5 ms·

Sure. Nothing bad about millions of tons of contaminated soil in plastic bags... Seriously? This is a HUGE waste of money. It's a waste of money on top of waste

Sure. Nothing bad about millions of tons of contaminated soil in plastic bags... Seriously? This is a HUGE waste of money. It's a waste of money on top of waste of money, and we're talking only about soil. No houses, streets, infrastructure and finally PEOPLE.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Manuel_D 3y ago
Again, people have been allowed to return since 2022. We're not just talking about soil.
- Krasnol 3y ago
  How is this supposed to be reassuring that you can return after 11 years? Or even after 1 year? Are you joking? Can you imagine telling the whole of Luxembourg that they have to just stop existing for 11 years? Or just Antwerp? In what mad world is this supposed to be uplifting news or an argument pro nuclear? Especially with far safer, cleaner and cheaper alternatives already there and being rolled out in months instead of years....madness.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Compared to the idea that a nuclear accident renders land permanently uninhabitable - which is what the public seems to think is the result of a nuclear incident - 11 years is indeed a pretty short time frame.
    - Krasnol 3y ago
      So this is it now? Some virtual public you made up is supposed to be your scapegoat to cover up the fact that nobody even remotely sane wants radioactive contamination for 11 (or even one) year? This must be a joke...and just like nuclear: I'm out here.
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        Nobody wants thousands of people to be killed in a dam failure either. Yet nobody is seriously considering decommissioning all of our dams. In aggregate, nuclear power is one of the safest (and in many studies, the safest) form of power generation out there.
        Krasnol 3y ago
        Dams are being removed for even less dramatic reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_removal For environmental reasons, for example. Meanwhile, France is heating up rivers, so fish have to die for their failure to diversify and move on to future tech. Your derailments are weak. Your argument that 11 years are "ok" remains, and no dam will ever make this madness better.
      - mpweiher 3y ago
        > nobody even remotely sane wants radioactive contamination for 11 (or even one) year? Nobody even remotely sane wants to die in a car crash either. Yet we drive cars. Nobody even remotely sane wants to get poisoned by arsenic. Yet we make semiconductors, including solar panels. Nobody even remotely sane wants superfund sites that have long term cleanup requirements. Yet we have them. etc.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    "Superfund sites are polluted locations in the United States requiring a long-term response to clean up hazardous material contaminations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites Herfa-Neurode stores enough arsenic to kill the entire world population. And tens of thousands tons of extremely poisonous heavy metals. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode Making solar panels produces a lot more arsenic as waste than nuclear does per kWh. You are under the illusion that other industrial processes don't have negative consequences. They do. And on balance nuclear is better.
    - Krasnol 3y ago
      https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12102023/inside-clean-energy-reality-check-solar-panel-waste/ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12102023/inside-clean-ene...
mpweiher 3y ago
Once again: nuclear is either the safest or one of the safest forms of energy we have. Hydro is less safe, Wind is less safe (thought not by much). Solar is about the same. You know how much soil is contaminated by arsenic and heavy metals used in the production of solar panels or wind turbines? I don't either, because it isn't in the news. When an installer falls off a roof, it doesn't make the news. And the other thing that people don't understand is the energy density of nuclear. A single nuclear power plant is definitely much more dangerous than a single solar panel or a single wind turbine. But you need so much more of the latter two than the former that it evens out (or more than evens out). I would think that hackers can figure out this sort of simple arithmetic. Nobody is saying that the accidents are not bad. However, they are not actually that bad. And certainly not nearly as bad as laypeople think. And more importantly, there is nothing that has the perfect safety you appear to demand of nuclear. These things are tradeoffs, and those tradeoffs are very much in favor of nuclear. As evidence, I present you Ukraine: the country that had the absolutely worst nuclear accident in the history of the world. Unstable reactor, no containment, authoritarian government with horrible crisis management. And yet, they kept their nuclear reactors. And not just that, they are among the 22 countries that have pledged to triple nuclear output by 2050. What do they know that you do not? As further evidence, I present you Japan: the country with the second worst nuclear accident in history. The accident you keep citing as so incredibly horrible that no sane person could possibly invest in nuclear. Of course the Tsunami was far worse than the nuclear accident, and the nuclear accident only happened because the Tsunami overwhelmed the protective infrastructure, as it overwhelmed the protective infrastructure of various non-nuclear facilities. And yet, Japan is going with nuclear, and also happens to be among the 22 countries that signed the COP28 nuclear pledge to triple output by 2050. What do they know that you do not? The countries with the most experience with nuclear accidents are aware that these are tradeoffs, and have come to the conclusion that the tradeoffs favor nuclear.
