[HN Gopher] Japan, US to step up cooperation in developing next-...
___________________________________________________________________
Japan, US to step up cooperation in developing next-generation
nuclear reactors
Author : gok
Score : 201 points
Date : 2023-01-09 16:41 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (asianews.network)
(TXT) w3m dump (asianews.network)
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| [dead]
| j45 wrote:
| It might be time to start going long in Uranium and it's not so
| well known but preferable sibling Thorium
| acidburnNSA wrote:
| Nuclear engineer here. Thorium is not actually that preferable
| over Uranium. The point most people miss is that you can make
| breeder reactors with uranium or thorium. Most pop internet
| thorium takes compare uranium in non-breeders vs. thorium
| breeders. Comparing uranium vs. thorium breeder reactors is a
| wash.
| legitster wrote:
| Thanks! I always suspected the internet hivemind about
| thorium sounded too straightforward.
| amalgamated_inc wrote:
| Interesting.
|
| In your professional nuclear engineer opinion, what is the
| future of nuclear in the energy mix? Not in the political
| sense, but I keep hearing these claims that solar/wind will
| just destroy nuclear due to lower costs. Does that make sense
| to you, or do you think nuclear has something to offer?
| acidburnNSA wrote:
| The solar/wind cost argument you refer to relies entirely
| on an accountant's metric called Levelized Cost of
| Electricity, which explains what the cheapest power sources
| are _on the margin_ , given today's fossil-backed grid.
| Wind and solar and fracked gas do great in this metric.
|
| But when you start looking at costs of the entire future
| decarbonized electricity system, including all the stuff
| needed to level out the weather-dependence of wind and
| solar, and you start comparing e.g. a 100% wind + solar +
| batteries grid vs. a wind + solar + hydro + nuclear grid,
| you start seeing dramatic differences. There's a metric
| being developed called Levelized Full system Cost of
| Electricity to handle this.
|
| Anyway it turns out that having a 24/7 zero-carbon
| miniscule-footprint energy source like nuclear fission in
| the mix is a huge help to the overall system.
|
| Also, nuclear can use its 'waste' heat as district heat and
| pump warm water up to 100 km to fully decarbonize local
| building heat without going through an electrical
| conversion.
|
| Also nuclear works great in deep space.
|
| So yeah, I see a great future for nuclear in the near,
| medium, and extremely distance future.
| amalgamated_inc wrote:
| Thanks, very interesting. I have heard that exact
| reasoning ("It's all about LCoE!") from various Very
| Smart People Good At Math. Physics PhDs, VCs (Chamath
| talks about how this means we "already have practically
| free, abundant energy from solar").
|
| Seems to me like a case of wishful myopia, where they
| hone in on that one metric that gives them the illusion
| that This Is Working.
| [deleted]
| nixass wrote:
| Germany on the other hand is drowning in their own dirty coal and
| subducts to green party/terrorists
| [deleted]
| dane-pgp wrote:
| You may want to read something like "Common misconceptions
| about Germany's energy transition"[0] for a fuller picture of
| the situation there. In particular, it points out that between
| 2002 and 2021:
|
| "both hard and lignite [coal usage] decreased from 251.9 TWh to
| 146.5 TWh for a reduction of 109.4 TWh. So Germany reduced both
| coal and nuclear at the same time, coal did not grow, and the
| coal reduction was actually larger than the nuclear reduction."
|
| [0] https://chadvesting.substack.com/p/common-misconceptions-
| abo...
| mannerheim wrote:
| > 29.2 TWh of reduction of Russian coal imports, vs 12.2 TWh
| increase of Russian gas imports.
|
| > The Energiewende made Germany less dependent on Russia than
| if it had never taken place!
|
| This is moronic, a total apples to oranges comparison. First,
| coal is much cheaper than gas, so whatever they were paying
| for Russian coal doesn't necessarily cancel out the gas
| increase. Second, coal is way easier to transport than gas.
