Post AcT7nTSsdTGe8IfmpE by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
(DIR) More posts by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
(DIR) Post #AcSY8A8w4VIZwHuSqe by friedrichbohn@mastodon.online
2023-08-04T07:55:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Im #August veröffentlichen wir bei "BAM! Bock auf Morgen" 9 Podcastepisoden mit 9 Naturwissenschaftler:innen zu 9 Planetaren Grenzen. Wie wohltuend die ruhige, abwägende wissenschaftliche Rhetorik. Sie unterscheidet sich erfrischend von so manchem lauten Alarmismus.Jeden Mittwoch, jeden Sonntag im August eine #podcast-Episode. Hört mal rein, lasst gerne ein Abo da, würden uns total freuen:https://open.spotify.com/show/5uS1En7ZPPTMZFODnDjulv?si=b7e1a8041a464d9f&nd=1#climatechange #klimakrise #nature #planetareGrenzen #Klimaschutz
(DIR) Post #AcSY8BBoBJBtBUGGxs by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-08-25T18:01:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@friedrichbohn gerade Folge 1/9 gehört. Sehr cool!#DRMfree gibt es das Ganze auch hier: https://bam.podigee.io/episodesDen erwähnte #IPCC Report for Policymaker kann ich auch nur empfehlen. https://climateactiontracker.org kannte ich noch nicht, müsste man mal mit https://goodcountry.org zusammenfügen: https://pad.hacc.space/green-hardware-ranking?both#Good-Countries
(DIR) Post #AcSY8CDyKkW2OUHVya by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-12-04T07:36:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I have update my "good country for fossil free world" list:1. Denmark4. Germany6. Ireland9. Austria10. Cyprus12. Australia19. Spainhttps://pad.hacc.space/green-hardware-ranking?view#Good-CountriesIncludes recent #cop28 updates#climateactiontracker #cop #climateclub #olafScholz #HighAmbitionCoalition #biodiversity #cop15 #global #methane #pledge #renewableEnergy #FATF
(DIR) Post #AcSY8DKkD3WjpmSRAe by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-04T07:56:48.543198Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@aligyie But Germany?! With CO2 emissions of well beyond 500 gCO2eq/kWh?!Do I understand correctly that in your “fossil free world” ranking you’re actually penalising countries for #nuclear when it’s the most efficient replacement for fossil?! So France on your list has twice as bad ranking as Germany, when in reality France’s emissions are 11x lower than Germany, thanks to low-carbon nuclear base?https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DEhttps://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR
(DIR) Post #AcSuzg1wRc1lAuYqa8 by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-04T12:12:31.867731Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aligyie Okay, so you seem to be explicitly penalising countries for the use of low-carbon #nuclear electricity, which explains why a country that has one of the largest CO2 emissions in EU scored so high in your ranking. And I’m kind of fine with that, it’s your ranking, so you can use whatever criteria you want. I just have one request: don’t call it ranking of “fossil free world” because you’re only ridiculing yourself by praising Germany that mostly runs on coal and gas as “fossil free”.#EnergieWende #renewables
(DIR) Post #AcSv8En55eeRIagydk by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-12-04T12:11:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz I am aware of those numbers, but I still strongly believe that nuclear energy will not be a long term solution.https://digitalcourage.social/@mzedp@mas.to/111510489307493004We should not fight on that, but instead focus on problematic sectors like housing/heating, traffic/transportation and industry (steel, ...)https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/11/energy-efficiency-cop28-renewables/
(DIR) Post #AcSv8FZICPDRi7FTmq by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-04T12:14:33.877241Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aligyie that nuclear energy will not be a long term solutionThat’s your opinion. The CO2 emissions of Germany after it switched off nuclear are fact. You need to decide what’s more important for you - anti-nuclear bashing or actual reduction of use of fossil fuels.
