Nuclear and Justice | Jessica Lovering

[@treefrog3349]

In the same way that we never could imagine the negative ramifications of fossil fuel use that haunts us today, the whole idea of nuclear power demands much more scrutiny than it is given by the exuberant exponents of its use. I fear that greed will once again supersede wisdom and common sense.

[@tinderbox1011]

It's not a big deal, humanity will be essentially extinct by 2100 so no reason to worry about it.

[@Caleb-fm1hp]

Just look how well the Hanford nuclear site is working out. Catastrophe.

[@joshuamunoz3310]

OMG you are so ignorant

[@TheReaderOnTheWall]

I'm in France, where 96% of our energy comes from Nuclear. 2 years ago, there was a heatwave, and the river water was too hot to cool down the power plants, which needed to be shut down. There is also growing issues in Nigeria, where we supply a lot of our Uranium based on post-colonial extractivist relations, and are losing ground to the Wagner Group claiming mining sites. The point of nuclear is economies of scale. It's centralization. I believe interest around nuclear will increase as other energy sources get more expensive (renewables also rely on oil to be built). I understand that the risk for the nuclear waste is low, compared to other impacts from mining or other energies. It's a kind of energy that demand a continuous training and maintaining of a workforce, over a long time, and that's where I doubt we can continue for long before instabilities shake or destroy the system that creates the engineers and specialized parts to keep the facilities running in the long term. Looking only at the short term is a self fulfilling prophecy of doom though, it's good to hope, so I'm not against nuclear, ideally from more abundant materials like Thorium. But as you said Rachel, the focus has to br on what we do with the energy. Pitting the billions who do not have access to a "normal" ways of life was disingenuous of her: we should review what is "normal". Our imperialist way of life is the most unsustainable model, needing 4-5 planets if everyone had access to it. Degrowth strategies, applied to all, empower us to meet our needs collectively while stopping the neo-colonial "need" for resources from the South to the North, by doing mostly locally, in our bioregions, and limit inputs and outputs outside of a resiliency bubble we can maintain directly democratically.

[@nawfelbengherbia8302]

Correction: In France, 38% of energy consumed comes from Nuclear and 72% of energy produced comes from nuclear, according to official 2023's "Bilan énergétique de la France". Sorry for reposting. KZbin ate the original comment

[@user-sr9ub1cq4k]

Yes, the French heat wave shut down of nuclear power is exhibit 1 in a long list of examples that disprove the hype about nuclear as a stable baseload supply. NO, it's intermittent, sometimes dramatically so ( 48% of French nuclear electricity supply knocked out in that episode). When engineers and politicians stop uncritically buying into the baseload argumen, they discover a range of grid and dispersed networked energy solutions that are already working in many areas, for instance the very California grid example that this lobbyist complains about is already running fully over a third of the year on such systems integration, and 90% the rest of the time. in less than five years if the nuclear lobbyists get out of the way and adequate resources are put into backup and grid improvement it will be 99%.

[@Buran01]

Your'e from France, in which the third largest nuclear company went bankrupt in 2012, the second one 8Areva) was bought by EDF in 2017 and the largest nuclear operator in the world (EDF) was withdraw from the stock market in summer 2023 due was going to bankrupt. Nuclear energy is utterly UNPROFITABLE, and that's the reason it went from 20% of the commercial electricity circa 2001 to less than 9% in 2023. The fading out of nuclear is not related to fear or worries about the wastes, is just about the money numbers and they are screaming "PUT MONEY IN NUCLEAR IF YOU WANT TO LOSE IT".

[@ronwalker4998]

​@@Buran01you asked the wrong question .. why did EDF go bankrupt

[@Buran01]

