Post ArZC2Mdv4AI9wtlMRc by MisuseCase@twit.social
(DIR) More posts by MisuseCase@twit.social
(DIR) Post #ArZC2FlocPRsdMP4HQ by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-27T15:00:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Thanks to the wonder of capitalism roughly 3.5 million people die from lack of clean water, 1.5 million people die from vaccinable diseases, and 9 million people die from hunger each and every year. That's over a 140 million deaths every decade.https://web.archive.org/web/20231003003509/http://horizons-newspaper.com/index.php/2020/02/27/tallying-capitalisms-death-toll/#capitalism
(DIR) Post #ArZC2Gu0PRau93F7gW by dacig@mastodon.social
2025-02-27T15:11:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos 5.5 million people die a year from burning fossil fuels.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2HvoaCdTKx658y by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-27T15:25:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dacig and somehow people keep doing hand wringing about using nuclear instead
(DIR) Post #ArZC2Iaa8dFHNOAdge by dacig@mastodon.social
2025-02-27T15:31:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos There is an irrational fear of nuclear, based on possible, improbable catastrophes, when fossil fuels are causing right now millions of deaths + climate catastrophe...
(DIR) Post #ArZC2JckI4ZQaOBshM by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T16:50:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dacig @yogthos Nuclear is simply not economically feasible. (and not exactly climate neutral anyway, Water Vapor is a Greenhouse gas too and the heat released is adding entropy to the atmosphere).But again: it's just not feasible. Wind and Solar are much, MUCH cheaper and easier to quickly get up and running, and that IS including the necessary short- and long electricity storage.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2KIZmY1yg7lHto by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-27T18:12:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@incoherentmumblings @dacig you should let China know asap
(DIR) Post #ArZC2L3ixFkF2LowO8 by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T18:16:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @dacig I guess they already know: China is also hedging its bets mostly on regenerative electricity. While they do build new reactors, those are barely enough to replace the ones they are phasing out.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2Lb2xMOqhhPYKO by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-27T18:24:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@incoherentmumblings @dacig what are you talking about, China is building 150 new reactors, and they're actively developing new types of reactors such as molten salt ones.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2M7f06UIKqfbA8 by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T18:30:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @dacig Those absolute numbers are kind of ignoring the scale of the country and the stellar growth of its energy needs. If you look at the projected numbers for installed capacity of renewables vs nuclear you will find that i am in fact correct: renewables are their main solution, nuclear is just a side gig.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2Mdv4AI9wtlMRc by MisuseCase@twit.social
2025-02-27T20:06:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@incoherentmumblings @yogthos @dacig Okay they are still building nuclear reactors, I guess they think they need that as well as renewables for some reason.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2NDiv2vpjwVxFg by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T20:11:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@MisuseCase @yogthos @dacig They mostly want to make sure they can still *export* nuclear reactors to anyone who wants them.And of course, China is - just like any country that sticks to nuclear energy - motivated by producing the material for nuclear weapons, which is a side project of nuclear reactors.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2Nm6rCRBSabPqi by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-27T21:20:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@incoherentmumblings @MisuseCase @dacig they are very obviously building them for domestic purposes. The reality is that renewables aren't good at handling surges, and nuclear is. These are complementary technologies, and China is taking a pragmatic approach of pursuing both where it makes sense. The idea that it has to be one or the other is purely dogmatic.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2OQWQwlPTvVgq8 by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T22:26:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig I can tell that you did not read the article i recommended. They are very much NOT REALLY building them for domestic supply of their energy. Otherwise you'd see a development not unlike you see with the renewables.The reality is that nuclear is exceptionally bad at handling surges. Take it from someone who studied that shit in Uni.A nuclear PP will need more than 12h to go from 50% to 100%, or vice versa. A gas plant needs about 4h. A battery needs seconds.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2P2o8bO9OfQGW0 by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T22:37:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig Since you probably missed it the first time, this article is pretty insightful:https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/12/nuclear-continues-to-lag-far-behind-renewables-in-china-deployments/
(DIR) Post #ArZC2PhZh1zxR6Up3g by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-27T22:38:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@incoherentmumblings @MisuseCase @dacig no, I read the article. I just disagree with its conclusions. I've followed nuclear development in China for a while now, and I think the article is pure nonsense.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2QNPBVSVWq4EG8 by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-27T22:39:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@incoherentmumblings @MisuseCase @dacig it creates a dichotomy between nuclear and renewables ignoring the fact that China is actively pursuing both in complimentary fashion. This is the problem with demagogy, people try to create a narrative that fits with their ideology instead of actually looking at the facts of the situation.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2QmDhFJAlng2wC by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T18:33:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @dacig See this graph for a comparison of the orders of magnitude:https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/wnisr2023-figure68_nukere_china_prodallre_2000_2022.pdf