| The latter needs a pipeline or liquefaction, both of which
| require extensive capital outlays that make it much more
| difficult to switch from one supplier to another. Third, coal
| and nuclear are both base load, while natural gas is used as
| peakers. The entire argument for nuclear over renewables was
| that renewables would require more peakers (i.e., gas).
| amalgamated_inc wrote:
| If only we could harvest the energy of good intentions!
| miguelazo wrote:
| And yet _still_ no good (or even decent) solution for how to
| handle the waste?
| [deleted]
| legitster wrote:
| I dunno, there's lots of decent solutions when countries
| actually explore them:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
|
| Keep in mind, most of the reactors we are used to are basically
| 1960s designs. Part of the appeal of building new reactors is
| that they are so much more efficient that they can actually
| _burn up more of the spent fuel than they themselves create._
| amalgamated_inc wrote:
| There's also no need. Just leave it in the plant. Or put it in
| a cave if that makes you feel good. It's not an actual problem.
| coldpie wrote:
| Even if it is a problem, it is a teeny tiny pebble dropped in
| a pond compared to the massive tidal wave of climate change.
| miguelazo wrote:
| Oh, really? Care to explain? Seems pretty toxic from
| everything I have seen.
|
| I also don't find paying (currently) over half a billion
| dollars a year in storage costs efficient. Usually not even
| factored into the costs of this "clean" energy.
|
| https://earth.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _seems pretty toxic_
|
| We don't have a totally nontoxic power source. We do have
| ones which offer better options for containment. Coal ash
| is radioactive and toxic [1]. Solar panels are also toxic
| [2]. But we don't grind them into a fine powder before
| sprinkling them over communities. On this scale, nuclear is
| toxic, but in small, contained and manageable masses.
|
| > _paying (currently) over half a billion dollars a year in
| storage costs_
|
| Your link fingers "the United States' failure to implement
| a permanent solution for nuclear waste storage" as the
| cause for the "half-a-billion dollars a year [paid] to the
| utilities for their simply keeping the fuel" [3]. The
| current solution passably inefficient. The efficient
| solutions are blocked by activists.
|
| [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-
| more-...
|
| [2]
| https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/Library/OR-1695.pdf
|
| [3] https://earth.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-
| waste-us
| amalgamated_inc wrote:
| Seal it in metal and concrete -> done. You can now store it
| in any old warehouse. If you're really paranoid, put a sign
| "Warning: Dangerous Alligator!" on the door.
|
| Half a billion per year is nothing compared to the damage
| we're preventing with climate change, is it?
| 93po wrote:
| They tend to bury the waste extremely far underground,
| and even than that isn't very expensive. It's a hell of a
| lot cheaper the the real world impacts we're seeing from
| carbon emissions today (over a million deaths a year).
| abarringer wrote:
| If you are interested in seeing Uranium news from around the
| world every day and there is a lot happening in the space follow
| @quakes99 on twitter.
| ForOldHack wrote:
| Its simply because both Japan and the U.S. are far behind Korea,
| who has been shipping reactors all over the world after
| Fukushima, and they are the only country to increase
| installations since.
| mi_lk wrote:
| source?
| philipkglass wrote:
| Korea is not the only country to add nuclear power
| installations since Fukushima. Look at date of first grid
| connection in the following data sets for years after 2011:
|
| India:
| https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails....
|
| Pakistan:
| https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails....
|
| China:
| https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails....
|
| Russia:
| https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails....
|
| Finland:
| https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails....
|
| Belarus:
| https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails....
| ForOldHack wrote:
| Simply put, the radiation was detectable over more than 1/2 of
| the entire surface of the earth. A lot of people do not think it
| is a problem, unless you immediately die of radiation.
|
| A 747 when flying straight at you, is only a tiny tiny spec,
| until the very last second, and then it gets really really big,
| and then you are dead.
|
| I heard Randy Shilts say this "Give me a number. How may people
| have to die?"