- Krasnol 3y ago
  > Once again: nuclear is either the safest or one of the safest forms of energy we have. Hydro is less safe, Wind is less safe (thought not by much). Solar is about the same. This "assessment" is base upon a single image which is being handed up and down the nuclear astro-turf, and it's ignorant and disrespectful. There are still victims of Chernobyl out there, and there will be for generations. You can give them some money to append for the use of this meme: https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ And not only there: https://culturacolectiva.com/en/history/mexico-radioactive-milk-chernobyl/ https://culturacolectiva.com/en/history/mexico-radioactive-m... https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mushrooms-game/mushrooms-game_node.html https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mush... https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1007843 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1007843 > And the other thing that people don't understand is the energy density of nuclear. Sure they do. They don't care because you know what's even better? The sun in the sky, for example... > Nobody is saying that the accidents are not bad. However, they are not actually that bad. We currently have a country full of reactors which are beyond the time they were supposed to run. Failures, accidents, shutdowns, global warming, etc. are happening to them, but the country doesn't have a diversified energy generation infrastructure. They'll keep it running. Accidents will keep on happening. Meanwhile, the world keeps on turning. Global conflicts are coming nearer. Mad dictators waging wars, drones, hackers, machine learning, are happening. Why would any sane person even think about keeping or even BUILDING new targets in a densely populated area?? > As evidence, I present you Ukraine: the country that had the absolutely worst nuclear accident in the history of the world. Unstable reactor, no containment, authoritarian government with horrible crisis management. And yet, they kept their nuclear reactors. And not just that, they are among the 22 countries that have pledged to triple nuclear output by 2050. They didn't have a choice back then. Now they have other things to care about. Like invading troops hiding their tanks and ammunition WITHIN their nuclear power plants! How the hell is this supposed to be an argument FOR nuclear?!? Btw: I doubt they'll have even a fraction of the required money to build a single reactor in the future once the war is over. Renewables are incoming. And yeah...gota love that "pledge": https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/11/nuclear-energy-cop28-electricity-emissions-climate/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/11/nuclear-energy-cop28-el... Nuclear has peaked, and even China invests much more in renewables than it said it would invest into nuclear. (The rest has other use: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/19/major-expansion-china-now-has-more-than-500-nukes-pentagon-says-00122440 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/19/major-expansion-chi...) Time's up. Taxpayers will not be ready to waste money on those nonsense projects if the alternatives are cheaper and faster to build. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wind-solar-in-china-generating-2x-nuclear-today-will-be-4x-by-2030/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wind-solar-in-china-gen... https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 https://www.ft.com/content/2bccd67f-a3c6-48d1-baa5-8ef9d54cdf67 https://www.ft.com/content/2bccd67f-a3c6-48d1-baa5-8ef9d54cd... > The countries with the most experience with nuclear accidents are aware that these are tradeoffs, and have come to the conclusion that the tradeoffs favor nuclear. No they didn't. They greenwash regulations, rip off taxpayers, renationalize companies responsible for construction and maintenance because they can't survive on their own. It's a complete failure and the time is up. https://about.bnef.com/blog/dead-horse-also-ran-or-unicorn-how-nuclear-fits-with-net-zero/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/dead-horse-also-ran-or-unicorn-h... https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/World-Report-Shows-Nuclear-Energy-Production-Fell-by-4-Last-Year.html https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/World-Rep... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuclears-share-world-power-output-multi-decade-low-report-2023-12-06/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuclears-share-world...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Manuel_D 3y ago

Again, people have been allowed to return since 2022. We're not just talking about soil.