(DIR) Post #ArZC2R8CNWtBrxxbCC by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T22:50:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig Indeed, people are trying to fit the facts to their narrative, in this case especially the nuclear industrial complex ;)The fact is: renewable and nuclear do NOT work well together (complimentary), on the contrary, nuclear is the worst possible kind of electricity generation that you could pair renewables with. I already explained why: It sucks at changing demand situations and is therefore unable to compensate the inherently fluctuating nature of renewables.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2RlY1EMfq0N1Wq by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-27T22:51:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@incoherentmumblings @MisuseCase @dacig they very obviously do work together. Nuclear can provide a sustained baseline power, while renewables can supplement that. This is obvious if you think about the problem rationally even for a moment.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2SOtevq9o2mRrU by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T23:14:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig Just to clarify, i repeat myself: i studied that shit in Uni. So you can safely assume that i did think about the problem *rationally* for maybe a couple of more moments than, say, you for example.I just explained why they do NOT work well together. There is no "sustained baseline power" need that would have to be met. That`s a very old misconception. There is a power need, and for 99% of the time it can be fully met by renewables with about 12h worth of batteries.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2T8cuuQ65sAy8m by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-27T23:17:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@incoherentmumblings @MisuseCase @dacig again, you're not the only person to have studies this. And it's pretty clear that a lot of experts in the field disagree with you. The whole context of this discussion is that China's state policy is at odds with your claims. I'm just going to go out on a limb here and suggest that experts in China know as much as you do about this subject, and they clearly came to a different conclusion.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2TkCfCTfyPkyi8 by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T23:36:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig No, actually, there are no experts in the field i am aware of that would claim that nuclear works well together with renewables.The "sustained baseline power" is not actually a technical term either but instead used exclusively by publications that adhere to less-then-scientific standards, to say it carefully.And no, Chinese experts have NOT come to a different conclusion, which is why, again, renewables are developing exponentially while nuclear is NOT.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2UEgpqrdUy1KEK by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-28T00:00:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@incoherentmumblings @MisuseCase @dacig so you're telling me that China has no experts in this field, and they're building nuclear power out because they don't understand how it works with their renewables strategy?If what you continue insisting was true, then having 19% nuclear power would not be a target for China. It's really that simple. And until you address the elephant in the room, there's no point continuing this discussion.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2Ujsxrol3icEr2 by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T01:02:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig Look, i am not convinced that IS the actual strategy, but even if it is, it does not change the simple facts i just explained to you.And it is not personal, in fact there are obviously a lot of thing i agree with you on in other issues, but i am getting pretty tired of explaining basics of a field i actually studied (as in: went to Uni for) to someone who believes they know better and does not want to learn.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2VBtHkDeSZibVQ by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-28T02:01:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@incoherentmumblings @MisuseCase @dacig the government of China says that it's an actual strategy, and I even gave you a link to the official policy stating that.You just keep dancing around the elephant in the room here. Why is nuclear part of China's core energy mix, why is China building 150 new reactors, why are they putting thorium reactors online?If your argument was correct, then China would just double down on renewables and phase out nuclear. After all they're already a leader.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2VV28ZX1PwftLM by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T18:49:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @dacig You also might be interested in this article:https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/12/nuclear-continues-to-lag-far-behind-renewables-in-china-deployments/
(DIR) Post #ArZC2VgjR4tC0E9EZs by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T02:43:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig That very link you gave me spoke of 19, not 150 new reactors. There is no Thorium reactor online, those are experimental prototypes (two, to be exact) and it remains to be seen if they are even actually working as designed. China is sciencing the shit out of everything remotely interesting, so why wouldn't they look into this, too. They ARE doubling down on renewables since years. Which is what "exponential growth" means and they do NOT do it with NPP.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2WA9fgQPTTujRI by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-28T02:57:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@incoherentmumblings @MisuseCase @dacig what the link I gave you actually says, it's impossible to have a discussion with a person who continues to ignore facts