@@ronwalker4998 EDF went bankrupt because nuclear is unprofitable, and has been unable to compete vs renewables or gas since the corner of the century. The lLEVELIZED cost of electricity from nuclear is not competitive, and in the nuclear those coests DOESN'T EVEN TAKE IN COPNSIDERATION THE EXPENSES OF DISMANTLING RETIRED FACILITIES AND MANAGING THE WASTES FOR CENTURIES. There's a single country with a permanent silo to nuclear wastes; only 8 nuclear power plants in the world have been entirely dismantled (the vast majority of the retired ones keep working as temporal placement for depleted fuel). EDF is falling down because has dozens of power plants reaching the retirement age and can't afford the expenses of dismantling so many of them is so short period (it doesn't also have the money to keep operating and modernizing some of them and much less to build new ones). This plan from Macron to force nuclear into "green energy" expecting to pillage european funds to build new nuclear plants "to save the industry" is just delusional and doomed to fail in every economic aspect. The whole reason civilian nuclear power plants do exist is beacuse after the WWII the emergent powers wanted their own nuclear arsenals, but building, deploying and managing nukes was insanelly expensive. But happens that type II nuclear reactors hsare the same fuel as nuclear weapons (U 234, Pu 235 ), only that instead of enriching the fuel to 90%+ to military grade weapons they only need 4%-6% for civilian use. Using the same breeders to make the fuel halved the cost of nuclear weapons due economies of scale. And guess what: since type II reactors were scalable, they were well suited to power military vessels (as destroyers, carriers and submarines, the latest of which were perfect to place ICBMs, those were the first SMRs ). And civilian engineers needed for the plants were essential to keep those nuclear powered ships in use. So making civilian nuclear facilities allowed to socialice/subsidize the nuclear race. But then, in the 70s, when the global arsenal peaked over 72k nuclear warheards, incredible expensive to maneage, some of them literaly rooting in silos, the military said "we have enough dakka, can't we downscale a bit?". That alone hughely pushed the costs of nuclear energy to its downfall, because with no weapons needed the amount of fuel enrichment went down, and the costs went up. And no money for new plants. Then Three Mile Island (1979) happened and developement of new reactors in USA staled for 40 years, and due safety the cost of operating the civilian plants went up. Then came Chernobyl (1986) and the repercussion were even stronger. Then at the beginning of the new millenia renewables were already more competitive, and then in 2011 Fukushima happened, but at that time nuclear was already fading, unable to profit (and without even the expenses of retirement and dismantling!). Now, the average new projected nuclear power plants wjich on paper do costs ~10 billions and 8 years to build usually end costing 24-32 billions and 15 to 25 years to build. And you get droughts and you have to turn off half of the power plants because you can cool the reactors (as happened to France in 2022). Meanwhile China is deploying the equivalent of 5 nuclear power plants IN SOLAR X WEEK. The market is full of beggards and kickstarter companies and con man oil snake sellers trying to lobby Goverments to fund delusional nuclear projects with 0 chances of profitability because there's no money for such money sinks. SMRs as I said aren't anything new: we had them for decades in warships; will never work for civilian market because they lack economy of scale and therefore are even worse than conventional large scale nuclear power plants. Thorium and type III and IV reactors were never explored in deep because thorium is crap for developing weapons (low energy yield, tons of fatermath radioactive waste) and as I said, without military goals the civilian nuclear industry won't even exist in first place. And thorium and molten salt based reactors are more expensive to build and operatethan traditional facilities due problems with chemical corrosion. So what we have? Areva bankrupted, EDF essentially bankrupted, the UK nuclear industry bakrupted (Hinkley Point C is being made by Areva and China), General Electric bankrupted, Westinghouse baknrupted... Half of the South Korean projected reactors cancelled, almost no new plants entering in operation in the next 15 years and a fleet of 440 reactors most of them entering in the retirement phase and which are losing money, anyway... Also, the concept of base load required for renewables is outdated and false: you essentially need x 2.5 your peak demand, diversity in sources and good interconnections and it works... Even large battery storage is overrated (and when there's the option to use water in elevation for kinetic storage that choice is better and more efficient). So yeah, nuclear is done. And by the way don't think that I'm a blind anti nuclear: I totally support the funding of the ITER. But the ITER is a research project, not a commercial one, and not something that will "save us" in short or mid term. My arguments against conventional fission are due the financials: it just makes no sense, is just a unprofibtable, unsustainable black hole which also can't scale or grow at any pace able to provide us nothing. Even if we would chose to DOUBLE tomowrrow our nuclear power plants (to 900n reactors) not a single one would be in operation before 2040, and we don't have 15 years (we don't even have 10!). In the next 5-6 years renewables (mostly solar and wind) will trample every other energy source and will push out of business almost everything else. And the sad part is that EVEN witth that, we won't be able to prevent 3-4º of global temperature increase over pre industrial levels...

[@andrewmurphie]

Straight from the Lomborg playbook comes "but justice!". Seriously? A while back Lovering was happy to talk at the Institute of Public Affairs here in Australia. Which is like the conservative think tanks in the US. A few years later, this has ended with the leading conservative party, along with the conservative think tanks and media, campaigning in an entirely ignorant, uncosted, and downright destructive way for "nuclear". They mumble about new kinds of reactors but in actuality barely have a clue about it. Every intelligent person says it's just not feasible here, let alone desirable. And of course, it's never going to happen because the real point is to defer renewable development in favour of continuing, in the meantime, coal, gas and oil (the first two for which Australia is a major exporter .. when people talk about Chinese emissions for example, a lot of the coal involved will be coming from Australia). Yet even understanding this, we are not yet, beyond all the "debates" and industry self-promotion, at the two largest dangers of fantasy nuclear. First, it's the go to when people think "WTF!? this climate thing is real and worse than I thought and I just want to keep everything as it is thank you very much ... please make it all just go away .. nah nah nah nah fingers in ears". Which is exactly how the current pro-nuclear campaign in Australia is pandering to the electorate (successfully). Which of course only deepens the crisis and makes even more drastic change on shorter time scales necessary. Second, there's lots (mostly fantasy) about how nuclear is going to save us from climate change. However, there's very little about how actual climate changes might affect actual nuclear deployment. Do we really want nuclear power stations, of any size or type, everywhere, at a time of huge environmental changes? Subject to unpredictable and increasingly intense storms and hurricanes, floods, droughts, sea level rise, the usually unconsidered shifts in groundwater which, apart from anything else, can have a huge effect on build infrastructure? Not to mention, sadly, the very real potential of dramatic increases in international insecurity, and, as we see today, willingness to experiment with new modes of war and destruction? Etc. Very few think about this. There's not even that much research I can find on it. Yet it's absolutely crucial. In fact, we should be thinking seriously about how to manage current nuclear plants given the changes coming. It's one of the more important issues among things a real response to climate should be dealing with. It's not like they can be moved overnight or something. I appreciate the idea of debate and arguments, but that is, as here, very often subsumed into the simple fact of being given a platform. And although many of Lovering et al's ideas have been debunked, they're very good at the finding platforms thing.

[@johncoleman3073]

The alternative is obvious, scale back until we resolve issues, but that would be common sense.

[@kenvrinten3450]

And death of billions

[@TennesseeJed]

Thanks y'all!