Krasnol 3y ago
How is this supposed to be reassuring that you can return after 11 years? Or even after 1 year? Are you joking? Can you imagine telling the whole of Luxembourg that they have to just stop existing for 11 years? Or just Antwerp? In what mad world is this supposed to be uplifting news or an argument pro nuclear? Especially with far safer, cleaner and cheaper alternatives already there and being rolled out in months instead of years....madness.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Compared to the idea that a nuclear accident renders land permanently uninhabitable - which is what the public seems to think is the result of a nuclear incident - 11 years is indeed a pretty short time frame.
  - Krasnol 3y ago
    So this is it now? Some virtual public you made up is supposed to be your scapegoat to cover up the fact that nobody even remotely sane wants radioactive contamination for 11 (or even one) year? This must be a joke...and just like nuclear: I'm out here.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      Nobody wants thousands of people to be killed in a dam failure either. Yet nobody is seriously considering decommissioning all of our dams. In aggregate, nuclear power is one of the safest (and in many studies, the safest) form of power generation out there.
      - Krasnol 3y ago
        Dams are being removed for even less dramatic reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_removal For environmental reasons, for example. Meanwhile, France is heating up rivers, so fish have to die for their failure to diversify and move on to future tech. Your derailments are weak. Your argument that 11 years are "ok" remains, and no dam will ever make this madness better.
    - mpweiher 3y ago
      > nobody even remotely sane wants radioactive contamination for 11 (or even one) year? Nobody even remotely sane wants to die in a car crash either. Yet we drive cars. Nobody even remotely sane wants to get poisoned by arsenic. Yet we make semiconductors, including solar panels. Nobody even remotely sane wants superfund sites that have long term cleanup requirements. Yet we have them. etc.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  "Superfund sites are polluted locations in the United States requiring a long-term response to clean up hazardous material contaminations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites Herfa-Neurode stores enough arsenic to kill the entire world population. And tens of thousands tons of extremely poisonous heavy metals. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode Making solar panels produces a lot more arsenic as waste than nuclear does per kWh. You are under the illusion that other industrial processes don't have negative consequences. They do. And on balance nuclear is better.
  - Krasnol 3y ago
    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12102023/inside-clean-energy-reality-check-solar-panel-waste/ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12102023/inside-clean-ene...

mpweiher 3y ago

Once again: nuclear is either the safest or one of the safest forms of energy we have. Hydro is less safe, Wind is less safe (thought not by much). Solar is about the same. You know how much soil is contaminated by arsenic and heavy metals used in the production of solar panels or wind turbines? I don't either, because it isn't in the news. When an installer falls off a roof, it doesn't make the news. And the other thing that people don't understand is the energy density of nuclear. A single nuclear power plant is definitely much more dangerous than a single solar panel or a single wind turbine. But you need so much more of the latter two than the former that it evens out (or more than evens out). I would think that hackers can figure out this sort of simple arithmetic. Nobody is saying that the accidents are not bad. However, they are not actually that bad. And certainly not nearly as bad as laypeople think. And more importantly, there is nothing that has the perfect safety you appear to demand of nuclear. These things are tradeoffs, and those tradeoffs are very much in favor of nuclear. As evidence, I present you Ukraine: the country that had the absolutely worst nuclear accident in the history of the world. Unstable reactor, no containment, authoritarian government with horrible crisis management. And yet, they kept their nuclear reactors. And not just that, they are among the 22 countries that have pledged to triple nuclear output by 2050. What do they know that you do not? As further evidence, I present you Japan: the country with the second worst nuclear accident in history. The accident you keep citing as so incredibly horrible that no sane person could possibly invest in nuclear. Of course the Tsunami was far worse than the nuclear accident, and the nuclear accident only happened because the Tsunami overwhelmed the protective infrastructure, as it overwhelmed the protective infrastructure of various non-nuclear facilities. And yet, Japan is going with nuclear, and also happens to be among the 22 countries that signed the COP28 nuclear pledge to triple output by 2050. What do they know that you do not? The countries with the most experience with nuclear accidents are aware that these are tradeoffs, and have come to the conclusion that the tradeoffs favor nuclear.