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Meanwhile if you fly on that 747 you experienced significantly
| more radiation than most people in japan experienced from
| fukishima.
|
| I live in an area with lots of granite, so just existing I
| likely experience more radiation than the average japanese
| person after fukishima.
| amalgamated_inc wrote:
| Very cool. Japan doesn't have much of their own in terms of
| energy resources, so I applaud both the commitment to help our
| ally and the R&D in terms of new and especially SMR nuclear.
|
| Japan is the perfect use-case for nuclear. Even when disaster
| strikes, they're extremely safe. Only 1 person ever died of
| radiation in Fukushima. Thousands to tens of thousands died from
| the tsunami that caused it.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| How much radioactive waste was dumped in the ocean?
| amalgamated_inc wrote:
| I don't know, you tell me. Are you saying it was non-zero?
| acidburnNSA wrote:
| Fukushima dumped about 45 PBq of radioactive material into
| the ocean.
|
| For reference:
|
| Chernobyl did 85 PBq
|
| Global nuclear weapons testing: 400 PBq
|
| Natural Uranium-238: 37,000 PBq
|
| Natural Potassium-40: 15,000,000 PBq
|
| https://www.whoi.edu/multimedia/source-of-radioactivity-
| in-t...
| themitigating wrote:
| Is that natural uranium concentrated in rock formations?
| Because the weapons testing and dumping disperses the
| material.
|
| I'm genuinely asking
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Or 75mm bananas.
| rcme wrote:
| Now divide each number by its area.
| numpad0 wrote:
| And factor in decays too!
| acidburnNSA wrote:
| The ocean constantly churns, mixing these all together,
| so dividing by the constant area of the world oceans
| doesn't change this.
| bob29 wrote:
| Explain the trash islands
| thereddaikon wrote:
| I dont think its accurate to equate floating trash and
| something dissolved in solution. Their behavior is likely
| to be very different.
| thefurdrake wrote:
| Explain the lack of sodium islands.
|
| E: "Cesium dissolves easily in water."[1]
|
| [1] https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-
| cesium-137
| mortenjorck wrote:
| This is presumably being downvoted for the unnecessary
| "gotcha" phrasing, but it is an interesting point of
| distinction. I have an intuitive guess as to the
| principles at work, but I don't really know the actual
| physics.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _but I don't really know the actual physics_
|
| Vastly oversimplifying: two versus three dimensions.
| rcme wrote:
| I don't think that explains it at all. So garbage floats
| (more or less), so can be modeled as a 2D plane. But why
| do patches form? Why isn't the garbage distributed
| uniformly across the plane? And why doesn't that same
| mechanism apply in 3D?
| Schroedingersat wrote:
| This takes decades. The plume was largely concentrated
| over a few dozen km and couple hundred m deep when it hit
| california five years later. And actually significant
| spill would be orders of magnitude worse.
|
| This is also why mass expansion of reprocessing
| facilities is completely untenable.
| runarberg wrote:
| These comparisons--except for Chernobyl--are disingenuous.
| Nuclear weapons testing has been outlawed and has mostly
| stopped, natural Uranium and--even more so--Potassium don't
| release radiation in nearly the same concentration as
| Fukushima (or Hanford to that extent). Radiation is
| dangerous when it concentrates.
| gh02t wrote:
| For some perspective: I don't have a full breakdown of the
| release materials on hand, but according to Wikipedia of
| the 45 PBq you quoted something like 20 PBq of that was
| Iodine-131 and 5 PBq of Cs-137. That's about 4.3 grams of
| I-131 and 1.6 kg of Cs-137. In radiological terms that's a
| LOT if they were concentrated in a small area, not so much
| when diluted into the entire ocean. Note that estimated
| releases to the atmosphere were about 10x that IIRC (but
| don't quote me on exact numbers).
|
| Not to downplay the risks or consequences, people need to
| decide that for themselves and the dynamics of how this
| material ends up dispersed in the environment are
| complicated, but talking in terms of mass helps put things
| into perspective.
|
| Wiki has a good writeup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radia
| tion_effects_from_the_Fuk...
| throw827474737 wrote:
| Very comparabale! And also sheer luck the main plume went
| there too..