[@sascharambeaud]

That's one weridly naive (pretending?) lobbyist making a lot of claims without backing any of them up with actual facts. The claim alone that nuclear would provide more jobs - which would have to be per MW of elictricity generated - is pretty hard to believe, especially in the light of large scale automation possibilities in that sector. I'm also observing a complete absence of the discussion of intrinsic limits of going nuclear based on the finite nature of the fuel source.

[@recurrenTopology]

Her point was about ongoing jobs in a given area not total jobs per MW. While renewables likely produce more jobs per MW, those jobs are largely in parts production and construction. On going operations are not particularly labor intensive and very disperse. A nuclear powerplant can serve as a major source of employment for a town, a wind or solar farm could not (they would employ several people in many towns). Whether this matters is a separate question, but her point is accurate. Also, while fissile material is not strictly renewable, it's abundant enough that scarcity isn't really a concern in any reasonable timespan. The impacts of its mining/extraction, however, are valid concerns and should have been discussed in the interview.

[@sascharambeaud]

@@recurrenTopology One of the official studies I found estimates nuclear ressources at current cost of extraction are sufficient for about 5 decades with current power plants. Longer if higher costs are accepted, but again at current capacity and if we would replace current fossil power with nuclear alone, that would mean increasing capacity by a substantial factor. Regarding those jobs: firstly, IMO Jessica overestimates maintenance labor requirements for nuclear and underestimates for wind. Secondly, for the foreseeable future (roughly on the same time scale as nuclear fuel reserves) production and construction - and let's not forget replacement - of wind power will likely not decrease substantially. If you take replacement into account, about 5% of production (roughly every 20 years) could actually be considered operation, since for the overall pool it's functionally identical. Also there isn't just wind, there's a lot of jobs in maintenance of PV and especially solar thermal, and let's not forget geothermal here.

[@recurrenTopology]

@@sascharambeaud The 5 decade estimate at current prices is based on proven reserves. This is pretty standard for extracted resources (I think copper is around 40 years, for example). As demand (and price) increase, so does prospecting. Given the frequency of Uranium (and Thorium) in the crust, we would doubtlessly find resources sufficient to meet even the most optimistic demand projections in the foreseeable future. Fuel costs are also a relatively small component of the cost of nuclear power, so it isn't particularly sensitive to price increases. There's lots to worry about nuclear, but fuel availability simply is not one of those concerns. As for employment. According to NREL the operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements for wind are 0.086 full-time equivalent (FTE) per 1 MW of installed capacity, and 0.1 FTE per MW for solar. This compares to between 0.4 and 1 FTE per MW for nuclear. So even if automation brings the O&M requirements down (which it also could with wind or solar), it is currently substantially higher. Those jobs are also generally more concentrated as nuclear plants are generally higher capacity than wind/solar farms (though that isn't always the case). As for replacement, those jobs are generally not local to an area. I suppose for a sufficiently large wind/solar farm, it might make sense to have a permanent onsite crew doing continual replacement. However, this would only ever make sense for the largest farms where replacement would be frequent enough that the heavy machinery used would get acceptable utilization rates.

[@kensurrency2564]

jobs are irrelevant; we need energy, not jobs. all fuels are finite except solar. nuclear should only be a stopgap until we can get much higher solar capture.

[@pin65371]

​@@recurrenTopologyyah those renewable jobs are mostly low paid jobs. The people working at a nuclear powrr plant are paid extremely well. The funny thing is the people working at a nuclear power plant aren't stuck working outside when the weather is shit. They work in a nice clean building.

[@Zanderzan1983]

Molten salt thorium reactors use up 96% of the thorium fuel, traditional nuclear uses only 4%. MSTR waste needs to be stored for 300 years as opposed to 100,000 for traditional nuclear. And best of all - MSTR can be fuel by nuclear waste, meaning it could be used to run down the existing nuclear waste stockpile. Thorium is also 4 times more abundant than uranium. MSTR would be the best option as we head down the carbon pulse downslope.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

*_"MSTR_* would be the best option..." Then it's interesting that thorium-rich India doesn't have any.

[@richardv.2475]

The main issue with Thorium nuclear reactors is their operation is more complicated & more error prone than traditional nuclear reactors. Since Chernobyl we know an average operator is not much better than Homer Simpson, so probably it's not very wise to plant thousands of these dangerous contraptions. But whatever, they will do it anyway when gets inevitable to maintain the status quo.

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@richardv.2475 The OAKRIDGE nuclear MSR design demonstrated it was almost immune to human error. Among one of the incidents the control rods were moved in the wrong direction resulting in a high temperature excursion. This demonstrated the Reactor would stabilize, and survived the excursion without significant damage. (if someone is stupid enough, a way can be found to cause a disaster, but even then, the MSR design is much less hazardous than solid fuel rods.) The OAKRIDGE design had a fuel dump container designed to squelch any nuclear reactions. At OAKRIDGE, if nobody was interested in working the weekend, the fuel was dumped, and everything restarted Monday. If a high temperature excursion was too severe for safety, the frozen plug of thorium fuel in the drainage pipe would melt, and the fuel load dump into the containment chamber, squelching all nuclear reactions. An additional factor in favour of MSR is the high melting point of the salt : radioactive water is liquid at room temperature. Solids are much easier to contain.

[@Zanderzan1983]

@@aliendroneservices6621 India ARE working on them, google it

[@Zanderzan1983]

@@richardv.2475 it is impossible for anything to scale up fast enough to replace FF and maintain status quo, including MSTR. But stable electricity is needed to lesson the chaos and violence to come. Refrigerators save lives.