(DIR) Post #AcSveVndO33LJlLAoK by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-04T12:20:24.534385Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aligyie And the comment you used to justify your opinion (“nuclear took 20 years to reach 200GW”) is rather ignorant, because it confuses installed power with actual electricity output which depends on each source’s capacity factor.[^1]This is precisely why you can have Germany with 120 GW installed power in wind and solar… but still running on coal and gas, because something merely installed doesn’t mean it’s working.With capacity factors of ~13% (PV) and 30% (wind) these sources don’t produce electricity at the nominal power most of the time, which is - once again - the primary reason why they must be supplemented by coal and gas. Which come with extremely high CO2 emissions, because Germany “wisely” switched off their low-carbon nuclear which operated at ~90% capacity factor 🤷 [^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
(DIR) Post #AcSwcjwxu9C6a0QLlQ by dynode@mas.to
2023-12-04T12:30:27Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz @aligyie It's rather sad. A country where people are on average not that much against #nuclearpower but still has a very problematic anti presence.Germany's economy is going down the shitter while CO2 emissions remain one of the highest. And STILL people continue to rail against nuclear power. It is mind-boggling 🤬
(DIR) Post #AcSxBKnvO7U4j7guyO by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-04T12:37:32.679424Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dynode Exactly, from the polls I’ve seen, most Germans asked were neutral or positive towards nuclear power. But of course the anti-nuclear is very vocal and there’s strong media bias highlighting that side. Most importantly, there’s a political consensus that coal and gas are somewhat better or less divisive. Unfortunately this kind of bias and detachment of the political elites from reality is precisely what fuels AfD in #Germany. And it’s not only Germany, PVV in #Netherlands is also contesting the anti-nuclear sentiment of the previous government. As much as this policy of PVV is based on common sense and science, I would much rather not have them as nuclear supporters as they also support fossil fuels 🤦@aligyie
(DIR) Post #AcSxCWxjfZIkiyqnXU by potatogunkelly@infosec.exchange
2023-12-04T12:17:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz @aligyie now now. don’t you know that if germany is doing it, it must be good, and if something says that germany’s approach is bad, the metric is wrong?
(DIR) Post #AcSxCXyTuHUZraCuLA by potatogunkelly@infosec.exchange
2023-12-04T12:34:09Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz @aligyie sixth from bottom on EU27 on carbon intensity? must be a mistake. let’s create a “green vibes” ranking that shows us near the top! 🤡
(DIR) Post #AcSz4HnGNoN9Gq9H8K by t_mkdf@ruhr.social
2023-12-04T12:53:34Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz @aligyie @dynode AfD is not polling strong because of a pro-nuclear stance.They are much more vocal in their support for fossil fuels... True Germans love lignite.
(DIR) Post #AcSzZZSmjmhp37UJYO by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-04T13:04:19.358678Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@t_mkdf I meant more in the sense of contesting the established political consensus. Interestingly, in Poland, while the “old” (post-communist) left-wing parties were strongly pro-coal, mostly due to the industry being their solid voting base, the “new” (liberal) left is generally supportive on nuclear and on renewables.Interestingly, I’ve just checked “Konfederacja” which is the closest to AfD on Polish political scene and at least 2 years ago they seemed to be very supportive of nuclear:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdUejFE2Yo8&t=2s@aligyie @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcT0X5eOi2WnxhIgxE by PawelK@fosstodon.org
2023-12-04T13:11:42Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz @aligyie Greens as a political group are probably at top2 of most detached ones from reality, but german greens are a quality in and of itself in that ranking.
(DIR) Post #AcT0nmOZYLqfAKrATw by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-12-04T13:14:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz @dynode @potatogunkellyI agree that this topic is politically charged. And I'm not sure if it is useful to make a poll about such a complex topic without giving people time to go into details.I can only emphasize to discuss this topic with experts from the energy area which are working in the design of modern decentralized electricity grids. It is a common agreement, that there is not a need for nuclear in a fossil free grid. Recent examples in Germany, Belgium and Lithuania have shown that it is possible to replace nuclear by renewable energy. Independent of this discussion, the power grid needs to change. Both nuclear and most renewables are not adjustable. Therefore it is crucial to minimize storage and save costs by:- flexible energy consumption- sector coupling- digital electricity meters- decentralization- grid (more cables)More in this book: https://sunwindwires.com/
(DIR) Post #AcT0nnPflkK4K2NYps by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-04T13:18:04.447740Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aligyie Recent examples in Germany, Belgium and Lithuania have shown that it is possible to replace nuclear by renewable energy.Yes, with coal and gas. Are you sure these are “fossil free grid”?It is a common agreement, that there is not a need for nuclear in a fossil free gridIt may be common in your information bubble. If you actually listen to experts such as IEA or IPCC, this is what they say:“Net zero needs nuclear power,” it said. “Nuclear power emits no greenhouse gasses when it is produced and contributes to energy security and the stability of the power grid, while facilitating the broader uptake of solar and wind power.”https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/net-zero-needs-nuclear-power-iaea-says-in-landmark-statement-backed-by-dozens-of-countries-at-cop28@dynode @potatogunkelly
(DIR) Post #AcT4k7HyKSq6clHIu0 by t_mkdf@ruhr.social
2023-12-04T13:29:30Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz @aligyie @dynode as I told you before: in Germany you get either nuclear+coal. Or renewables+coal.Take Bavaria's prime minister for example: now he is supportive of nuclear. But just prio 2022 he was adamant that nuclear would be phased out...