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Didn't that person actually die from cancer and not radiation
| per se?
|
| I understand that cancer can be caused by radiation, but that
| is actually treatable and not always fatal, whereas radiation
| poisoning is afaik fatal.
| amalgamated_inc wrote:
| This is correct, it is not 100% certain the cancer was
| caused/exacerbated by the radiation. But let's count it as a
| conservative 1 death.
|
| It was not acute radiation poisoning.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Only 1 person ever died of radiation in Fukushima.
|
| While I tend to agree with your point, there's also the couple
| hundred square miles and 165k people worth of exclusion zone as
| a side-effect. That's not small, but it's potentially something
| you can mitigate by picking sites carefully.
| amalgamated_inc wrote:
| That exclusion zone is mostly unnecessary. You can go there
| with a geiger counter and you'll find it's not much more
| radioactive than e.g. Utah.
|
| Most of the "measures" were completely irrational.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| The exclusion zone isn't unnecessary. It's _gone_. All
| exclusion zones have been remediated and reopened:
| https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/30/asia/futaba-fukushima-
| nuclear...
|
| Nobody bothered to clean up Chernobyl because the whole
| town's existence was to support the plant and plant
| workers. With no plant, the city had no value and thus no
| incentive to spend money on remediation. By comparison,
| Japan showed us what occurs when places with value are
| contaminated: effort is made to clean them up. Half of the
| exclusion zone was reopened within 5 years, and the most
| intensely irradiated locations were cleaned up in just over
| a decade.
| asdff wrote:
| If the U.S. shared similar concern for environmental health a
| good portion of urban areas would be in exclusion zones from
| other sources of industrial contamination too. Instead we
| tolerate these people having elevated rates of diseases such
| as cancer or asthma and generally shortened lifespans, and
| let companies responsible go bankrupt with their executives
| absolved of all responsibilities while we spend time today
| scratching our head figuring out what to do.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfund#/media/File:Superfun.
| ..
| pkaye wrote:
| US also has gotten Eastern Europe and South Korea involved.
|
| https://emerging-europe.com/news/ukraine-joins-europes-list-...
| floxy wrote:
| >Thousands to tens of thousands died from the tsunami that
| caused it.
|
| 19,759 according to the sources cited by the wikipedia article:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_an...
| amalgamated_inc wrote:
| Thanks for looking it up, I remembered "something ten
| thousand" but wasn't sure if it was just under or just over
| or just something with a ten :)
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| It's been a while since I looked, but I think the claim here is
| that the evacuation of elderly and infirm people from the parts
| of the exclusion area that were otherwise not seriously
| affected by the tsunami resulted in a large loss of disability-
| adjusted life years.
| amalgamated_inc wrote:
| Yes, that's true. And that evacuation was based on irrational
| fear-mongering, completely unnecessary.
| ForOldHack wrote:
| I'll have what he is having, in fact, Ill have a double.
|
| "Because of the plant's location along the coast, much of
| the water washed into the Pacific, resulting in the largest
| accidental release of radiation to the ocean in history.
| Additional airborne radioactive material from the
| explosions and fires at the plant fell onto the sea
| surface, where it too mixed into the water, as did
| subsequent leaks from tanks on the site holding treated
| water."
|
| This is from Woods Hole, you probably do not know or
| recognize their expertise.
|
| "the largest accidental release of radiation to the ocean
| in history."
| PaulHoule wrote:
| And it is is just a drop in the ocean when you consider
| the natural radioactivity from 40K.
|
| It may be a local, time-bounded problem in the first few
| years after the accident in that certain isotopes may
| bio-concentrate and affect fishing and agriculture in
| that region.
|
| So far as the ocean as a whole goes I'd be more concerned
| about chunks of styrofoam.
| amalgamated_inc wrote:
| Yes, and, as demonstrated in another post on here, way
| less than what's released naturally every day.
