are broken isn't a smart thing to do. Gas is already expensive in Europe and there aren't any viable cheap alternatives, both green and non-green. Curently at least.
- qaq 5y agoThere is plenty of pipeline capacity.
- throwaway894345 5y ago> No, freezing in an European winter isn't an desirable outcome. This is surely theatrics. Europeans will pay more for heating than they usually do, and that will be the extent of it.
- DeWilde 5y ago> This is surely theatrics. Yeah, drama helps makes a point which brings us to: >Europeans will pay more for heating than they usually do, That is the problem, many feel that heating and fuel are already expensive. Do you think this will make the poorer part of the population vote more for green and sustainable ideas? Or is it just gonna push them more towards politicians that don't support these ideeas?
- throwaway894345 5y ago> That is the problem, many feel that heating and fuel are already expensive. Do you think this will make the poorer part of the population vote more for green and sustainable ideas? Or is it just gonna push them more towards politicians that don't support these ideeas? Isn’t the obvious answer to redistribute wealth? Anyway, this is the whole deal with curbing climate change—it’s going to be an economic burden by definition. You’re going from externalizing a cost to internalizing it, so someone is going to have to pay a little more than normal. We need to work to make people understand that this transition won’t be easy precisely because we kicked the can so far down the road.
- CyanBird 5y ago> Personally I think closing the nuclear reactors is a terrible idea, considering nuclear is the only clean base load generation we have I am very against nuclear power, on both the economic aspect, and the health and hazards side of things, specially nuclear waste for which there are no cold long term repositories which inspire much trust in me This said, I am fully on board on keeping existing nuclear reactors working, BUT I learned recently that radiation itself damages/corrodes/degrades the containment vessels of nuclear reactors over time, to the point where what was once strong steel or titanium becomes as fragile as glass or sugar glass (!!!)... Which is just not something that you can repair as the damage happens at the molecular level so then the entire reactor building needs to be basically scrapped for the most part and the vessel rebuilt So, when nuclear scientists and engineers say that x reactor has a y lifespan, they are being very serious about it I am despite all of that fully on board with extending the lifespan of nuclear reactors as long as possible