7 ms·

> one country should be able to influence other countries in the EU. Who pays decide (Germany is the first financial contributor), that's business as usual. >

> one country should be able to influence other countries in the EU. Who pays decide (Germany is the first financial contributor), that's business as usual. > Whereas the CO2 is in the air In the UE the question is how much renewables and how much nuclear will be built, and their (dubious) compatibility. Very few want to see more fossil fuel. The "nuclear waste is a solved challenge" is funny, as experts explicitly state that there is no safe solution (due to risks induced by seismotectonics, intrusions, casks imperfections...). It's the "Asse II mine" joke all over again: "there will be no problem" followed by "Ouch! Err...". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine#History

chickenbig 1y ago
> experts explicitly state that there is no safe solution What is their definition of safe? > It's the "Asse II mine" joke all over again It would be good to see the cost/benefit analysis of the proposal to remove everything from the mine https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/meetings/2018/march/geckeis.pdf?sfvrsn=6 https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/meetings/2018/marc... page 17 has backfilling as the preferred option in 4 out of the 5 assessment categories.
- natmaka 1y ago
  > definition of safe? Some claim that nuclear waste repositories are perfect (0 risk), and experts disagree. > backfilling Yay, such a superb gift to our children, their children, their children...! The underlying point is about how much renewables and how much nuclear may we build in order to tackle current challenges (climate, pollution...), one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down.
  - chickenbig 1y ago
    > Some claim that nuclear waste repositories are perfect (0 risk), and experts disagree. Disagreement is natural in science as well as engineering. And absolutes are not. Framing nuclear waste disposal, or in fact any enterprise, in terms of finding total agreement on total safety is not useful. > one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down In what terms are we to assess the waste? By volume, likely number of people killed over the lifetime of the waste, maximum number killed? Do we count the waste from manufacturing as well?
    - natmaka 1y ago
      > Disagreement Indeed, my point was about a form of propaganda quite common in France, which states that long-term waste repositories (now work-in-progress) will be perfectly safe. They won't. > assess the waste? Most of renewables' waste is recyclable, and more and more is recycled, even wind turbine blades. > likely number of people killed over the lifetime of the waste The more types of waste and the longer the lifetime (nuclear...), the more difficult it is. > count the waste from manufacturing As far as I understand yes, an adequate life-cycle assessment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment ) has to do so, however this is a good point: it may somewhat be neglected.
preisschild 1y ago
The experts literally said that digging up Asse II was useless and it was safe to leave the waste down there https://www.ssk.de/SharedDocs/Beratungsergebnisse/DE/2016/2016-09-15_Empf_Asse_KT.html https://www.ssk.de/SharedDocs/Beratungsergebnisse/DE/2016/20... It was a political decision by the greens to waste money.
- natmaka 1y ago
  There are dissenting opinions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine#Current_progress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine#Current_progress In not-so-ancient times "experts" were also OK with ocean disposal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_... AFAIK few experts now judge adequate to use such mines, and many nations build dedicated repositories.
  - chickenbig 1y ago
    > There are dissenting opinions Flat earthers exist too. > In not-so-ancient times "experts" were also OK with ocean disposal. The link you gave did not list the effects of ocean disposal; elevated and measurable are not the same as significant or harmful unless you are a firm believer in LNT, although at the bottom of the ocean the background radiation dose from cosmic rays will be less.
    - natmaka 1y ago
      > File earthers Whatever they believe or not isn't impeding others' lifes. The underlying point is about how much renewables and how much nuclear may we build in order to tackle current challenges (climate, pollution...), one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down. > ocean disposal AFAIK no expert now states that ocean disposal is OK, this is a settled matter since at least 1972 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Convention_on_the_Prevention_of_Marine_Pollution_by_Dumping_of_Wastes_and_Other_Matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Convention_on_the_Preve... ), therefore a bunch of assessments of the current situation for stuff dangerous for at least hundred years doesn't seem pertinent to me.

chickenbig 1y ago

> experts explicitly state that there is no safe solution What is their definition of safe? > It's the "Asse II mine" joke all over again It would be good to see the cost/benefit analysis of the proposal to remove everything from the mine https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/meetings/2018/march/geckeis.pdf?sfvrsn=6 https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/meetings/2018/marc... page 17 has backfilling as the preferred option in 4 out of the 5 assessment categories.

natmaka 1y ago
> definition of safe? Some claim that nuclear waste repositories are perfect (0 risk), and experts disagree. > backfilling Yay, such a superb gift to our children, their children, their children...! The underlying point is about how much renewables and how much nuclear may we build in order to tackle current challenges (climate, pollution...), one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down.
- chickenbig 1y ago
  > Some claim that nuclear waste repositories are perfect (0 risk), and experts disagree. Disagreement is natural in science as well as engineering. And absolutes are not. Framing nuclear waste disposal, or in fact any enterprise, in terms of finding total agreement on total safety is not useful. > one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down In what terms are we to assess the waste? By volume, likely number of people killed over the lifetime of the waste, maximum number killed? Do we count the waste from manufacturing as well?
  - natmaka 1y ago
    > Disagreement Indeed, my point was about a form of propaganda quite common in France, which states that long-term waste repositories (now work-in-progress) will be perfectly safe. They won't. > assess the waste? Most of renewables' waste is recyclable, and more and more is recycled, even wind turbine blades. > likely number of people killed over the lifetime of the waste The more types of waste and the longer the lifetime (nuclear...), the more difficult it is. > count the waste from manufacturing As far as I understand yes, an adequate life-cycle assessment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment ) has to do so, however this is a good point: it may somewhat be neglected.

preisschild 1y ago

The experts literally said that digging up Asse II was useless and it was safe to leave the waste down there https://www.ssk.de/SharedDocs/Beratungsergebnisse/DE/2016/2016-09-15_Empf_Asse_KT.html https://www.ssk.de/SharedDocs/Beratungsergebnisse/DE/2016/20... It was a political decision by the greens to waste money.

natmaka 1y ago
There are dissenting opinions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine#Current_progress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine#Current_progress In not-so-ancient times "experts" were also OK with ocean disposal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_... AFAIK few experts now judge adequate to use such mines, and many nations build dedicated repositories.
- chickenbig 1y ago
  > There are dissenting opinions Flat earthers exist too. > In not-so-ancient times "experts" were also OK with ocean disposal. The link you gave did not list the effects of ocean disposal; elevated and measurable are not the same as significant or harmful unless you are a firm believer in LNT, although at the bottom of the ocean the background radiation dose from cosmic rays will be less.
  - natmaka 1y ago
    > File earthers Whatever they believe or not isn't impeding others' lifes. The underlying point is about how much renewables and how much nuclear may we build in order to tackle current challenges (climate, pollution...), one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down. > ocean disposal AFAIK no expert now states that ocean disposal is OK, this is a settled matter since at least 1972 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Convention_on_the_Prevention_of_Marine_Pollution_by_Dumping_of_Wastes_and_Other_Matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Convention_on_the_Preve... ), therefore a bunch of assessments of the current situation for stuff dangerous for at least hundred years doesn't seem pertinent to me.