solo
@solo@slrpnk.net
- Comment on Big Nuclear’s Big Mistake - Linear No-Threshold 1 week ago:
The scientific community is not a unified body, so having scientists questioning any scientific model does not seem like a “wow” moment. But, when the discourse starts including strong vocabulary, admittedly I start questioning/researching claims. And I appreciate it when studies conclude by saying things like: cautious of interpretation is needed, or further studies are warranted, etc.
Apart from that, sure, maybe the LNT model needs some re-evaluation, maybe not - I dunno, time will tell. Still, to my understanding, one problem with ionising radiation is that the dosage received by people is not always as tightly controlled as needed for it to be safe, despite all efforts. Not even in work environments.
For example:
This recent meta-analysis about occupational radiation exposure and risk of thyroid cancer from 2024 saying: > A total of six studies (covering 3,409,717 individuals), which were published between 2006 and 2021 from 4 countries met the inclusion criteria. (…) Pooled analyses indicated that occupational radiation exposure was associated with a 67% higher risk of thyroid cancer - And this article from 2024 from Lancet, called: New study provides crucial insights into radiation exposure’s impact on cancer risk - Updated findings to a long-term international study on workers in the nuclear sector. > The researchers assembled a cohort of more than 300,000 radiation-monitored workers from France, the United Kingdom and the United States, employed at nuclear facilities between 1944 and 2016. (…) The study revealed a positive association between prolonged low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation and mortality from these hematological cancers. The study concluded that health risk remains low at low exposure levels. Nevertheless, the evidence of associations between total radiation exposure and multiple myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes signals the necessity for future radiation studies to expand the discussion on radiation protection and occupational safety measures on a global scale.
- Submitted 1 week ago to energy@slrpnk.net | 0 comments
- Comment on Bill Gates Says China Is Outspending the World on Nuclear Power 1 week ago:
-
If I got this right, in table 1, p3 they claim that to decommission photovoltaics creates 7 times more CO~2 ~ (more precisely g CO2e/kWh), than decommissionning a nuclear plant for decades, as shown above. It made me wonder how they arrived to these measurements. But the link to the study for the nuclear is dead (see Heath, Garvin A., and Margaret K. Mann. 2012). So this claim cannot be verified.
-
Having a solution in the works, is very different from what you said, which was: Nuclear waste is not and has never been a real problem.
Bye-bye now
-
- Comment on Bill Gates Says China Is Outspending the World on Nuclear Power 1 week ago:
The lifecycle emissions of nuclear plants are similar to (…)
The link you provided talks about something more specific than what you just said. It’s about the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation. This means that the decommissioning of a nuclear plant for example is not taken into account for these emissions, and it is well known that decommissioning a nuclear reactor can easily take several decades (example from world nuclear news)
Nuclear waste is not and has never been a real problem.
The links I added above about France tell another story.
- Comment on Bill Gates Says China Is Outspending the World on Nuclear Power 1 week ago:
In terms of cleanness it is also incredibly clean.
I believe nowadays it would make more sense to compare nuclear to renewable energy, not coal. Apart from that I believe it’s important to keep in mind the nuclear waste problem.
- Comment on Bill Gates Says China Is Outspending the World on Nuclear Power 1 week ago:
Bill Gates is a notorious capitalist. As mentioned in this article:
Gates sees nuclear power as a way to provide data centers with the power they need as well as to lower electricity costs.
He only cares about his projects and money, definitely not about people. See:
Tell Bill Gates: Stop Microsoft’s partnerships with the Israeli Military and ICE
- Comment on Demolition of the cooling towers of the Grundremmingen nuclear power plant, Bavaria / Germany 1 week ago:
“Fast action” in what sense? It looks like the nuclear phase-out in Germany started decades ago.
The history behind Germany’s nuclear phase-out
The nuclear phase-out is as much part of the Energiewende (energy transition) as the move towards a low-carbon economy. Despite ongoing quarrels over its costs and an international perception that “German angst” caused the government to shut down reactors after the Fukushima accident, a majority of Germans is still in favour of putting an end to nuclear power.