(DIR) Post #AcT4mHxlc7tMJBrZeS by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-12-04T13:32:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz this is indeed a very interesting example. I did a research recently on the EU Taxonomy vote. And there I found that neither Sweden nor France were the strongest advocates for nuclear energy in the taxonomy law, but instead Poland: https://digitalcourage.social/@aligyie/108643387996280598I can see the Polish fear of Russia and the need for being independent. But to be honest, this feels strange to me. A country which is not having experience nuclear at all is going full steam into nuclear. Currently we see more countries going away from nuclear than joining it.On the other hand Sweden and France are building one of the largest wind farms in Europe, overtaking Germany...(France will keep some nuclear because of submarines; SMR is the keyword)Meanwhile, I can see some investments in Poland in regards to renewables, but this looks far too less from their economical possibility as being the "next Germany in Europe". Maybe you can help me to find more details on the plan for phasing out fossil fuel in Poland? @dynode @t_mkdf
(DIR) Post #AcT4mIoET3rKvuPTQe by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-04T14:02:07.879146Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aligyie Poland is not the best case study for such analysis because the concept of strategic planning doesn’t really work in Poland - strategies change before they can even count as strategies :)There were multiple strategies proposed, but all of the involve massive increase in renewables, including a 2 GW off-shore farm in Baltic, increase in on-shore capacity and switching the dispatchable baseload capacity from coal to nuclear.The off-shore farm is quite solid and will most likely be built. On-shore is more challenging for the very same reasons for which on-shore wind stalled in other EU countries: in high-population density countries there’s not much appetite to turn hills and forests into industrial wind farms. PiS held a rather prohibitive 10H regulation which is now being disputed under new government, but it’s too early to see where that goes. In any case I don’t see 15’000 new high-capacity wind towers being built on-shore in Poland (proposals from some 100% renewables group).Battery storage is non-existent. Capacity for new large-scale hydro power and pumped storage is zero. Maybe some micro run of the river hydro power.The most ambitious but so far the most advanced is plan is to switch baseload generation from coal to nuclear, that would involve building 6x1.5 GW full-size plants. The first one is in the business and engineering planning phase with target being 2030.Most interestingly, I was quite intrigued by Polish chapter of Greenpeace showing kind of “we don’t approve but also don’t disagree” attitude towards this project, which is radically different from German Greenpeace chapter.Then there’s quite advanced plans - and this is IMHO the most interesting one - to replace existing coal and gas generation in heavy industry with SMR. This includes Polish Copper (KGHM) and chemical industry (Synthos). And then there’s yet another proposal to take the existing coal-powered plants and replace their coal furnaces with SMR, which would preserve the whole steam, electricity generation and distribution infrastructure.@dynode @t_mkdf
(DIR) Post #AcT7nTSsdTGe8IfmpE by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-12-04T14:09:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz yes, the IPCC mentions nuclear as an option, but it also recognizes the risk of accidents and radioactive waste.They consider that wind and solar power are both able to provide emission reductions at a much larger scale than nuclear power, and for a lower cost (technical summary p123). With a very high adoption rate of wind and solar power, other solutions are needed to mitigate their variability, such as storage (using batteries, power-to-fuel or pumping water into hydropower dams), demand response, electricity trading or other flexible generators that can adapt to the demand. The point is: renewables appear to be able to deliver decarbonation quickly, at a large scale and for relatively cheap. In other words, it is generally solar and wind that offer the greatest potential to reduce GHG emissions, to the tune of 4 GtCO2eq/year, by 2030. This is four to eight times the potential of nuclear power (see my previous pic).