kravietz 🦇 @kravietz@social.privacytools.io

@laufi @michiel

Yes, I did. One of the flagship "nuclear disasters" in Germany.

@laufi @michiel

Sorry, seems like the thread are messed up here - "this statement" was about the quote from Jacobson, not what you wrote!

@laufi @michiel

Here you go with a more representative example.

The same goes for the Jacobson article (which I already linked).

@laufi @michiel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

And if you read the lead, you will notice that even Germany right now runs *two* deep geologic repositories.

Fortunately, they only store extremely toxic arsenic, mercury and cyanide waste which doesn't lose toxicity over time, so it's fine.

@laufi @michiel

Construction time and cost can be only compared across projects of similar scale, and none of the wind or PV farms even come close to the 3.2 GW nuclear power plants Jacobson uses to compare against.

Generally construction time for new NPP built after 1995 does not exceed 5-7 years, with the exception of three massive EU and UK projects which were delayed entirely for political projects.

@laufi @michiel

Each part of this statement can be easily falsified, starting with CO2 emissions which are pretty much the same for wind and nuclear:

@laufi @michiel

The primary scientist supplying data to the anti-nuclear activists is M.Z. Jacobson and his mode of operation can be summarised as "always assume the worst case for nuclear, and the best case for renewables".

For example:

"New nuclear power plants cost 2.3 to 7.4times thoseof onshore wind or utility solar PVper kWh, take 5 to 17years longer between planning and operation, and produce 9 to 37 times the emissions per kWh as wind"

Source: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf

@laufi @michiel

All of their arguments come down to a number of false claims:

* we can't deal safely with nuclear waste
* nuclear accidents kill thousands of people
* nuclear power is very expensive
* nuclear power has very high greenhouse gas intensity

All of these are easily falsified by data. When confronted with data they usually simply ignore it 🤷 Or simply pretend it's not there - for example, find nuclear CO2 emissions on the infographic below:

@laufi @michiel

> By directly providing sources

I did! There's a whole chapter on this subject in the "Whole Earth Discipline" book I linked, describing in great detail the origins of anti-nuclear and anti-GMO phobias among some environmentalists.

@michiel @laufi

The next factor is that nuclear power plants aren't expensive per MWh by their nature, even built with the highest safety standards and in EU.

The secret is in funding and Greens have terrorized EU governments to avoid any public funding:

https://medium.com/generation-atomic/the-hinkley-point-c-case-is-nuclear-energy-expensive-f89b1aa05c27

Plus there were many other factors:

@michiel @laufi

Majority of the "environmental" activism organisations sadly joined an anti-scientific movement initiated primarily by Jeremy Rifkin ages ago, probably because it sold better.

This is why you have Greenpeace hiring Seralini for GMO reports and Greenpeace Energy in Germany selling fossil gas and preferring it over nuclear against all available scientific evidence, including IPCC 🤷‍♂️

@michiel @laufi

> not their traditional position to be

You're partially right here - there are numerous people who identified themselves with green movements, like Stewart Brand or Zion Lights or a number of Greenpeace founders, who were pro-nuclear or became pro-nuclear over time. There are groups in the UK like Greens4Nuclear.

@michiel @laufi

It's not more expensive than off-shore wind or solar farms

https://actinideage.medium.com/why-not-both-7d783a701a5e