@boud

> few FR politicians want to take proper responsibility for handling the full life cycle

Of course, because Greenpeace made the topic of anything nuclear so toxic that they can only lose popularity by association.

If you let politicians into energy sector you get German Energiewende - shut down nuclear, build new "safe" fossil gas and North Stream to import more gas.

But, most importantly you get 5x more CO2 emissions.

@boud

Regarding the waste, there are two reasons why new storage is introduced so slowly: political and economical. Political - people are misinformed by Greenpeace and protest. Economical - the amount of waste is so tiny now that it's not economically viable to build expensive underground storage. Yet.

@kravietz

I don't understand the focus on Greenpeace. CRIIRAD is not run by Greenpeace. Neither Le Canard Enchaîné, Charlie Hebdo, Réseau Sortir du nucléaire, or the Association française des malades de la thyroïde are controlled by Greenpeace.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_de_recherche_et_d%27information_ind%C3%A9pendantes_sur_la_radioactivit%C3%A9

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9seau_Sortir_du_nucl%C3%A9aire

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fran%C3%A7aise_des_malades_de_la_thyro%C3%AFde

Keep in mind the corporate/market/military/state complex [Eisenhower] which has its own interests in misleading the debate.

Without #OpenScience we won't get far.

@djsumdog

@boud @djsumdog

I don't know the anti-nuclear movement in France and I can merely swear in French, but I can't see then come up with any qualitatively new and significant arguments that those by global "environmental" organisations. And these are simply invalid and pseudo-scientific.

@kravietz @djsumdog

France is where most of the hard empirical data based on a half-century of experience is.

The number of quantifiable parameters for responsible social decision making is huge.
The (statistical) quantification of #risk is not just blabla (if done properly).

Low-probability high-risk events, such as pandemics or civilian nuclear accidents, are part of this. Modelling extreme events (e.g. with a #Gumbell distribution) is harder than modelling Gaussians...

@boud @djsumdog

You're absolutely right, but the worst nuclear accident that can happen in third-generation PWR reactor is shutdown in case of total loss of external and internal power, and loss of coolant.

https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurepassive-safety-in-vvers/

And you cannot run risk analysis in industry without *comparing* against alternatives, can you?

This is precisely why I highlighted the deep geologic repositories in Germany - they are there, they store cyanides, mercury, arsenic... yet nobody cares.

@boud @djsumdog

Now, as you talk about "corporate misleading", let's just scroll through this gallery:

@boud @djsumdog

And this widespread disinformation is precisely the reason why I always just bring the discussion to these basic engineering metrics:

https://social.privacytools.io/@kravietz/105289236958216839

@boud

Because, again, this is engineering challenge that has been misrepresented by "environmental" activists.

In Germany there are actually already TWO deep ACTIVE geologic repositories - Herfa-Neurode and Zielitz.

There have been zero protests or controversies around them. Why? Because they "only" store highly toxic waste like arsenic, mercury, cyanides. But not nuclear.

Main difference? Nuclear will be 7% toxic after 100 years, the others remain 100..

https://www.kpluss.com/en-us/our-business-products/waste-management/underground-disposal/