|
| Even the worst case just isn't very bad.
| jansan wrote:
| [flagged]
| petre wrote:
| More like one confirmed radiation death and around 2000
| because of the tsunami and the displacement.
| throw827474737 wrote:
| Radiation deaths? Lol guys, I get it, but please don't try
| to make a bigger fool out ouf you by ridiculing about a
| point noone ever made.. it is like someone would tell you
| that our lethargic sitting life styles makes us sick and
| you stand up and shout: "But noone died from sitting, while
| tons of people die from sports a lot!!!"
| foota wrote:
| What?
| bfgoodrich wrote:
| [dead]
| 6510 wrote:
| The new Japanese nuclear reactor is apparently a rather big deal.
| If it is what it says on the tin we should all be building them.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uTZWaJU6ho
| v8xi wrote:
| Very good news to hear. With recent energy problems being exposed
| via the war in Ukraine, nuclear power is increasingly our best
| option for cheap, abundant energy. Despite decades of misdirected
| "Green" propaganda, nuclear is the safest, most viable route to a
| carbon-free future, while renewables are just not ready to scale
| yet (let alone their massive footprint compared to nuclear). Just
| hope we can get these in the ground fast enough to make a
| difference.
| binkHN wrote:
| Small modular reactors for the win. Hope to see this move forward
| with cookie cutter approaches that can be easily reproduced with
| a high degree of safety.
| maelito wrote:
| Meanwhile in France, we're trying to convince people that nuclear
| energy doesn't emit CO2 and isn't more dangerous that the others.
|
| Well, 4g/kWh.
|
| Although the government has planned to construct 6 reactors, the
| historical "ecological" movement still makes fighting nuclear
| electricity their 1st priority.
| bioemerl wrote:
| Fun fact. The soviets and now Russians have a big hand in
| promoting this misinformation.
| janef0421 wrote:
| Why would Russia promote anti-nuclear disinformation? The
| Russian state-owned entity Rosatom is a major exporter of
| nuclear technology, so doing that would be against Russia's
| interests.
| mannerheim wrote:
| Rosneft and Gazprom each make way more money than Rosatom.
| janef0421 wrote:
| At present, yes, but those revenues are threatened by
| climate change, while Rosatom's revenues are likely to
| expand for the same reason.
| bioemerl wrote:
| Russia has massive incentive to keep Europe dependent on
| their fossil fuels.
| janef0421 wrote:
| Yes, but doing that by undermining nuclear is a poor
| strategic move. It would leave Russia with no fallback
| strategy in the case that Europe did cease fossil fuels
| imports, and would undermine export of nuclear technology
| to other regions.
| mannerheim wrote:
| Those revenues have specifically gone up as a result of
| climate change measures. NS2 had a projected cost of 9.5
| billion euros, and that's not even including any gas; you
| don't spend that kind of money without the expectation of
| making it back and more.
| janef0421 wrote:
| Gone up in the short term, but likely to fall in the
| long-term.
| mannerheim wrote:
| The latter is speculative.
| janef0421 wrote:
| Speculation is inherent to geopolitical strategy.
| miguelazo wrote:
| Fascinating! Do you have any evidence for this?
| bioemerl wrote:
| https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-
| environment/599113-russia...
|
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environmen
| t...
|
| https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/russian-funded-
| en...
|
| China is doing similar to prevent mines for rare earth
| minerals being built in the United States
| miguelazo wrote:
| NICE. So two of those are just opinion pieces quoting
| Western cut-outs/think tank hacks, and the Guardian piece
| is relying entirely on the _statements_ of NATO 's chief.
| Funny how low the barrier of proof is when you're "the
| good guys."
|
| "He declined to give details of those operations, saying:
| "That is my interpretation."" LMAO
| bioemerl wrote:
| If you want to know why the bar is so low:
|
| Firstly, it's incredibly difficult to track funding for
| entities like these, so when someone like the NATO chief
| isn't citing sources, it's probably because the sources
| aren't for the public to know.
|
| Second, this is something that Russia has done dozens of
| times. It should be shocking to you if they aren't
| funding this sort of narrative in the countries they want
| to be dependent on them.
| NDizzle wrote:
| Most environmentalists are Russian?
| thereddaikon wrote:
| Not directly. More that they fund groups that are anti
| nuclear.
| miguelazo wrote:
| Wow, had no idea they were so involved with domestic
| politics. Where did you read that?
| mannerheim wrote:
| On the Nord Stream website.
|
| https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-
| releases/conser...