@potatogunkelly @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcT7nUXscMrRU61IG0 by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-04T14:36:26.732996Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aligyie There’s a few IPCC AR6 technical summaries but none has page 123 and there’s no statement to the effect you wrote, so I assume you copied that from Wikipedia or some renewables fanpages 😉The correct IPCC report to refer in terms of electricity sources is AR6 WG3 (mitigation). And while it does certainly note massive growth in renewables capacity, it’s also quite clear that as of today, #nuclear is the largest single low-carbon source, which has delivered more (2790 TWh) electricity in 2019 than wind and solar together (2100 TWh) in spite of its slow growth:Solar PV grew by 170% (to 680 TWh); wind grew by 70% (to 1420 TWh) from 2015 to 2019. Solar PV and wind together accounted for 21% of total low-carbon electricity generation and 8% of total electricity generation in 2019. Nuclear generation grew 9% between 2015 and 2019 and accounted for 10% of total generation in 2019 (2790 TWh); hydro-electric power grew by 10% and accounted for 16% (4290 TWh) of total generation. In total, lowand zero-carbon electricity generation technologies produced 37% of global electricity in 2019. {6.3, 6.4}https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_TechnicalSummary.pdfAnd there’s nothing wrong with that: it’s great that renewables have grown and many countries have potential to grow it much further. The problem is that renewables are variable and the only dispatchable low-carbon sources are hydro power (geographically limited) and nuclear. Countries that ideologically refuse nuclear, like Germany or Australia, almost always end up running on coal and gas. Exceptions are countries lucky enough to have plenty of potential for hydro power, such as Norway, Sweden, Portugal etc, but you can’t have that in Germany or Poland because nobody is going to flood new valleys for hydro plants.The most realistic scenarios are therefore those, which assume growth of renewables and nuclear as their baseload supply, as demonstrated by France, Sweden or UK, all of which have significantly lower CO2 emissions already today, especially when compared to Germany which continuously says “but in just ten years we’ll come up with a Wunderwaffe“, be it batteries, be it power-to-gas etc.@potatogunkelly @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcT7nVZKoRcQethyAC by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-12-04T14:21:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz Union of Concerned Scientists gives a good summary on that topic:https://www.ucsusa.org/energy/nuclear-power (which is neither pro nor against nuclear)Of course, the more German centered Scientists For Future are clearly against nuclear:https://zenodo.org/records/5573719 (English version below)If you look at environmental groups and include negative aspects of mining radioactive Uranium, you will find more negative views:“While we appreciate that the Biden administration is looking to invest in alternatives to fossil fuels, we don’t have time to waste on dangerous distractions like nuclear energy,” said Jeff Ordower, North America director at environmental group 350.org.https://wiseinternational.org/350-nuclearI can only emphasize to not only to look at the electricity sector, but the whole picture like climateationtracker is doing it. I'm optimistic to say, that the electric sector is on good track - with or without nuclear.@potatogunkelly @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcT7oTk35jq9HVBNC4 by dynode@mas.to
2023-12-04T14:21:02Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@aligyie @kravietz @potatogunkelly So why did Germany fail so horribly? After Fukushima there seems to be a big push (at least in words) for renewables but the results are disappointing to say the least.