[@detectiveofmoneypolitics]

Detective of Money Politics is following this very informative content cheers from VK3GFS and 73s from Frank from Melbourne Australia 😊

[@brendanware2930]

There's a lot of fear mongering in the comments about nuclear. Clearly nuclear has a finite fuel source. Clearly managing waste is a challenge. Also clear? Renewables are currently highly variable in their energy generation. Renewables require a not insignificant amount of mined resources. Balancing these is the best option (shout out to salt thorium as well). I think the point about energy use being so high in the west is salient, but we're forgetting that most of this energy isn't in the form of electricity. And it takes time to reduce these uses but less to transition these use cases TO electricity. Nuclear would definitely aid in managing this electricity use surge, and ensure a cleaner source than most fossil fuels. In the developing world, nuclear would help establish these use cases within an electric framework from the getgo. As opposed to natural gas or coal. And being centralized as she stated, would help quantify areas of uneven growth and locate underserved communities. Things which are currently being obfuscated by energy networks that are largely non-electric and disconnected.

[@chapter4travels]

Nuclear is infinite, the sun will burn out before we run out of fissile fuel. Nuclear also uses the least amount of mined resources of all energy sources. High-temperature nukes can provide cheap industrial process heat. Basically, nuclear is better than so-called renewables in every regard.

[@Caleb-fm1hp]

Look at the cost of nuclear waste at the Hanford site.

[@chapter4travels]

@Caleb-fm1hp that was a military weapon site, not a domestic power site.

[@chapter4travels]

We will run out of fissile fuel on the same day we run out of wind and sun.

[@k34561]

I actually crawled through t nuclear reactor core as a kid. The nuclear plant was under construction. My friends father was an operator at the. He gave us a private tour of the Shoreham Wading River Nuclear Power Plant.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

44:09 44:13 "Why don't we stop *_wasting_* energy?" The single-greatest threat to future generations is *_energy-conservation._*

[@alan2102X]

Sounds crazy, but maybe you can explain.

[@jacquesvincelette6692]

The runaway train gathers critical mass, the boiler is ready to blow. No break, no governor, no pressure relief valve. A few at the top get catapulted through space. Feverous procreation if we land on a soft and friendly planet.

[@treefrog3349]

The long-term viability of nuclear power production is very problematic. It assumes the eternal existence of other diminishing resources to sustain it. Nuclear "incidents" have repercussions and ramifications that last thousands of years. There are over 400 nuclear plants globally that are totally reliant on vulnerable supply chains. A down-ward spiraling supply chain would easily jeopardize the viability of them ALL.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

Supply-chain vulnerability is *_greater_* for all *_other_* fuels, because those other fuels are *_less dense._*

[@guapochino140]

My question is: where do we build them? Current sea level or future sea level? Current river courses or future river courses?

[@krautergarten4529]

"Ramificatins for thousends of years" ... chernobly was as bad as it could get and they started farming there after 40years ... it's a tourist attraction today. Get real!

[@gregmckenzie4315]

Lovering stresses the importance of time. We need to produce energy quickly for, of course, the poorer countries who need the energy quickly. But Lovering seems comfortable with the fact that building out a new nuclear economy in the U.S. will take decades that we don't have. If we want to stop pumping CO2 into our atmosphere the way to cut our carbon dioxide production is to STOP USING SO MUCH ENERGY. Cutting our production of C02 will take only months, compared with DECADES to build nuclear reactors, to mine the uranium, to store the waste temporarily, and to dispose of the waste permanently. This could take many decades. No contest. The nuclear industry wants us to believe that nuclear is safe, cheap, and fast. It's not. Not by a long shot. We are still learning about the dangers of nuclear radiation. This is no time to push nuclear on the poor people on our planet,

[@greg2165]

As far as USA, residential per use is getting more efficient, main source of increase of power usage is servers supporting AI and crypto. As far as renewables needing minerals from China or third world problem country's that is being reduced every year. Battery Tech is developing battery's that only use abundant materials. Nuclear in USA builder always states build time 7-10 years but usually take 15-20. Renewables takes typically 2 years, the hardest thing is to get permission to connect to the grid.

[@ValiantGarton]

I turned my back on environmental organisations years ago because of their demonisation of nuclear power. We only had one short term solution to getting away from hydrocarbons while we looked for and developed realistic alternatives and now it is far too late.

[@krautergarten4529]

44:10 Energy is expensiv, nobody is "wasting" energy! Energy consumtion is directly correlated to life expectancy, standard of living, workforce efficiency, stability! Come on, that should be common knowledge. We NEED to use more energy per capita to do things like recycling, build renewables (which need 10x steel and concrete, which are very energy intensive to produce). 3/4 of the energy we use is non electric and heavy in CO2, we need to electrify that. That will never happen if you make electric energy a scarse and expensiv commodity. 52:16 That's a joke right? We shut down world production, chaos around the world, only to see that it saved 10% of energy consumption ... empty supermarket shelfs, locked up people in their homes, that is worth 10% ??? Really? Nucear waste was and will never be a problem, it is a pur political argument to play people. Who would throw away a battery at 96% charge?

[@markbowman9105]

Jessica’s body language betrayed her words.

[@pvmagnus]

Yeah it was a subdued interview 😐

[@ChimpJacobman]

Couldn't even be bothered to place her laptop on a solid surface. Disrespectful of the channel.

[@geodav5700]

NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST

[@life42theuniverse]

23:00 Waste sits in containers ‘for awhile ~millennia’

[@chapter4travels]

Yes, just for a while until we choose to use the energy that remains in the fuel pellets.

[@life42theuniverse]

The alternative: Neofeudal seasonal supply chains.

