[pbgcp2026]

- To fix these two planks you take a hammer and a nail ... - NO! My uncle hit himself with a hammer real hard last year. It is "is a non-starter". Can we use glue? - Yes, it will be more expensive, less efficient ... - NO! My niece inhaled glue last year. It is "is a non-starter". Can we ... <Light goes out. Conversation continues in a darkness>

[pbgcp2026]

Exhibit 1: Why West will lose on AI – they will run out of power. LOL.

Thanks to commenters. (teachrdan and hinkley)

Yes, I know the reasoning. I am one of those who is against nuclear power stations, Chernobyl and Fukushima are too vivid.

But. If we don't "re-industrialise" the West, we die in a cold and darkness. Literally. We already killed marine ecosystem in Black and Caspian seas. Moving as planned in Gulf. With amount of oil tankers just burning out in the open the "carbon emission" goals seem like a joke. And still – we keep crippling our industry with all this ... I am tempted to say "nonsense", but it's not. It's actually right thing to do but we "outmaneuvered" ourselves out of right things. Now we have to deal with survival – economy first, people later.

[distances]

> With amount of oil tankers just burning out in the open the "carbon emission" goals seem like a joke

If you refer to the burning Russian tankers in the Azov, that should reduce emissions. The carried oil would've been used internally in Russia, so it's better to just burn it before it gets used, the same emissions would've been there anyway. And burning the tankers and refineries restricts Russian oil production, which is is a win both for the environment and mankind alike.

[pbgcp2026]

There is a difference between "refining" crude oil and burning it in a dirty way. And unfortunately it's not only russian tankers ... Gulf, Black Sea, soon to be Baltic.

[teachrdan]

I know this is supposed to be a joke, but you are making a category error if you conflate hitting your thumb with a hammer with running a nuclear power plant.

One of the problems with nuclear is that, for practical and security reasons, you are dependent on an authoritarian regime to run the plant -- a plant that will be inherently not-transparent for the same reasons.

That means you have to trust the authorities in question to tell you the truth about risks like accidental discharges of radioactive waste. In the case of Ireland, which has a long history of being disenfranchised, the trust is understandably broken.

This makes building a new nuclear plant and having it run in your country by the same powers that screwed you over before with the same technology a non-starter.

It seems you didn't read the Sellafield article. If you want to be intellectually honest, I'd suggest starting there. (or at least with the "Incidents" section)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Incidents

[hinkley]

And if anyone is wrong, they will only have to deal with it for 20-50 years, then they die and the next 5000 administrations have to deal with the literal fallout.

If your uncle hitting his thumb meant everyone in his line and all of his neighbors would have a flat thumb for the next million years then the government would absolutely involve itself in hammer design and operational safety guidelines.

[psd1]

Fallout came from Chernobyl and Fat Boy. There is no fallout from a reactor that doesn't explode, and Chernobyl exploded for human reasons rather than structural ones.

Yes, waste lasts a long time. That's mostly in the form of a pond of slightly clicky water. The fear is overblown. See http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2026/ph241/teixeira2/

[hinkley]

People gave their lives to dig underneath Chernobyl. If they hadn’t the aquifers in Eastern Europe would be radioactive for the next million years.

[psd1]

Good point, hinkley (see what i did there?). I forgot about alternate timelines.

However. People all over the world live on top of aquifers that have been naturally radioactive for millions of years. See you at the protest against granite bedrock.