(DIR) Post #AcT7yMOHHHevNUi8rg by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-04T14:37:59.901603Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dynode There are very specific reasons why Germany failed, and it was not a “SPD conspiracy” as it’s being conveniently claimed today. Here’s my article analysing the foundational documents on Energiewende that explains what was wrong with them:https://write.as/arcadian/ideological-origins-of-energiewende@aligyie @potatogunkelly
(DIR) Post #AcT8u1mK4U5yFKSKB6 by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-12-04T14:40:52Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
"Poland is not the best case study for such analysis because the concept of strategic planning doesn’t really work in Poland - strategies change before they can even count as strategies :)"@kravietz haha ok, this explains already some of my questions :DI like your "heavy industry with SMR" example. This could be an example where it makes sense with the current circumstances in Poland:- heavy industry is pretty much concentrated in the south, this would mean you could put energy producer near to energy consumer which fits to the idea of decentralized grid (in contrast to how industry exist in Germany). - heavy industry needs heat (Germany is going the Hydrogen way).@dynode @t_mkdf
(DIR) Post #AcT8uIbFWuL4PuPDmK by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-04T14:47:53.104734Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aligyie negative aspects of mining radioactive UraniumThere’s just one catch here: uranium is always co-mined with rare earth metals, which are critical for renewables (manufacturing of PV and wind turbines). You mine rare earth metals, you also mine uranium, they usually coexist in the same ores.And the fun part is that in order to satisfy the 100% renewable scenarios you need to increase rare-earth mining by up to 3000% which proportionally increases the amount of radioactive waste. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518302726Of course, nobody is talking about it on renewables fan-pages as they prefer to create an impression that PV panels are not made of cadmium and rare-earth metals, but of pure pranic energy 😉In reality, due to much lower energy density the required mined resources flows (metals, concrete etc) needed for renewables of the same capacity are up to 300x higher than for nuclear, which means the same increase in mining and processing. Of course, in EU and USA nobody cares about it - or even is aware of it - because all mining and manufacturing long ago has been moved to China and nobody cares about some mining operations there.https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china_pollution-20080222.html@potatogunkelly @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcT9DOWvhmOaJNUUQS by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-04T14:52:21.464543Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aligyie Overall, if you look at these “scientist groups”, you can clearly see that except for name they generally just ignore all the available science, to the point of actively ignoring the science they don’t like. Here’s an a pretty recent study comparing total, lifecycle impact of different electricity generation options on environment, using a dozen of indicators, such as land use, release of toxic chemicals, release of radioactivity etc. I won’t write what is their conclusion as I want to tempt you to read their methodology and only then results.https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/202109_UNECE_LCA_1.2_clean.pdf@potatogunkelly @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcT9Ep5MSUE2xeHEJM by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-12-04T14:48:32Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz interesting article. Some comments:- Desertec haha, yes I remember this clearly when I started to study Physics in 2011 this was a big topic and the hope was big. But then Arab Spring happened... But I would say it is still a success: Instead of doing the hard political thing of finding an agreement along with North Africa as a whole, Siemens/Germany, Spain, France and Portugal Siemens did quite some work on creating solar in Morocco and Egypt. It started by generating energy for the domestic market but bot Hydrogen is a game changer allowing to export the energy back to Europe, which is way more economical than loosing a lot in a cable and having political discussion which each country where the cable is going through@potatogunkelly @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcT9b95YlejVN30vlg by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-04T14:56:39.376310Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aligyie Well, I’m also great fan of CERN, even if it’s not producing but consuming plenty of energy 😉 But DESERTEC wasn’t only a research project, it had very specific objectives: to power Germany, and then the whole EU, from PV in Sahara.Did it work? No. That’s the short answer.But let’s speculate a bit.What if they built it, shut down German coal and nuclear… and then Arab Spring happened?What if they built it etc and then Tunisia or Algeria decided to raise the exported electricity price by 300% like Russia did with gas?And ultimately, the fact that DESERTEC didn’t happen is one of reasons why Germany now runs on coal and gas.@potatogunkelly @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcTCLrwKXnlvhf6WRs by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-12-04T15:16:32Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz "What if they built it, shut down German coal and nuclear… and then Arab Spring happened?"Yes that nails down the problem, which I mentioned with Russia. The assumptions Merkel made on the Energiewende were made on cheap gas from Russia. I believe Habeck learned from that, seeing now super speed LNG/hydrogen terminals and recent hydrogen deals made with Chile, Kenya and Australia with the help of solar and wind.