- Invisible poison: Airborne mercury from gold mining is contaminating African food crops, new study warnswww.egu.eu ↗Submitted 2 weeks ago to earthscience@mander.xyz | 1 comment
- Submitted 3 weeks ago to food@slrpnk.net | 0 comments
- Comment on Oklo breaks ground on its first nuclear ‘powerhouse’ at INL (Idaho National Laboratory) 5 weeks ago:
I’m not too sure if I missed it, but what’s the budget for this?
- Submitted 5 weeks ago to earthscience@mander.xyz | 6 comments
- Submitted 1 month ago to energy@slrpnk.net | 5 comments
- ‘Revival’ Interrupted: World Nuclear Industry Won’t Sustain 2024 Growth, Struggles for Relevance as Renewables Surgewww.theenergymix.com ↗Submitted 1 month ago to energy@slrpnk.net | 3 comments
- Comment on At almost $250 billion a year, China's green energy investments in the developing world are now the equal of the US's post-WW2 Marshall Plan, adjusted for inflation. 1 month ago:
Thanx!
- Comment on At almost $250 billion a year, China's green energy investments in the developing world are now the equal of the US's post-WW2 Marshall Plan, adjusted for inflation. 1 month ago:
I don’t have access to this articles, I get a paywall after a few sentences. Same with the archive link. Any ideas how to access it without a subscription?
- Norway fund drops Eramet over Indonesia nickel mine threatening forests, Indigenous tribenews.mongabay.com ↗Submitted 1 month ago to energy@slrpnk.net | 0 comments
- Court rules Europe can call nuclear and natural gas sustainable investments for its green transitionapnews.com ↗Submitted 1 month ago to energy@slrpnk.net | 15 comments
- Comment on Replacing forests with solar a net positive, but neighbors bear an outsized burden, study finds 1 month ago:
If I get you correctly, I totally agree with what you say. I didn’t like the tone of this article in the sense that it presents it ok to clear out forest for solar panels, and personally I believe it’s criminal, or something. I just thought it had some important info.
Thank you for giving me the chance to clarify where I stand on this.
- Comment on Replacing forests with solar a net positive, but neighbors bear an outsized burden, study finds 1 month ago:
Anything I suppose, this is why I’m asking.
I could be no, don’t cut the trees, or no, don’t talk bad about solar energy expansion, or… you name it! No?
- Comment on Replacing forests with solar a net positive, but neighbors bear an outsized burden, study finds 1 month ago:
Meaning?
- Replacing forests with solar a net positive, but neighbors bear an outsized burden, study findstechxplore.com ↗Submitted 1 month ago to energy@slrpnk.net | 8 comments
- Comment on 1 month ago:
This is definately a project to keep an eye out and see how it goes.
If I got this right, the floaters were placed incide the breakwater. So, how can they estimate the impact of this pilot project on the actual marine life of the area (plants, fish, their migration routes, marine mammals etc).
If we consider the the term triple planetary crisis to be a valid one, then we cannot exclude the impact on the local biodiversity and ecosystems of the green energy projects, for example. It looks like in this article they are not even mentioned.
- Submitted 1 month ago to earthscience@mander.xyz | 1 comment
- Submitted 1 month ago to food@slrpnk.net | 0 comments
- Submitted 2 months ago to diy@slrpnk.net | 0 comments
- Comment on Major banks neglect energy transition risks from mining as demand booms 2 months ago:
Ah ok, thank you for clarifying that!
- Comment on Major banks neglect energy transition risks from mining as demand booms 2 months ago:
This discussion has fundamentally very little to do with the energy transition and is more generally about destructive mining practices
What is called energy transition (I believe energy addition is a more accurate term) needs several elements that come from mining. So I am not sure I understand why you consider that mining should not be part of the conversation, since it is a necessary step.
Btw I think I don’t understand what you mean with your last sentence.
- Submitted 2 months ago to energy@slrpnk.net | 6 comments
- Comment on I think I 'm witnessing the beginning of a wasp nest in the wall of my living room? 2 months ago:
Thank you so much. Doing this immediately!
- Comment on I think I 'm witnessing the beginning of a wasp nest in the wall of my living room? 2 months ago:
Maybe I should have specified that where I live it’s summer now, so windows are always open and will be so for many more weeks. Meaning, releasing it outside would not prevent it from coming back in.