[@superlunary2015]

The interviewee is a flippant lobbyist. She isn’t willing to engage with the critical points Rachel raised. She keeps resorting back ‘it’s either nuclear or die’ thinking

[@aliendroneservices6621]

It's either uranium, or a *_less-dense_* fuel. Fuel *_density_* allows you to get: • *_More_* of what you like. • *_Less_* of what you *_don't_* like.

[@alan2102X]

@@aliendroneservices6621 Energy density is one of the dumbest arguments ever used in this sphere. It has been debunked in detail, but who even cares to read the debunking? It is dumb just on its face.

[@richardlane5498]

Strange how this comment keeps showing up at the top of the list. Maybe it's just the algorithm...but, she's not 'just a flippant lobbyist', she's an invited guest. No one has to agree with her, just listen and respond if you wish.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Seems like a conflation thing, I think the title is extremely irritating and designed by default to distract from the actual risk already clearly defined, the military MAD Mentality and most obvious threat-risks inherent in stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Let's see another POV of Actuality as it is.

[@Caleb-fm1hp]

Let's get "Hanford" cleaned up first. About 1,000,000 gallons of toxic radioactive nuclear waste are about to enter the Columbia River!!!

[@Jeremy-WC]

Unless SMRs are figured out fast the discussion does not matter because we don't have the time to build out nuclear or train the many people required to maintain new plants. I don't think the guest understands overshoot and that the 1 billion in energy poverty will already be dead before SMR can be invented and sent to power AC and green houses.

[@chutechi]

Say the word community enough times and someone will actually think the industry is:

[@user-ku2ev4gk1m]

Every home should collect and use its own energy. Passive solar heating is practically ignored. So is very thick walls (the International Building Code requires matching the wall thickness of the basement with the wall thickness, even if that thickness is just for insulation, for instance. That's rediculous). The solar hot water system ripped off the White House, was reinstalled at a university in Vermont, and is still working. Can any electric or gas water heater match that longevity? Air conditioning should be done by air pipes buried in the ground. My fridge uses 45 Watts of power. Your's uses 10 to 40 times as much. My transportation is wind powered. I live on a sailboat, use my legs, bike, bus, train, and Lyft to get around. I'm 67 years old, not a 20 somethinger. These changes will be commonplace, for the few who survive the coming decade of famine and collapse, but only if we're prepared and smart.

[@guapochino140]

Air conditioning should be illegal and architects should not be able to graduate if their idea of designing a house is sticking a cookie cutter design on a razed plot with no thought about orientation and having an a/c in every room. This is the standard procedure in most of the world.

[@factnotfiction5915]

Great! Now realize that about 20% of your energy use is at home - the other 80% is out there in the world. Y'know, the people and factories that use energy ON YOUR BEHALF to build your sailboat, bike, the bus, train and car (Lyft) that you occasionally use - let's not forget the pipes for your passive air conditioning and the material for your thick insulated walls - and EVEN the 45 watt refrigerator you are so proud of! So, if every home 'used its own energy' you STILL would be using vast amounts of energy/electricity.

[@thiemokellner1893]

I somewhere heard that our heat waste, be it from nuclear plant or fossil ones, will reach levels (1 W/m2) where they themselves are climate relevant. I wonder whether this is true.

[@factnotfiction5915]

It isn't true. A - The climate is warming due to the greenhouse effect, i.e. CO2 (and other gases, CO, CH4, etc) in the upper atmosphere preventing thermal radiation from leaving the Earth. Were the 'greenhouse' not there, excess heat would just radiate away. B - The production of heat from processes on Earth (natural like volcanoes or anthropomorphic like power plants) is insignificant compared to the thermal energy we receive from the Sun.

[@bokuboke482]

Neat interview. Need I point out that "thanks" to automation and embodied AI, the near future of power generation will definitely employ close to zero humans? Meaning, the number of local people employed won't be a deciding factor in this versus that variant of power generation.

[@erinm.clifft7325]

But the mining...what about the harms to people & planet from the mining for nuclear? On Diné land for example

[@TruthNonDual]

Going to take just short of... a whole lot of fossil fuels to build out enough nuke plants... not to mention time. (the planet will be dead by then) And we definitely need everyone to have the same level of comforts iphones microwaves multiple computers per household, cars, Winnebago's, air travel holidays with no consequences. Poor animals though, what is it, like 70% of the mammals have done a disappearing act since the 70's. The few remaining will definitely be in favor of nuclear power.

[@robinschaufler444]

Nuclear is unsustainable, not because of the uranium or thorium fuel, but because of the entire infrastructure it requires to be effective, and the centralization of power it implies. The colonized world does not "need" colonial luxe. The colonized world needs to have its autonomy from colonization restored.

[@XxKnuckleSOverlorDxX]

Don't nuclear reactors need to completely stop for 2 to 4 weeks every year for maintenance and fuel replenishment? That is not what I call 100% uptime.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

It's every 18 months or 24 months, and pre-scheduled (as opposed to random). It's up 24/7, when you want it to be.

[@guapochino140]

This person can hold both these opinions: "There is no way to put the brakes on" (to use less) vs "It's tricky but we'll have to find a way to overcome Jevons' Paradox" The pro-nuclear argument is not deeply thought through on so many levels.

[@Huineng10]

It might be instructive to remind ourselves of Simon Michaux's comments on the matter.

