kravietz 🦇 @kravietz@social.privacytools.io

@jasper @cjd @lain @mithrandir

If you prefer videos, here's one I linked 4-5x already but nobody even agreed or disagreed with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOvHxX5wMa8

@jasper @cjd @lain @mithrandir

> linear versus nonlinear model

Sorry, but there's plenty of evidence that linear no threshold is false. The best evidence available is the whole biosphere, including humans, which evolved in background radiation levels significantly exceeding today's.

Natural background radiation by far exceeds any artificial sources, and out of artificial sources medicine & air flights by far exceed anything related to nuclear industry.

Details:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13752-016-0244-4

@epic @lain @cjd @mithrandir

> pushing nuclear in a time of war to a public

I don't care about public, I care about pollution and climate change.

If you see the public being told that "Fukushima killed 20'000 of people" or "5G is causing COVID" you don't quietly affirm that "ah ok, maybe they're right", you just stand up and tell them this is bullshit.

@cjd @epic @lain @mithrandir

> cause nuclear accidents

Absolutely yes, but this applies to *every* single energy source. You got radioactive waste from rare earth mines for PV, you got cadmium contamination from PV panels, you got gearbox oil spills from wind, you got hydro dam disasters, you got pollution from new fossil gas and coal built for baseload.

This is why we use objective engineering indicators, such as deaths per kWh to compare what is less or more safe.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

@cjd @epic @lain @mithrandir

> possibly can to keep renewing the permit

And that's great news. There's nothing more beneficial for climate and for the environment than a low-carbon power plant that works for 80 years.

@mlg

> fuel to the wind turbines for free

This is why we use lifecycle surface power density to estimate land surface use per W of power delivered, which includes mining, manufacturing, operations and decommissioning.

@mlg

> only 0.002% of the land

It's not, because you don't need wind power generated in vast steppes in Mongolia because there's no demand for it.

You want it generated close to where large demand. In that specific case of Germany, you'd need to remove a few dozens of towns and villages and thousands of hectares of forests for the wind towers and infrastructure.

@JohanEmpa

Ah I didn't realize you can zoom in/zoom out :) BTW Akademik Lomonosov in Russia (far east) has been operational since 2020 already!

@JohanEmpa

No, this one?

https://interaktiv.morgenpost.de/fukushima-atomkraftwerke-atomausstieg-deutschland/

I can understand basic German but I find it difficult to understand technical language unfortunately...

@JohanEmpa

They say December 2021 (!)

Just for comparison, to replace its nameplate capacity of 1430 MW you would need 286 wind turbines 5 MW each, occupying 476 km2 in total. That's around the area shown on this screenshot, all filled with wind turbines.

But then, that's *nameplate* only, so 100%. In reality, on-shore wind has ~20% capacity factor, so the area needs to be increased 5x to *actually* get the same amount of energy (kWh).

2383 km2 of wind turbines to replace a single 1430 MW nuclear power plant.

#renewableenergy

This is Grohnde #nuclear power plant. In February 2021 it produced 400 TWh low-carbon electricity since it started in 1984, with no accidents or leaks.

The plant occupies 0.4 km2 and is surrounded by farm fields.

https://www.preussenelektra.de/en/about-pel/newsroom/press-releases/grohne-npp-sets-new-record-in-electricity-generation.html

"Kamis" could probably use this as an advertisement - Russian president using Polish spices 😂
www.kamis.pl

A number of my relatives are believers in "Smoleńsk assassination", and just over the last few days I've heard them asking questions like:

* so why did Tusk (the PM conflicted with President) even allow them to fly? (false)
* so why did they give away the investigation to Russians? (false)
* so why didn't Russia return the wreck? (true)

...all of which they perceive as evidence that the three official investigations were rigged, and the plane somehow magically flew itself into the ground.

PiS simply rejected three official reports and started a classic Gish gallop, spinning not a single but dozens of half-baked conspiracy theories, and at all the time completely ignoring the primary and fundamental questions: why did the crew simply fly into the ground while talking and ignoring TAWS warnings?

All alternative theories simply pretended none of this ever happened - the plane was lured into an artificial fog, blown up etc etc, as if the cabin recordings never existed.

Smoleńsk was a logical consequence of that risky culture in the highest Polish command. Initially, both opposing parties (PO and PiS) were so shocked that they basically cooperated in the investigation to find out what happened.

And when they found out, the hell unleashed, because PiS couldn't just accept that their general and staff basically flew their President into the ground.

What happened next largely resembled Russian investigation into the #MH17 crash.