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Russia, and before them the Soviet Union, has been
| backing domestic groups in Western societies fir ourpose
| of destablization, disrupting economic progress, etc.,
| and weakening military stance for a long time. The anti-
| everything-nuclear movement ticked all those boxes in
| different ways.
|
| (And, yes, this kind of geopolitically-motivated
| propaganda works in all directions.)
| MrOwnPut wrote:
| The entire conflict is created by the environmental NGOs
| though.
|
| Many countries & people fund those NGOs, either thinking
| they are helping the environment, or they have ulterior
| motives (promoting their investments).
|
| The NGOs are tricking people, they want to reduce nuclear
| to further solar/wind because they have investments in
| it.
|
| Russia is playing into the NGOs because they have the
| same end goal, wanting to reduce nuclear, but for their
| nat. gas. investments.
| bob29 wrote:
| and green peace super soldiers
| megaman821 wrote:
| So you are Russia.
|
| You have a powerful misinformation team that can sway global
| opinion.
|
| Out of all objectives that further Russian power, you have
| decided on the squashing new nuclear plants.
|
| Why this and not some other objective? Why can't they sway
| the global opinion on Ukraine? Surely they are trying.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| > _Why this and not some other objective? Why can 't they
| sway the global opinion on Ukraine? Surely they are
| trying._
|
| The Overton window is a thing, right? "Nuclear power might
| be really unsafe" is a much easier sell in the public
| discourse than "it's OK to invade your peaceful neighbors".
| megaman821 wrote:
| That is exactly what I mean. There is virtually no public
| support for invading your peaceful neighbor, and no
| amount of misinformation is going to fundamentally change
| that. Support for building nuclear power plants is a
| contentious issue. Of course Russia wants to nudge the
| outcome in their favor, but saying Russian misinformation
| is mostly responsible for the anti-nuclear sentiment is
| crazy.
| mannerheim wrote:
| > There is virtually no public support for invading your
| peaceful neighbor, and no amount of misinformation is
| going to fundamentally change that.
|
| I mean, there is a sizeable minority who have been
| convinced by Russian propaganda on this; typically they
| refer to Euromaidan as a coup, blame the invasion on
| Ukraine for not implementing Minsk, claim Ukraine is
| banning the Russian language, and so forth.
|
| If propaganda can bump this from zero to twenty percent,
| why not from 40 to 60?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| These points are literally made on fox news many nights.
| How much does it cost to get fox news to broadcast your
| propaganda to 60 million americans versus bribing enough
| american politicians that have enough sway to actually
| disrupt things.
|
| Russia buying a politician would hopefully be a huge
| story. Russia buying advertising in the US to push for
| dis-unity or their abhorrent propaganda about Ukraine
| being full of nazis or that 1 billion dollars is a lot to
| pay (in old, out of date, expensive to decommission
| hardware) to absolutely defang the largest rival we had
| last century is derogatorily labeled as "Russiagate" and
| "conspiracy theory" and "liberal brainworms".
| saint_fiasco wrote:
| I think the idea is that if they can delay the construction
| of new nuclear plants they increase Europe's dependence on
| Russian oil.
| asdff wrote:
| You would think it would be a lot more straightforward
| and effective to just directly bribe policymakers than to
| crank out propaganda and hope 1% of it sticks.
| mannerheim wrote:
| What do you think Schroder is?