Krasnol 3y ago
> Once again: nuclear is either the safest or one of the safest forms of energy we have. Hydro is less safe, Wind is less safe (thought not by much). Solar is about the same. This "assessment" is base upon a single image which is being handed up and down the nuclear astro-turf, and it's ignorant and disrespectful. There are still victims of Chernobyl out there, and there will be for generations. You can give them some money to append for the use of this meme: https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ And not only there: https://culturacolectiva.com/en/history/mexico-radioactive-milk-chernobyl/ https://culturacolectiva.com/en/history/mexico-radioactive-m... https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mushrooms-game/mushrooms-game_node.html https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mush... https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1007843 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1007843 > And the other thing that people don't understand is the energy density of nuclear. Sure they do. They don't care because you know what's even better? The sun in the sky, for example... > Nobody is saying that the accidents are not bad. However, they are not actually that bad. We currently have a country full of reactors which are beyond the time they were supposed to run. Failures, accidents, shutdowns, global warming, etc. are happening to them, but the country doesn't have a diversified energy generation infrastructure. They'll keep it running. Accidents will keep on happening. Meanwhile, the world keeps on turning. Global conflicts are coming nearer. Mad dictators waging wars, drones, hackers, machine learning, are happening. Why would any sane person even think about keeping or even BUILDING new targets in a densely populated area?? > As evidence, I present you Ukraine: the country that had the absolutely worst nuclear accident in the history of the world. Unstable reactor, no containment, authoritarian government with horrible crisis management. And yet, they kept their nuclear reactors. And not just that, they are among the 22 countries that have pledged to triple nuclear output by 2050. They didn't have a choice back then. Now they have other things to care about. Like invading troops hiding their tanks and ammunition WITHIN their nuclear power plants! How the hell is this supposed to be an argument FOR nuclear?!? Btw: I doubt they'll have even a fraction of the required money to build a single reactor in the future once the war is over. Renewables are incoming. And yeah...gota love that "pledge": https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/11/nuclear-energy-cop28-electricity-emissions-climate/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/11/nuclear-energy-cop28-el... Nuclear has peaked, and even China invests much more in renewables than it said it would invest into nuclear. (The rest has other use: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/19/major-expansion-china-now-has-more-than-500-nukes-pentagon-says-00122440 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/19/major-expansion-chi...) Time's up. Taxpayers will not be ready to waste money on those nonsense projects if the alternatives are cheaper and faster to build. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wind-solar-in-china-generating-2x-nuclear-today-will-be-4x-by-2030/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wind-solar-in-china-gen... https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 https://www.ft.com/content/2bccd67f-a3c6-48d1-baa5-8ef9d54cdf67 https://www.ft.com/content/2bccd67f-a3c6-48d1-baa5-8ef9d54cd... > The countries with the most experience with nuclear accidents are aware that these are tradeoffs, and have come to the conclusion that the tradeoffs favor nuclear. No they didn't. They greenwash regulations, rip off taxpayers, renationalize companies responsible for construction and maintenance because they can't survive on their own. It's a complete failure and the time is up. https://about.bnef.com/blog/dead-horse-also-ran-or-unicorn-how-nuclear-fits-with-net-zero/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/dead-horse-also-ran-or-unicorn-h... https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/World-Report-Shows-Nuclear-Energy-Production-Fell-by-4-Last-Year.html https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/World-Rep... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuclears-share-world-power-output-multi-decade-low-report-2023-12-06/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuclears-share-world...