News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
so, like, black sabbath? or something harder that the kids today listen to?
When you hit rock bottom, that's at least the point, where yo-...hm, wait a second...
Am I the only moron who thought they meant music?
Nuclear is not a solution, evidence 836382.
It's also now more expensive than renewables. And it has always been less safe. There is literally no reason to build nuclear anymore. Renewables is the way to go. Cheaper, safer, makes Europe energy-independent, and also much better for the environment.
You are patiently incorrect nuclear has in total killed approximately 4,000 people over the last hundred year period.
Renewables have killed closer to 180,000.
You can look it up. This is a direct apples to apples comparison. Chernobyl vs a couple of dam failures.
Your comment is not correct.
From Chernobyl alone, and only in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, and only from cancer, there have been 27'000 deaths. http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/4704112149/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated
Then there's all of the other bullshit. 270'000 people irradiated in this accident alone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster
Then there's all of the nice little things like the literal mafia dumping nuclear waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_'Ndrangheta
Or dumping it into the oceans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste
Or Germany putting nuclear waste into plain metal barrels and putting them into a salt mine. Since metal and salt mix so well. https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-leaking-nuclear-waste-dump/video-69502364
Renewables have killed closer to 180,000.
Clearly one braking dam is an argument against wind turbines and solar panels. Oh the horror and deaths of free rooftop electricity to power ACs.
How many times am I going to hear about Chernobyl or Three Mile Island?
How many times am I going to hear about Chernobyl or Three Mile Island?
Until you realize that a water dam is very different from a solar panel.
Well, most of the time you would be right indeed. Uranium fuel rods are solid. But in a molten-salt reactor the fissile material is actually dissolved in molten salt, so it is a solution!
The more you know!
L take..
Wow, all that super stable, super reliable base load energy is just mindblowing!! Let's build more nuclear power plants!
Letβs build more nuclear power plants!
If we had done that early on we wouldn't have global warming and there wouldn't be a cool water shortage.
It's more relevant what we should/can do now than what we should've done years ago, no?
I mean, obviously learn from history and not make the same mistakes, but it's also not necessarily the case that whatever would've been the solution back then, still is today.
If the same people are still in power and don't show acceptance of their mistakes or a willingness to correct them then it is relevant. There are solutions but it should be clear that they won't implement them.
but that's not true. Electricity only accounts for about 18% of emissons, its non renewable, you'd have a waste pile the size of a mountain, would have run out of fuel by now and you'd need to start decommissioning most of them and rebuilding them
There's a persist myth that some technology can just magic a fix here, nothing short of vastly reduced energy consumption, and lifestyle changes can work, 10000 aging nuclear reactors that need replacing ain't going to cut it.
an example ?
we'd get a 30% reduction in emissions if the richest 10% loved like the average European, not enough but an excellent start
Electricity only accounts for about 18% of emissons
You have to switch all processes to electricity or hydrogen like steel making or fertilizer.
Best results come from not abusing the third world and letting them have a future that allows them to only have two children.
You have to switch all processes to electricity or hydrogen like steel making or fertilizer.
Doesn't turn Uranium into a regrowing resource.
Others have mentioned breeder reactors. There is also Thorium. But it is only necessary to use the energy until renewables take over. The last 70 years and the next 30 would have been enough to prevent global warming.
another 30% if work from home was standard
Hi big oil, propaganda still paying off?
Fissile resources would have been depleted a long time ago if everyone would have went with nuclear. Don't be so daft.
No they wouldn't, plus the drive to nuclear would have pushed us to thorium and breeder reactors far sooner, using those we could power the Earth for billions of years, they can even use nuclear waste as fuel, don't be daft and actually educate yourself instead of carrying water for Big Oil.
Accounting for breeder reactors your answer is only off by about 4 billion years.
It was a good guess though.
if you looked at what is going on, you would see that bulk of the missing energy in hungarian grid is supplied from czech and slovak grids, where half or so energy is supplied from nuclear powerplants that don't have such problems https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/CZ/72h/hourly
not to mention the french, who put bunch of their reactors near shore and won't ever have problems with cooling, and so export 10-15GW every day
not to mention the french, who put bunch of their reactors near shore and wonβt ever have problems with cooling
This happens literally every hot summer.
This is to avoid overheating river, seashore powerplants or those that rely on evaporative cooling towers don't have this problem. Also, it's as good time for maintenance as any other, and they still exported loads of electricity the entire time
This is to avoid overheating river
You make this sound like they do it for laughs and giggles, not because increasing the temperature in already hot bodies of water even more literally kills wildlife.
Plenty of thermal powerplants use cooling towers and don't have this problem, this is not a limitation of NPP
ITT: Gas and oil simps
Astroturfing bots
Where?
Begun, the water wars have π
This is just the beginning.
This is the least heat and the most water we'll have for the rest of our lives.
Missed opportunity to use a nuke for peak Fallout.
Call it the Blew(up) Danube?
Meanwhile I want to nuke one measly hurricane and everyone looses their minds