[@danielfaben5838]

The guest starts out with the standard lowering or eliminating carbon emissions "as soon as possible." What does "as soon as possible" mean? To me it is a red flag of hand wringing and I think its expression shows a lack of critical thinking and a denial of reality . Anyone who has a grip will acknowledge that at no time will it be possible or even logical to lower or eliminate carbon emissions by conscious means. Reduction will happen, to be sure, but not in a agreed upon and mediated manner. Think war, economic chaos with radically reduced standard of living and far far fewer humans in a short time span. In other words, be ready to die rather than think that humans can actually do right by the planet.

[@elekkr]

The Germans say ; "Atomkraft is Todsicher" that means nuclear is assured as death is 😅😮😊

[@rinnin]

A lot of self contradiction by the interviewee. Also never mentioned the fact that (I think) nuclear plants need to be next to large water bottles for cooling. With drought Some had to be shut down and with climate change some jellyfish species have exploded clogging up the intake pipes for nuclear plants and again causing them to shut down. She said they can be built anywhere… 🤷‍♂️

[@factnotfiction5915]

Yes, and we can see that from the site of the Palo Verde NPP (the 2nd biggest NPP in the US) in Arizona, a landlocked desert, that NPPs _do not actually_ need to be near large water bodies! www.google.com/maps/place/Palo+Verde+Generating+Station/@33.3826145,-112.8671065,15z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x80d4b896ab9eb13f:0xbb05e464d7e88ab0!8m2!3d33.3826145!4d-112.8605405!16zL20vMDU4eG14?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAyMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[@Caleb-fm1hp]

And contaminate the water.

[@factnotfiction5915]

NPPs do not need to be large bodies of water for cooling. Example: Palo Verde NPP in the middle of the Arizona desert.

[@colsylvester639]

@@Caleb-fm1hp the cooling stream and reactor streams are separate.

[@sjoerd1239]

The devil is in the detail.

[@Caleb-fm1hp]

Let's reduce dependence. Nuclear seems to a dd a lot more dependence.

[@toomanykWh]

Nuclear is dependent on transport fuels to build, maintain and decommission. What else is there to know that nuclear is a dead end technology?

[@chapter4travels]

What energy source doesn't?

[@toomanykWh]

@ Food. (Non industrial- syntropic/agroecological)

[@aliendroneservices6621]

47:23 "You run out of things to do with energy." No. Data-centers turn electricity into money, at *_any_* power level.

[@guapochino140]

Ah, they are a "Collective" so they must be independent and self-funded. Great!

[@garethley66]

Rather than deal with US power hungry habits, build more nuclear power. Building nuclear is far from low carbon as well as being very expensive and of course high risk. Sellafield cooling ponds are full of high level nuclear waste dating back to last century. Security risks for a small nuclear power plant are also the same as large ones, no ones going to have their freindly local reactor. Equating nuclear waste, which can be dangerous for thousands of years, with plastic waste is just stupid. This seems to be a complete PR distraction from the reality that we already have cheaper and safer renewable sources of power.

[@chutechi]

Gish Gallopy unpacking impossible in this context. Going on after fact checkable diatribes works

[@richardlane5498]

Nuclear has its place. Our problem is that we can't seem to demanding more and more energy. The rich tech bros and the few who rush us toward the idea of infinite extraction of energy resources are the biggest problem we face. We as modern cultures, as individuals follow their lead to use and consume more and more. But we keep getting nearer to hitting the wall, cost v.s.convenience v.s. survival for many more.

[@notafantbh]

This is a topic I'm super interested in, thanks for covering it. It would be nice to bring more people with other perspectives on the issue too. Not Shellenberger though! That guy is the worst lol

[@Huineng10]

Try Simon Michaux. He is extremely knowledgeable. He talks on more than one subject but if you search his name, you'll soon find stuff to interest you.

[@vthilton]

End fission reactors now!

[@spencerf1446]

Pushing wealth distribution again. Top one percent are never going to give up their obscene profits willingly. Realistically tax is the only balancing strategy at hand. To address climate a radical energy transition will have to occur. And yes the same huge problems with extraction of resources will occur.The kind of massive wealth distribution you dream about only happens with an armed revolution which have terrible consequences and I think you know that. These revolutions from the past always end up with a corrupt empire worse than before. I think the best option is a reformed democracy.

[@user-sr9ub1cq4k]

Complaining about renewables and utility "deregulation" while dergulating the nuclear industry, complaining about utility decentralization while plumping for dispersed "village scale" grid tied, not independent, national security states managed, - but rustic- nuclear plants. Head spinning orwellian rhetoric.

[@richardv9648]

Just a reminder, once we are done reducing carbon emmisions by investing in Technology. We need to start paying off climate reparations to countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sudan. Only then climate justice will be fair.

[@IveJustHadAPiss]

100% won't happen.

[@Aktentasche1]

We aren‘t even reducing carbon emissions by investing in technology... the effect is known as jevons paradox.

[@jacquesvincelette6692]

The trouble with a good hustle, we wrap our weir in a tangle.

[@michaeledwards2251]

More like lifting 10,000,000,000 out of poverty. The global population is heading to 11 billion, less than 1 billion live the lifestyle advertised in TV adverts which creates the global aspiration. The global desire for electricity is 100X current levels.

[@IveJustHadAPiss]

In reality only a fraction of the 1bn truly live out the aspirational dreams pushed by advertising executives. They live 'better' lives, but not the 'dream' they're being sold.

[@notafantbh]

And Elon Musk wants each one of us to have one of his robots too lol

[@alan2102X]

You assume, wrongly, that everyone on earth wants to live like a rich person in OECD countries.

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@alan2102X Only takes a minority, say 1/3.