(DIR) Post #ArZC2WdZuHxcwjgEIi by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T03:03:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig The cnnpn link you supplied mentions 19 being built at the moment.Both numbers are meaningless without the context of the plants being phased out tho.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2WpzA9sxZDU8dk by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-27T23:17:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig for the remaining 1% of time there are clever solutions needed, the dreaded "Dunkelflaute" (little sun AND wind at the same time) is pretty rare as soon as you look at sufficiently large networks. But there does remain a need for about a week of buffer that needs to be guaranteed.But nothing there has anything to do with Nuclear Power, which is much too inflexible to function as an equalizer of renewables.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2X0yVIfy7Iculk by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-27T22:40:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@incoherentmumblings @MisuseCase @dacig I also have no clue why the article is bleating about nuclear power being incompatible with markets and capitalism in the context of China
(DIR) Post #ArZC2X980zCKWaRQTg by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-28T03:06:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@incoherentmumblings @MisuseCase @dacig China has 55 plants currently, so it's very obvious that the plan is to expand nuclear massively.Meanwhile, yes 19 are being built right now, while 150 is the long term plan. My whole point here was that China is investing in nuclear long term, and this is very clearly the case given they're building 3x as many plants as they currently have. Even if they phased all the current ones out, which they aren't, this is a massive expansion.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2Xs9JbD6mDVNeS by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T03:12:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig It is a tiny expansion comparing it to their renewable expansion, and that is on a very low baseline.Remember: 3x 2 is a LOT less then 30x20.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2YLDZWSkEN6axc by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-28T03:16:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@incoherentmumblings @MisuseCase @dacig it's a tiny expansion that will account for 19% of their energy mix 🤡
(DIR) Post #ArZC2YpLlUZ7jpCevY by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T03:26:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig A number you have not yet provided an official source for, and that even if true would still be just a fifth. The remaining 80% would be renewable, and THAT is the part that already WORKS RIGHT NOW and is developing at exponential speeds.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2ZT3NsKBixmMoS by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-28T03:29:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@incoherentmumblings @MisuseCase @dacig yes I have, go back through the links. As a side note, it's absolutely surreal that you're disputing Bloomberg as being a credible source here.Both nuclear and renewables are working in China right now. You continue to misrepresent the facts that are staring you in the face. China is doing both, and it's their official state policy to do both.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2a4H9U6BaPC5pY by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T03:40:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig Okay, kindly point out where you have supplied an official source for that. (No, a private nuclear corp is not one.)Bloomberg would never write half-truth about China, is that your argument there?
(DIR) Post #ArZC2agupp0VWFGx3g by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T03:42:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig "Both nuclear and renewables are working in China right now."Yes. One is pretty much stuck to a very low single digit percentage, the other one is developing exponentially. But i guess you could summarize that as "both working right now" if you really wanted, but that wasn't what i meant with it.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2bPw8R1HlsKuES by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-28T03:46:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@incoherentmumblings @MisuseCase @dacig I mean if you're just going to keep lying then there's no point to continue. I've provided you with multiple sources showing this is false, you keep either ignoring them or claiming they're false.You refuse to accept the reality of China's approach because it contradicts your dogma. China clearly shows that you are in fact wrong. And it's clear that you will not acknowledge this, so I see no point to continue this.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2cQgN9D6uTh128 by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T04:06:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig THIS is the simple, actual, measurable, FACTual reality that YOU refuse to accept:
(DIR) Post #ArZC2detnmB0irLspc by yogthos@social.marxist.network
2025-02-28T04:07:42Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@incoherentmumblings @MisuseCase @dacig what am I refusing to accept. I repeatedly stated that China is pursuing BOTH. That's what the chart shows. It seems like you're the kind of person who just needs to argue for the sake of arguing. You're incapable of engaging with what the other side is saying, and just keep repeating yourself like a broken record.
(DIR) Post #ArZC2hRDkZc0Raz14C by incoherentmumblings@jorts.horse
2025-02-28T04:09:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthos @MisuseCase @dacig But yes, there is no point in continuing this, because you refuse to accept the reality of Chinas approach AND my basic explanations of relevant technical facts because it contradicts the belief that the nuclear lobby has planted into you - and could easily do so because you lacked the basic knowledge to recognize their bullshit.
(DIR) Post #ArZCE1ypiPcBL86lv6 by chanon@noauthority.social
2025-02-28T04:56:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yogthosYou're a fucking retard lol