10 ms·

The Finnish Neo-Luddite / Green Party resigned from the government twice as a protest against permitting new Nuclear Power plants. And these are the people who

The Finnish Neo-Luddite / Green Party resigned from the government twice as a protest against permitting new Nuclear Power plants. And these are the people who are supposed to be solving climate change..

Ekaros 5y ago
I hope the day comes when we can put all of them on trial for crimes against humanity.
- vegai_ 5y ago
  If we did that universally for crimes related to causing the current/upcoming environmental catastrophe, there wouldn't be many people left unjudged.
- nikanj 5y ago
  Meanwhile greenpeace is putting up memorials for people who voted -for- nuclear power. I think they meant to shame the people https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace_Norden#/media/Tiedosto:Nuclear_power_vote_memorial_Toolonlahti_Helsinki.jpg https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace_Norden#/media/Tiedo...
lb0 5y ago
Yes, and they as enough still others believe that you don't solve one huge problem by going back to another huge problem.
- fsloth 5y ago
  Finland has researched and invested quite a lot in the ability to dispose of the nuclear waste in a way it's safe underground for the next 100 000 years. The research includes extensive geological surveys and every possible simulation you can run on a cave system. Beats hands down the option which would be to burn fossil fuels and let the planet enjoy the negative externalities (CO2). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/deep-time-reckoning https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/deep-time-reckoning
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    There's a simpler solution for disposing (not storing) final nuclear waste: deep core drilling. You drill a 1m round hole 2km+ deep and dump shit there and fill back up. Unlike caves, natural or otherwise, on a properly selected site there is no possibility of things coming back up in millions of years. It's expensive, but not that expensive compared to the energy hitherto produced by the waste involved and eminently doable as it uses tech from the oil industry. The main reason we don't do that is that most of the waste can be expected to be further used with future reactors.
    - fsloth 5y ago
      Wouldn't that risk contaminating the water table?
      - himinlomax 5y ago
        Certainly not 2km down. Water table extends a few hundred meters at most.
nikanj 5y ago
They wanted Finland to use the German solution, where the energy is no longer produced at all - it simply magically appears from Russia.
- qayxc 5y ago
  Germany is the biggest net-exporter of energy in Europe, but old myths never die I suspect...
  - belorn 5y ago
    Net-exporter means very little when exporting renewables during optimal weather conditions and importing fossil fuels when the weather turns. Simply finding someone willing to buy excess power is very different from buying a finite (and very polluting) resource when demand exceeds supply. Net-exporter is just a political tool to hide the aspect of dependency.
    - Krasnol 5y ago
      It means a lot for France when they buy clean and dirty from Germany every time their nuclear fleet breaks down. Like in winter or summer...
      - belorn 5y ago
        If France is dumping energy when there is an overall excess of energy in Europe, while buying fossil fuel energy during periods of high demand, then yes, it mean nothing even when France do it. The reason why net-exporter does not mean anything is that the product people buy is not just the joules, it the service of getting the energy at the right time in the right place. Buying energy when the excess is so large that the price is close to zero is not the same as buying energy when supply is so low that people will do anything just to prevent a blackout. Net-exporter only has meaning if one buy and sell at the same time, and then only if the energy produced comes from the same type of energy, ie trading non-fossil fuel energy for other non-fossil fuel energy.

Ekaros 5y ago

I hope the day comes when we can put all of them on trial for crimes against humanity.

vegai_ 5y ago
If we did that universally for crimes related to causing the current/upcoming environmental catastrophe, there wouldn't be many people left unjudged.
nikanj 5y ago
Meanwhile greenpeace is putting up memorials for people who voted -for- nuclear power. I think they meant to shame the people https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace_Norden#/media/Tiedosto:Nuclear_power_vote_memorial_Toolonlahti_Helsinki.jpg https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace_Norden#/media/Tiedo...

lb0 5y ago

Yes, and they as enough still others believe that you don't solve one huge problem by going back to another huge problem.

fsloth 5y ago
Finland has researched and invested quite a lot in the ability to dispose of the nuclear waste in a way it's safe underground for the next 100 000 years. The research includes extensive geological surveys and every possible simulation you can run on a cave system. Beats hands down the option which would be to burn fossil fuels and let the planet enjoy the negative externalities (CO2). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/deep-time-reckoning https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/deep-time-reckoning
- himinlomax 5y ago
  There's a simpler solution for disposing (not storing) final nuclear waste: deep core drilling. You drill a 1m round hole 2km+ deep and dump shit there and fill back up. Unlike caves, natural or otherwise, on a properly selected site there is no possibility of things coming back up in millions of years. It's expensive, but not that expensive compared to the energy hitherto produced by the waste involved and eminently doable as it uses tech from the oil industry. The main reason we don't do that is that most of the waste can be expected to be further used with future reactors.
  - fsloth 5y ago
    Wouldn't that risk contaminating the water table?
    - himinlomax 5y ago
      Certainly not 2km down. Water table extends a few hundred meters at most.

nikanj 5y ago

They wanted Finland to use the German solution, where the energy is no longer produced at all - it simply magically appears from Russia.

qayxc 5y ago
Germany is the biggest net-exporter of energy in Europe, but old myths never die I suspect...
- belorn 5y ago
  Net-exporter means very little when exporting renewables during optimal weather conditions and importing fossil fuels when the weather turns. Simply finding someone willing to buy excess power is very different from buying a finite (and very polluting) resource when demand exceeds supply. Net-exporter is just a political tool to hide the aspect of dependency.
  - Krasnol 5y ago
    It means a lot for France when they buy clean and dirty from Germany every time their nuclear fleet breaks down. Like in winter or summer...
    - belorn 5y ago
      If France is dumping energy when there is an overall excess of energy in Europe, while buying fossil fuel energy during periods of high demand, then yes, it mean nothing even when France do it. The reason why net-exporter does not mean anything is that the product people buy is not just the joules, it the service of getting the energy at the right time in the right place. Buying energy when the excess is so large that the price is close to zero is not the same as buying energy when supply is so low that people will do anything just to prevent a blackout. Net-exporter only has meaning if one buy and sell at the same time, and then only if the energy produced comes from the same type of energy, ie trading non-fossil fuel energy for other non-fossil fuel energy.