[@alan2102X]

@@michaeledwards2251 Good point. But that's a hell of a lot different than 100%. Still, rich ppl in OECD countries have to live differently. And if the West collapses, as it looks to be in the process of doing, that will happen.

[@antkin608]

Most new nuclear seems to be directed for AI compute needs. Hopefully, that'll do us some good. 🙂

[@Slick-666]

Google knowing which ad to serve your shopaholic mother is not a net benefit to society.

[@chesterfinecat7588]

Top AI questions: How do I get wealthy, stay pretty and have more fun fun fun. Plus keep my AI more better than anybody else’s, those poor, ugly sourpusses.

[@ChimpJacobman]

It wont

[@quarrellousquaker]

A former anti-nuclear activist involved with the Clamshell Alliance (which tried - unsuccessfully to prevent the construction of the Seabrook nuclear power plant in Seabrook, NH) told me "global warming will end humanity in a matter of decades. Nuclear meltdown will end us in a matter of months (and probably more quickly)." Couldn't have said it better.

[@panstromek]

Also couldn't have said it more incorrect. Nuclear meltdown already happened multiple times and a total death toll of all those accidents is completely negligible. Honestly, both of those sentences are pretty much nonsense. Global warming will have all sorts of negative impacts but even in the worst case scenarios it will not "end humanity in a matter of decades" in any meaningful sense. Some climate activits should really get their science straight before saying this.

[@d.Cog420]

Jessica is in the ‘market is king, we must supply the market’ bubble which is driving the ecological crises (and human as well from personal to community) we are trying to stop. The next stage of our evolution imo is a shift from a market economy hegemony to a planet health restoration hegemony and in that world we don’t need 800 swidillion units of energy per person.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

7:04 7:07 "...we've had huge cost-declines in [wind-and-solar]..." Wind and solar remain *_infinitely-expensive,_* on a sustained basis.

[@alan2102X]

lol. Costs decline every year, but they are "infinitely expensive", eh?

[@aliendroneservices6621]

​@@alan2102XWind and solar absolutely depend upon fossil-fuels. No fossil-fuels = no wind-and-solar. Wind-and-solar infrastructure cannot power its own reproduction, and thus it is infinitely-expensive, *_on a sustained basis._* Elon Musk proved this by reneging on his 2018 promise to power Gigafactory 1 off-grid with nothing but its own solar power.

[@alan2102X]

@@aliendroneservices6621 Very, very dumb argument, ADS. But that's what I've come to expect from you. You seem to have little else.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

@@alan2102X It should be easy for you to falsify my claim. 1. Build or buy a factory or data-center. 2. Power it off-grid with nothing but its own wind-and-solar. 3. Reproduce everything on your land (factory or data-center, energy infrastructure, and all necessary tools) *_from nothing but rocks on your land_* (to ensure no fossil-fuels were involved; if any trade were involved, fossil-fuels would be involved).

[@alan2102X]