@potatogunkelly @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcTDLDpnkqotGzJ1Oq by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-12-04T15:33:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz there are recent developments in the terms of circular solar and wind generators. https://pad.hacc.space/green-hardware-ranking?view#Solar-panelsFor nuclear, I don't see that future. There is no way you could recycle e.g. their concrete. Here physics plays an important part: The Ca in concrete captures neutrons (which is good, that is the reason why there are thick concrete walls), but this converts it to another isotope, which creates two problems:- The structural properties of concrete change and cracks appear. The concrete loses its service life and nuclear power plants have to be shut down earlier than originally planned.- The new Ca istope Ca-41 is becoming radioactive by itself with a half time 100k years... creating lots of headaches in the after live...@potatogunkelly @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcTDLEgyZ9M1vuBUHY by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-04T15:38:36.041914Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aligyie circular solar and wind generators. “Circular” merely means that components like carbon fibre, concrete and steel from wind turbines/PV can be reused. But to be re-used, they first need to be mined and processed in the first place. And only then recycled every 20 years. But hey, we don’t need to care, it will all happen somewhere else 😉The Ca in concrete captures neutronsCan you show me an example of a reactor design with concrete as the primary containment and/or neutron moderator? 🤔@potatogunkelly @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcTUq2zboRmlqUB44m by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-12-04T17:29:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
"Can you show me an example of a reactor design with concrete as the primary containment and/or neutron moderator? 🤔"@kravietz Why moderator? Every nuclear reactor emits beta (e-), gamma (photon), neutrons and (radioactive) ions. Beta shielding is easy, neutron shielding is also not to difficult but the impact is big, because this can lead to nuclear reactions (surprise) of almost every material. The process is complex because of cascading effects.Here is just an example explaining radiation damage by neutrons and gamma-rays in concrete (with a special eye on CaCO3 and SiO2/Quarz).https://www.hindawi.com/journals/mse/2016/4165746/Please be aware that this is a complex topic and there are continuously problematic findings and maybe-explanations every two years. Some newer reactors might use some different type of concrete which is found to be a problem 30 years later, which is hard to fix.@potatogunkelly @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcTUq48VYqUxONLgaO by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-04T18:54:07.282298Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aligyie While the waste management they highlight are clearly an important and worth studying part of nuclear engineering, it’s not a show stopper, or even a significant challenge. Normally in PWR reactors the primary containment is the steel reactor container, so the secondary containment is only slightly irradiated. But, most importantly any long-lived isotopes have low activity (respectively, highly active isotopes have short half-life because they decay fast). So the concrete counts merely as low-level or medium-level waste, which is easily dealt with. Even high-level waste is easily dealt with, starting from recycling down to vitrification.https://scitech.video/w/bg8Jbqf22RsvutB3DZZbxxThe regulations about processing dangerous waste are a bit inconsistent - under nuclear regulations even gloves or rubber boots used in a plant legally are “radioactive waste” which is a bit of an overkill, but so it works. At the same time rare-earth metals mine used to make PV panels produces thousands of tons of tailings with radioactive elements, but legally they don’t count as radioactive waste 😉At the same time in Germany, which freaked out about storage of low-level and mostly medical waste in Asche, there are not one but two deep geological storages keeping thousands of tons of cyanide, mercury and arsenic byproducts from chemical industry - including manufacturing of PV and modern insulation 😉phttps://www.kpluss.com/en-us/our-business-products/waste-management/underground-disposal/https://www.kpluss.com/en-us/our-business-products/waste-management/underground-disposal/@potatogunkelly @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcToMLRodCcBTiU8vY by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-12-04T22:31:16Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz yes, but often the amount is the problem like for concrete or the mentioned protection rubber stuff. Even if you have to pee, you have to "throw away" the whole suit, gloves and boots and get new ones when entering again. Of course this does not create massive CO2 impact, but you cannot burn it or throw it on some trash, because the risk here is not radioactivity, but that it could be contaminated. Whatever is on that rubber, you don't want to inhale or drink it. alpha and beta emitters can cause huge damage inside the body (and iodine does not help in this case, only for radioactive fall out).But again, I agree with you. Those things are not show stoppers. Modern decentralized grids are cheaper without nuclear. If I would be able to choose I would put every penny especially in onshore wind, the grid and efficiency. SMR for heavy industry in Poland would be OKish. Here I just see a political problem that I don't want to subsidize US nuclear submarines by buying SMRs.