| 93po wrote:
| Russian's main export is oil/gas/coal/etc. It's roughly
| half of all their exports and over a $100 billion worth
| every year. Yes, squashing new nuclear plants profits them
| tremendously, and protecting their oil/gas/etc export
| business is likely one of their top priorities.
| bioemerl wrote:
| > Why this and not some other objective?
|
| You do both. Europeans are much more easily convinced that
| nuclear energy is scary.
| sigstoat wrote:
| > Out of all objectives that further Russian power, you
| have decided on the squashing new nuclear plants.
|
| it's not like it's a team of five guys slogging away in the
| propaganda mines with pick axes. they can pursue a number
| of goals simultaneously, limited mostly by budget and
| probably other geopolitical concerns, rather than video
| game-esque restrictions on the total number of things they
| can propagandize about simultaneously.
|
| > Why this and not some other objective? Why can't they
| sway the global opinion on Ukraine? Surely they are trying.
|
| they've had a lot longer to work on nuclear than the
| current invasion.
|
| they've also had plenty of success in the past with
| ukraine-related misinformation, see walter duranty.
| Octabrain wrote:
| Can you provide any source for supporting that claim?
| meindnoch wrote:
| https://twitter.com/ziontree/status/1497998920739274757
| miguelazo wrote:
| I love that the Guardian article in that thread cites the
| head of NATO's _statements_ as proof of Russian
| involvement. This is even lazier than Russiagate.
| mannerheim wrote:
| And that makes the rest of the thread irrelevant? Here's
| Nord Stream AG directly saying they provided funding for
| WWF and BUND.
|
| https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-
| releases/conser...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Nord Stream AG directly saying they provided funding
| for WWF and BUND_
|
| That looks more like greenwashing than having a hand in
| promoting misinformation.
| mannerheim wrote:
| BUND specifically states that they never opposed to
| construction of the Nord Stream pipeline, because they
| viewed natural gas as a good alternative to nuclear:
|
| https://twitter.com/simonwakter/status/149822887368269005
| 0
| miguelazo wrote:
| And? There's nothing here denouncing nuclear. Also, Nord
| Stream AG? You mean the Swiss holding company of which
| Gazprom is a partner? So the millions of dollars that
| Exxon, Chevron, etc. have spent on misinformation to
| undermine climate change concerns over the decades
| implicates the US government as well?
| mannerheim wrote:
| Who owns Nord Stream AG?
| consumer451 wrote:
| > This is even lazier than Russiagate.
|
| What do you mean by Russiagate exactly? (As in, which
| one?)
| miguelazo wrote:
| The main one-- Trump is a Kremlin asset, etc.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| The World Nuclear Association says it is even higher: 12 g/kWh.
| See https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-
| and...
| DennisP wrote:
| Not sure if you meant it like this but "even higher" sounds
| like you think that's high. Your source also gives the
| following numbers:
|
| On-shore wind: 11 g/kWh
|
| Hydropower: 24 g/kWh
|
| Utility solar PV: 48 g/kWh
|
| Biomass: 230 g/kWh
|
| Natural gas: 490 g/kWh
|
| Of course this is from the World Nuclear Association but they
| link a source at the IPCC, and after doing a little googling
| it looks like other sources agree.
| Schroedingersat wrote:
| That IPCC report is very old. Onshore wind and solar have
| dropped significantly.
|
| https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/photo
| v...
|
| https://www.vestas.com/en/sustainability/reports-and-
| ratings...
|
| Uranium mining has dropped too which is what brings it over
| 4g (largely due to using solar rather than diesel for
| electricity).
| xupybd wrote:
| Wow, so on-shore wind is better than Nuclear. I would not
| have guessed that. Even more surprising is that Natural gas
| is only 490 g/kWh
| Schroedingersat wrote:
| PV is significantly better than either now. Their
| reference is panels from 2015
| [deleted]
| killjoywashere wrote:
| I always wonder about this balance of policy and engineering ...
| I mean, engineering efforts need policy support, but too much can
| drown it. Anybody have a sense of the negotiators involved?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-09 23:02 UTC)