@@aliendroneservices6621 Very dumb, ADS, very dumb. You apparently have not spent even 60 seconds thinking about how energy transitions happen, and what happens DURING those transitions. I've heard this argument many times, and it always stuns me when I do. How is it possible for an intelligent adult to buy-in to it? Yes, of course we need fossil/nuclear to build renewables -- FOR NOW -- because up until now (or until, say, 10-15 years ago) fossil/nuclear was the only game in town. EVERYTHING required, and still requires, fossil/nuclear. But as ever larger fractions of total energy come from renewables, that will be true less and less, (already is true less and less), until finally, within a few decades, it is not true at all. Eventually the whole system will run on renewables. That's how an energy transition happens. I fail to see why this is so difficult to understand. It is the kind of thing that a smart 4th grade kid could grasp, easily. Right now, we're in the middle of an energy transition -- from fossil to renewable. In a past age, we transitioned from wood to fossil (with a partial transition, within that, from coal to liquids). During those transitions, the production of the new devices and infrastructure OBVIOUSLY must depend on the old energy source, because it takes energy to make anything. But that doesn't mean that the new energy source -- because it is not instantaneously capable of full self-sufficiency and self-replication -- is somehow deficient or inferior. Only an idiot (like you, ADS) would think that. Rather, it just reflects the necessary, inescapable state of partial implementation as the transition is underway, which can run for years or decades. When transitioning from wood to coal, wood-fired energy was used to develop and build coal-fired equipment and infrastructure because... how else could it be? OF COURSE wood-fired energy was used; it was used for everything, at the beginning. Then, by degrees, as coal-fired facilities were built out, coal-fired power started to be used to build more coal-fired facilities. The balance shifted, by degrees, over decades, to coal, until finally, at the end of the transition, coal was used for almost everything. At any point in this process, some idiot (like you, ADS) could have jumped up and said "coal is no good! it takes wood energy to make the coal-burning machines!" Fortunately, very few people are that stupid. (BTW, I say "almost everything" because the old energy resource will always be used somewhere or other. In the case of wood, specific applications unsuitable for coal-fired boilers and etc., such as a blacksmith shop, or a cabin deep in the outback, might still burn wood. But in the main, the transition is complete.) Likewise, renewables only "require" fossil fuel inputs in relative terms -- relative to the energy system's current state of development. As renewables are built out, more renewable energy is used to build and maintain the whole system, and a progressively smaller fraction of energy comes from fossil/nuclear. Finally, it gets to the point where fossil/nuclear maintenance depends utterly on renewable energy (the principal support of the whole system/grid). That is already partially true in a few places with very high renewable penetration, and it will come to be true in ever-more places as the transition proceeds. China already gets 40% of its electrical power from renewables. That means that the solar panel plants (for example) in China are runnning on 40% renewable energy. And next year, 50%. And the year after that, 60%. Sooner or later, and with electrification of the vehicle fleet including trucks and heavy equipment, solar panels will indeed be made with near-100% renewable energy. (There will always be a place for fossil and other fuels -- like wood -- in special applications and places, here and there; hence it will never be 100%. Just 98%.) It is inevitable, and it is well underway. A few nations like Uruguay and Norway are already near-100% renewable. More will join them in coming years. Eventually it will be true that, if you want to (say) drill an oil well, you'll need lots of electricity for the drilling, lots of electric-powered heavy equipment (which was itself built by industrial shops using electrical power), etc. -- electricity from renewables. Oil will be dependent on renewables, rather than renewables being dependent on oil. That does not mean that oil is an inferior energy resource (which would be the conclusion of an idiot like you, ADS); it only means that the prevailing energy regime -- then renewables -- is used to supply most processes and needs, including the extraction of non-renewables. The transition to near-100% renewables is a big subject with a large scholarly literature. Anyone with a sincere interest can start by spending a few weeks reading Mark Jacobson's writing on this subject -- on 100% WWS (Wind Water Solar). Other authors are good too, but that's a great start. Scholars are generally in accord about this now, i.e. that 100% WWS (and near-total replacement of fossil fuels) is entirely feasible, and that we're on the way toward it. Of course it is a BIG transition and it will take a good long while. Estimates vary. Might happen by 2060. Possibly earlier. Here's a news item from a couple years ago. I think 2050 is a tad optimistic, but we'll see. If China keeps going the way they have been, then maybe. Note the heading below: "strong skepticism LONG GONE". lol. Yes, long gone -- among the intelligentsia, the scholars. Out on the internet, among ignorant people under the sway of fossil industry FUD, it is different. Story mentions Christian Breyer -- another great scholar in this field (like Jacobson) who has published numerous supportive papers. You can follow him and Jabobson on Twitter (as I do) to get the latest. ........... Helsinki Times Researchers agree: The world can reach a 100% renewable energy system by or before 2050 10 August 2022 Research from LUT University and 14 additional leading international universities suggest that the new system would be based largely on solar and wind energy, energy storage, sector coupling, and direct and indirect electrification of almost all energy demand. An energy system that is 100% based on renewables has emerged to become scientific mainstream. Hundreds of scientific studies have proven that 100% renewable energy systems can be achieved on global, regional, and national levels by or before 2050. The number of published studies has grown by 27% annually since the year 2010 and continues to grow each year. "A quickly increasing number of researchers conclude that the entire energy system demand can be met based on renewables, and that doing so will actually be cheaper in the long term, while fulfilling sustainability requirements", professor Christian Breyer from LUT University concludes. Key pillars of this new energy system are solar and wind energy, energy storage, sector coupling, and electrification of all energy and industry sectors implying power-to-X and hydrogen-to-X solutions, complemented by upcoming carbon dioxide removal to help stabilize the climate. The topical review is entitled "On the History and Future of 100% Renewable Energy Systems Research" and published in IEEE Access.

[@crisismanagement]

I want to tell you a little secret but first let me illustrate with the five stages of awareness (Unaware, Problem, Solution, Product, and Most Aware) as context because we make more problems with our solutions. The Solution for nuclear waste is to bury the waste in cement caves and communicate the danger to anyone who might be living 100,000 years from now. What language, pictures...? The problem is language changes. How much has language changed in 4,000 years? And if we don't communicate the danger, people will suffer and die if they open the cave. Here's the problem that many are not aware of: Man was never given the sovereign right to govern himself. We are made aware of this in every language today so that we do not harm ourselves. Instead, man uses nucleaer waste, in a figurative sense, as the basis for society i.e. politicians, etc. Be aware: "it does not belong to man who is walking, even to direct his step."

[@CharlesBrown-xq5ug]

102402 A thought experment, an impractical device that is easy to check for mechanical workability. Its parts are large enough to act as everyday mechanisms but small enough to work well with the nanometer scale thermal motions of gas molecules. This device hypothetically creates self powered thermal diversification: Sketch made with keyboard characters: COLD ())--:PARTITION:-->> HOT Key ()) = Paddlewheel. -- = Axle. (Continuous from end to end) : : = Axle tunnel going through a wall. >> = Lumped friction element Please visualize two chambers full of inert gas separated by a very thin partition. The partition is thin to delicately support billions of separate micrometer scale short axles running straight through loosely enough to rotate freely but not leak very much heat so the chambers can hold separate temperatures. On the left side, a very small paddlewheel is mounted at the left end of each axle. On the right side, lumped friction elements are mounted stationary in place on the partition, one for each axle, for the right end of each axle to run through. The lumped friction elements convert the mechanical rotation of their axle into heat. The lumped friction elements do not impart Brownian motion to their axle. Brownian motion (a nanometer scale effect) turns the paddlewheels at random speeds randomly clockwise or counterclockwise. This random rotation is turned into heat by the lumped friction elements. The committed, linked, and functional roles of the walls, paddlewheels, axles, and lumped friction elements in differnt places should systemically produce a divergence in the thermal energy in the two chambers without adding external energy. 🚩AMBIENT HEAT SOURCE INPUT 🔆🔆🔆 PADDLEWHEELWHEEL COOLING ♈️ ♈️ ♈️RANDOM ROTATION ENERGY DISPLACEMENT ⏭️⏭️⏭️ BRAKES HEATING 🚩DISPLACED HEAT OUTPUT Aloha