kravietz 🦇 @kravietz@social.privacytools.io

@WhiteTemplar @ScumbagDog

> the Jews lied about that

As you clearly are a Russian nationalist, you should be probably aware that apart from Jews, the Germans exterminated 3-5m Soviet soldiers, 2m Poles and many others. So you can spare me your theories how Soviets inflated the number of casualties "to get more people on board with their bullshit blood libel"

I also happened to live 40 km from Auschwitz/Majdanek for 30 years and visited it a few times, and saw all that is there.

@epic @lain @cjd @mithrandir

As someone who had been "empowered" by ovens working on wood and coal for a significant part of my life I don't need convincing, I happily give away that power to a electric socket operated by any reasonable utility company, thank you very much...

@mlg @epic @lain @cjd @mithrandir

Wait, so you didn't watch the video? Orano la Hague has been reprocessing fuel for the last 50 years or so.

The only reason why MOX is not widely used is economical - mined uranium is very cheap and abundant.

@WhiteTemplar @ScumbagDog

Congratulations, you just discovered evolution! 🎉

You are literally a mix of a few Homo species, which themselves were a mix of a few earlier hominins species.

@mlg @epic @lain @cjd @mithrandir

> uranium terrestrial resources

This assumes the current fuel cycle in US where 4% of fuel rods is actually used and these "spent" rods are treated as waste.

In reality, 96% can be recycled back into MOX fuel:

https://scitech.video/videos/watch/53184e23-6490-4158-a616-68af6afc0925

You just didn't scroll down to the next page (BN-800 reactor went into operation in 2020 in Russia):

@mlg @epic @lain @cjd @mithrandir

> 100% nuclear is also not possible

Once again:

"Energy from burning biomass is incentivised and subsidised by the EU members under the Renewable Energy Directive II. As a result, biomass has become the main source of “renewable” energy in the EU with a share of almost 60 %. Not solar or off-shore wind power as one would imagine, given the importance of both healthy ecosystems and immediate emission cuts, clearly and repeatedly stated by the IPCC"

🤷

https://forestdefenders.eu/standing-up-for-forests-and-against-the-swedish-forestry-model-a-letter-to-ec-policymakers/

@mlg @epic @lain @cjd @mithrandir

> that is the only path

That depends on the time perspective. The further you look, the more uncertainty.

In 10-20 years perspective it's pretty clear as there is no scalable storage, and Germany is knowingly choosing *certain* excess 20-30'000 human deaths because they chose to keep coal until 2038 and shut down nuclear by 2021.

After 20 years we may have scalable power-to-gas or storage, or we may just as well have nuclear fusion (ITER goes in 2025).

@mlg @epic @lain @cjd @mithrandir

> from nuclear or renewables sources

"AND" nor "or"

Renewables are great when coupled with nuclear, and this is the only way to achieve scalable 24/7 low-carbon energy we know today.

> it all gets reflected in cost

It depends on methodology. In principle, externalities such as excess deaths from fossil fuels pollution and climate change are *not* captured by any metric such as LCOE.

A good documentary about German Atom-Exit as part of Energiewende - its origins (much earlier than Fukushima), political background and current situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42-nMGG_9t8&t=18s

@alderwick @neauoire @Kooda

Welcome to Fedi! :)

@epic @lain @cjd @mithrandir

If you think this applies to nuclear power exclusively, you've got blinders on

https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste-problem/

@mlg

I agree, geography in US is more favorable than UK and also most of EU. Not only due to population density but also latitude which gives slightly better capacity factor for PV - in UK they operate at rather miserable ~13%, a few percentage points more in central Europe.

@epic @a1batross

By the way, SolarWinds actually pushed a very similar opinions about open-source, which their security officer compared to "eating from a dirty fork" and praised proprietary software as more secure.

And then they got breached.

https://thenewstack.io/solarwinds-the-worlds-biggest-security-failure-and-open-sources-better-answer/

@epic @a1batross

I literally faced a customer who told me they won't fix a SQL injection I found in their code because, wait for it:

- No customer asked for it.

My line of argument was that customers generally tend to assume kind of by default that the software will not randomly spray their most sensitive data on public web pages...

But the business wasn't convinced.

@epic @a1batross

And this is clearly demonstrated by massively critical vulnerabilities found just in this year in products such as Microsoft, Solar Winds, F5, all highly respected software vendors used for mission-critical business operations.

Security only becomes a topic when there's 1) a regulatory requirement, 2) there's an angry customer who was breached.

@epic @a1batross

> Closed source is better because businesses have security teams checking for holes

As someone who worked in security teams for dozens of software companies of 20+ years I can only respond with:

No, they don't.

Security is considered a non-functional requirement (NFR) and as such enjoys little attention from business stakeholders.

Deeply frustrating, and there are exceptions, but this is the predominant attitude in business.