@potatogunkelly @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcTpC5awog3bN1QjXk by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-12-04T22:35:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz (plus US does not rank very well in my ranking... so when just looking at my Ranking I would prefer PV made in Spain, wind turbines made in Denmark and Hydrogen made in Australia - but this is maybe wishful thinking)@potatogunkelly @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcTpC6UbTkZo9dTBIG by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-12-04T22:38:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz funfact, there are rumors that some people working in nuclear power plants are fed up with that peeing policy which is time consuming and tedious because of changing cloth all the time. So that they just pee into some corner inside the internal area 🤣@potatogunkelly @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcTpC7FkeSI4VrWpma by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-04T22:42:42.071793Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aligyie Well, that’s the job you choose - good luck peeing on top of an off-shore wind tower for example 😉 I spend quite a lot of time on rope (caving) and know the pains of peeing (or more precisely: not peeing) when wearing an oversuit and climbing harness for hours 😂@potatogunkelly @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcTpaPXuI5eUCHbbAO by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-12-04T22:46:12Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz funfact two: the gloves end up in those (sometimes yellow) containers. In the center they usually put medium radioactive stuff, surrounded by low radioactive stuff (e.g. gloves). On the outer layer some material to shield radioactivity and prevent liquid entry.If I recall correctly, this is an old picture and the newer ones are more like I described and way more sophisticated in what is where and how much with that different chambers. @potatogunkelly @dynode
(DIR) Post #AcTuaBnDvJlzJWU1VA by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-12-04T23:04:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz may I ask about your opinion about the recent election in Poland?I always had the impression the there was no real "left" party in Poland. Probably because of historical reasons, because of hatred against soviet communism. In West-Germany there is a common understanding of how economy works without being too crazy capitalist: Soziale Marktwirtschaft or Rheinischer Kapitalismushttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economyIt is a very distinctive socialist idea which differs e.g. from company centric market economy in France or from the well known Anglo-Saxon model (US, UK, ...). Sometimes I had the feeling that PiS was trying to go into that Ango-Saxon direction, but somehow different to what we saw with Tatcher or Reagan. Maybe a bit more autocratic? Less liberal?I read somewhere Poland voted to be more liberal. But what does that mean?Maybe you can give me some insights :)
(DIR) Post #AcTuaCccqCtDswX4ca by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-04T23:43:04.194631Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aligyiePolish left evolved a lot. It started indeed with the post-communist left (SLD) which was ideologically burnt out and opportunistic in every inch. They're largely gone by now.There's the modern left (Razem) which is not much different from any other European left party. lt's armchair left built by intellectuals obsessed by pronouns to the extent that they kind of lose sight of more pressing social problems.Then there's PiS... which is much more leftist than both of the above, at least as it comes to what they do, rather than what they say, because their rhetoric is fiercely anticommunist. Low income and lower middle class is therefore is their main electoral base, although their disrespect for rule of law has discouraged many among these as well.To make things more complex, PiS has numerous fractions including "the young one" (Duda, Morawiecki etc) and "diehard" (Macierewicz etc), who are devout Catholic (declaratively) and very much influenced by US Poles, who are in turn influenced by US Republicans, including Trump. Influence of the latter has partially demised with Trump and the last elections.KO (Tusk) are a neoliberal version of SLD — old farts, cynical and opportunistic to the bone.All that mostly demonstrates how multidimensional politics is and that the left/right/liberal reductionism only makes things more confusing :) If anything, I think Poles have clearly voted against the "Christian fundamentalist" fraction of PiS, who pushed for abortion bans and other Middle Ages narratives and then, as always half voted for neoliberal opportunists while the other for center.
(DIR) Post #AcUXoY0zzl4uV8lR5s by aligyie@digitalcourage.social
2023-12-05T06:21:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kravietz :DDo you see any positive things or hope/wishes for this new government?Not sure if they have agreed already on a plan, but having a government consisting of 4 parties might be challenging 😅
(DIR) Post #AcUXoYzcMNZFX97qa0 by kravietz@agora.echelon.pl
2023-12-05T07:02:40.950873Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aligyieWell, if you look at the wartime policies of PiS so far, the surprising thing was they were largely supported by then opposition. So they can cooperate if they only want. Now it all depends on how much they will want to make their political capital exclusively on "contradiction in principle". Maybe it's actually good that the opposition didn't get absolute majority. If they did, the usual mode would be to replace all government structures built by PiS. This would of course result in 180° turn in many executive areas and canceling of ongoing projects, sold as "purging the mess after PiS", which would of course be never completed before next elections and the cycle would repeat. This complete lack of the sense of continuity of the state was what plagued Polish policy in the past, now we don't see any massive overhaul.