It’s the year of the Linux desktop.

Hers an interesting article on the dangers of Thorium reactors, including nuclear proliferation concerns: https://www.nature.com/articles/492031a

Here’s an article detailing why nuclear power production is not climate neutral. There a lot of CO2 emissions involved in nuclear power production: https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315

Fossil fuel is IMHO no alternative and will only play a minimal role after 2038. Most of the countries, that have pledged to become climate neutral by 2050 will build new nuclear reactors to achieve this. So there will probably be enough energy to go around and Germany can buy such energy if the transition to 100% renewables did not work out as planned. But if it works out we will have a viable way to produce energy in climate neutral way without the hazards that accompany nuclear power production. If this can be proved to work, other countries would be able to emulate this strategy. IMHO this is an opportunity we can not let go to waste.

Being against nuclear power does not make me a fossil fuel proponent. We should aim for 100% renewables. Also nuclear power very much hurt tens of thousands of people by causing cancer in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/lisbeth-gronlund/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated/

That’s a valid point. There is no consensus yet. But what’s the worst that would happen if we can’t achieved this goal in Germany, when we try? We will buy french nuclear power again. But what happens when it works out? Germany will be climate neutral and will be independent of nuclear power. No fission material is required, no uranium mining will be required for power production. So there’s the possibility to mitigate the negative impact of uranium mining, while getting rid of the dangers of nuclear power plants and not creating more nuclear waste for future generations to take care of. IMHO that’s a great opportunity that we should seize.

Sorry but I completely lost the overview🤣 it’s been some time now and I don’t know how many comments us two have posted. Next time we’ll discuss functional vs. imperative programming and it will get even worse, hrhr

Research into this topic is fairly new, with very few studies published before 2009, but has gained increasing attention in recent years. The majority of studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and industry – is feasible and economically viable.

https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.apenergy.2020.116273

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-05843-2

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/cheap_safe_100_renewable_energy_possible_before_2050_says_finnish_uni_study/10736252

https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rser.2021.110934

Can you provide sources for this claim? It will not be easy to achieve climate neutrality by 2045 and Germany is currently struggling to achieve this. But I think it’s entirely feasible. Here is a source to back up my claim: https://www.bmuv.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Pools/Broschueren/climate_action__figures_2019_brochure_en_bf.pdf

Can you substantiate your claim by offering a source, or is this your personal assessment?

Yes and again: Being against nuclear power production does not mean I’m a fossil fuel proponent. I think we have to get rid of both and achieve 100% renewables which is entirely feasible according to recent studies. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

Recent studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and desalination well before 2050 is feasible.

Source:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

Yes and to reiterate: Being against nuclear power does not make me a fossil power proponent. We have to get rid of both and need to concentrate to transition to 100% renewables.

You do know that the tens of thousands of people who developed cancer in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster are part of the biosphere? https://blog.ucsusa.org/lisbeth-gronlund/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated/

I don’t agree. Calling nuclear power production safe after there have been massive contamination of the biosphere is quite cynical. It’s estimated that tens of thousands people have developed cancer as a direct cause of the Chernobyl disaster: https://blog.ucsusa.org/lisbeth-gronlund/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated/

I don’t agree. I think these accidents should make us aware of the dangers of nuclear power production and that there will always be a risk attached to it. There have been more than 30 nuclear power plant accidents with damage to the environment and the biosphere: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents

If you’re not interested in discussing the issue at hand that’s okay.

It’s called interest. I made clear on multiple occasions that being against nuclear power does not make me a proponent of fossil fuel power production. I think we have to get rid of fossil fuel power production as well as nuclear power production.

Please refrain from personal attacks and try to discuss using credible sources and arguments. