The scientific community is not a unified body, so having scientists questioning any scientific model does not seem like a “wow” moment. But, when the discourse starts including strong vocabulary, admittedly I start questioning/researching claims. And I appreciate it when studies conclude by saying things like: cautious of interpretation is needed, or further studies are warranted, etc.

Apart from that, sure, maybe the LNT model needs some re-evaluation, maybe not - I dunno, time will tell. Still, to my understanding, one problem with ionising radiation is that the dosage received by people is not always as tightly controlled as needed for it to be safe, despite all efforts. Not even in work environments.

- If I got this right, from in table 1, p3 one could get to the conclusion that to decommission photovoltaics creates 7 times more CO₂ (more precisely g CO2e/kWh), than decommissionning a nuclear plant for decades, as shown above. It made me wonder how they arrived to these measurements. But the link to the study for the nuclear is dead (see Heath, Garvin A., and Margaret K. Mann. 2012). So this cannot be verified.

• Having a potential solution in the works for nuclear waste is very different from what you said, which was: Nuclear waste is not and has never been a real problem.

Bye-bye now

Edit: The strikethrough, because it looks like the decommissioning of nuclear power plants was not reliably assessed after all. To be more precise, this is the 2012 meta study that is used for the g CO2e/kWh from nuclear decommissioning, and that I had difficulty finding. It clearly states:

Decommissioning was not usually described in detail; when described, most seem to closely resemble only “immediate dismantling,” not full decommissioning (see the Downstream Processes section of the supporting information on the Web).

The lifecycle emissions of nuclear plants are similar to (…)

The link you provided talks about something more specific than what you just said. It’s about the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation. This means that the decommissioning of a nuclear plant for example is not taken into account for these emissions, and it is well known that decommissioning a nuclear power station can easily take several decades (example from world nuclear news)

Nuclear waste is not and has never been a real problem.

The links I added above about France tell another story.

Edit: I looked a bit more into decommissioning and found the following from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and thought of sharing for easier visualisation

In terms of cleanness it is also incredibly clean.

I believe nowadays it would make more sense to compare nuclear to renewable energy, not coal. Apart from that it’s important to keep in mind the nuclear waste problem.

• France seeks strategy as nuclear waste site risks saturation point | Reuters
• Exposed: French nuclear companies dumping radioactive waste in Siberia | Greenpeace

Bill Gates is a notorious capitalist. As mentioned in this article:

Gates sees nuclear power as a way to provide data centers with the power they need as well as to lower electricity costs.

He only cares about his projects and money, definitely not about people. See:

Tell Bill Gates: Stop Microsoft’s partnerships with the Israeli Military and ICE

“Fast action” in what sense? It looks like the nuclear phase-out in Germany started decades ago.

The history behind Germany’s nuclear phase-out

The nuclear phase-out is as much part of the Energiewende (energy transition) as the move towards a low-carbon economy. (…) a majority of Germans is still in favour of putting an end to nuclear power.

after 1989 no new commercial nuclear power stations were built

Thanx!

I don’t have access to this articles, I get a paywall after a few sentences. Same with the archive link. Any ideas how to access it without a subscription?

I am not too sure I understand what your objection to this article is. Ok gas is considered sustainable under some conditions. This doesn’t seen to me like something contradicting that the EU Court ruling on Taxonomy sets a dangerous precedent. For me this is the point.

Did I get something wrong?

Meaning?

Ah ok, thank you for clarifying that!

This discussion has fundamentally very little to do with the energy transition and is more generally about destructive mining practices

What is called energy transition (I believe energy addition is a more accurate term) needs several elements that come from mining. So I am not sure I understand why you consider that mining should not be part of the conversation, since it is a necessary step.

Btw I think I don’t understand what you mean with your last sentence.

So, again, what are they trying to argue here? The only environmentally responsible option is to leave Gaza destroyed?

From the study itself (4. Discussion & 5. Concluding remarks), this is not what I got. On the contrary, it seems to me like they try to make some calculations/estimations/evaluations so that this is something that takes place.

The point of this study, to my understanding, is to calculates some of the aftermath of this ongoing genocide, concerning debris, carbon emissions, time frames, and implications for rebuilding. No?

Is this supposed to sway eco conscious genocide supporters?

This is not the way I understood this article. It seems to me it is one more argument for the case of continuous ethnic cleansing for so many decades.

If we agree that

most frequently, however, the aim of ethnic cleansing is to expel the despised ethnic group through either indirect coercion or direct force, and to ensure that return is impossible,

then by bombing all buildings, homes and infrastructure, they force people to go somewhere else and in the same time restrict them from coming back, since there is nothing to come back to.

So in this study, they actually measure the not coming back for decades part

Edit: I did several edits. I stop now.

The following part is very indicative

“Only 17 percent of the 169 SDG targets are currently on track,”

In this link, they also mention the sourcing of materials, but they don’t really talk about it. The focus is on recycling.

I have the impression that in the EU what they care more about is having a constant supply and recycling. At least this was my understanding from the European Critical Raw Materials Act.

Maybe there’s another piece of legislation that tackles the issue of how these materials are mined, but I don’t know about it. So if anyone does, please share.

I didn’t post the article. I just replied to your comment.

Edit: Just realized, am I vaguely accused of something undefined?

Stop getting caught up in the narcissism of small differences, and focus on solving the fucking problem.

The problem is phasing out fossil fuel, and now. Nuclear power plant take so long to plan and build that using them as solution to the climate emergency is only a way to prolong the use of fossil fuels. We no longer have the luxury of time.