@YungOnions@sh.itjust.works cover
@YungOnions@sh.itjust.works avatar

YungOnions

@[email protected]

Challenge defeatism.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

YungOnions ,
@YungOnions@sh.itjust.works avatar

Monopiles are steel tubes driven into the seabed that serve as the foundation for offshore wind turbines and support their weight and wind loads.

In case, like me, you didn't know what a monopile was.

YungOnions ,
@YungOnions@sh.itjust.works avatar

Tellus would be a cool name for a planet, imo.

YungOnions ,
@YungOnions@sh.itjust.works avatar

More people need to be made aware of information like this, so they can understand it's not all doom and gloom.

YungOnions ,
@YungOnions@sh.itjust.works avatar

This isn't a binary choice. We can do both, whilst we wait for governments to sort out nuclear or fusion. I'd prefer we do what we can to reduce our emissions via renewables now, rather than doing nothing whilst waiting for some potential solution in the future.

Also, ewaste from renewables can be recycled

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-023-02925-7

YungOnions ,
@YungOnions@sh.itjust.works avatar

OK, so whilst we wait the 7 years for the reactor to be built we should, what? hope that coal and gas stops polluting in the interim? Or should we continue to use the tech that, whilst not perfect, is better than the currently most widely used alternatives?

Nuclear is expensive, slow to deploy and has a inherent risk that renewables do not:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00696-3

https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change

Plus the ewaste renewables produce can be recycled easily, cheaply and with far less risk than the waste for nuclear. Is the process perfect? No, so lets concentrate on improving the circular economy around recycling panels, turbines etc. Spend the money and effort on improving the tech that is already proven to be cheaper, more effective and ready now.

YungOnions ,
@YungOnions@sh.itjust.works avatar

Definitely. That 7 years was just the construction phase. All in the average nuclear plant takes about 14 years to build from planning to switch on.

YungOnions ,
@YungOnions@sh.itjust.works avatar

Cool, but that's not how averages work, is it.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/

Also the fastest Nuclear power plant construction in the world is currently held by Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Unit 6 NPP at 5.41 years, construction start to commercial operation:

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/30/020/30020307.pdf

That often quoted 3 years doesn't include inspections, testing etc.

YungOnions ,
@YungOnions@sh.itjust.works avatar

Great, but unless you can get Japan to build every Nuclear reactor in the world, that's a meaningless statistic, isn't it? The average construction time for a PWR remains 7 years globally:

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/42/105/42105221.pdf?r=1&r=1

This doesn't account for planning etc etc so the actual time from pre project to switch on is closer to 11 years, which is admittedly 3 years less than my original figure:

https://www.iaea.org/publications/8759/project-management-in-nuclear-power-plant-construction-guidelines-and-experience

Also the fastest Nuclear power plant construction in the world is currently held by Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Unit 6 NPP at 5.41 years, construction start to commercial operation:

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/30/020/30020307.pdf

That often quoted 3 years doesn't include inspections, testing etc.

YungOnions ,
@YungOnions@sh.itjust.works avatar

The time to create nuclear plants is far lower than what you quoted

The average construction time is 7 years. I quoted the International Atomic Energy Agency. I think they know what they're talking about.

and we're still sitting here fucking debating whether we should start.

That's fine, I get you're passionate about nuclear and that's good, it's better to be passionate about that than coal or gas. But you're not going to 'encourage' anyone by hurling insults at them, are you?

Also, your data is out of date. The LCOE of Nuclear is getting more expensive, not less. Wind is now the cheapest:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

And solar now has the fewest deaths per unit of electricity:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh

Look, I get that nuclear probably has its place. But you need to understand that renewables are rapidly becoming the option for carbon emission reduction, and that the evidence supports this. They're doing this so quickly that by the time we start the process of constructing a NPP now, they will be even better by the time the plant goes into operation. Your point about how we should have started earlier is a valid one but, for a multitude of reasons, that isn't the world we live in. So why spend time and money trying to change the global attitude towards nuclear when we can spend the same time and money building an arguably better solution that is almost unanimously agreed to be more effective right now?

YungOnions ,
@YungOnions@sh.itjust.works avatar

...features pop artist Cher and Game of Thrones actress Carice Van Houten.

Sorry, what?

YungOnions ,
@YungOnions@sh.itjust.works avatar

It's a start. Better than nothing and better late than never.

YungOnions ,
@YungOnions@sh.itjust.works avatar

Address the issue at the source. Find out why these people are willing to risk their lives to leave and try and fix that. At the very least you could create a safe encampment in their home country where they can go to live, receive aid, food, housing etc. Get the UN involved to protect it or something.

This is kinda the same issue as with arresting homeless people for sleeping rough - it addresses (poorly) the symptom, not the cause.

YungOnions ,
@YungOnions@sh.itjust.works avatar

people migrate illegally from everywhere. you're suggesting the UK should fix what exactly? every undeveloped nation everywhere?

I mean, not on its own, no, and only those nations from which it's reciving the bulk of the immigrants. But long term that is the only viable option. As I understand it these are not people who are leaving their country because they particularly want to, they leave because things are so bad at home that literally risking their lives is better than staying. I imagine given the chance they'd prefer to stay at home, so at some point we need to help ensure that's possible.

In the mean time a refugee camp of sorts would allow them to remain in their own country and provide suitable housing etc, meaning they wouldn't have to leave in the first place.

YungOnions ,
@YungOnions@sh.itjust.works avatar

Cool, then we can use it for home and office stuff, and not the rest, then. Reducing some e-waste is better than reducing none.

YungOnions ,
@YungOnions@sh.itjust.works avatar

Avoiding pessimistic content does not mean embracing ignorance. The key is to understand what is within your capacity to change and to try and let go of worrying about everything else. It's about understanding that marinating in a sea of doomscrolling is really bad for you: https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/what-is-doomscrolling-and-why-is-it-bad-for-us/143139/

And that bad news is also literally addictive and it is important to break that habit: https://www.fastcompany.com/90269566/how-to-stop-your-brains-addiction-to-bad-news

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines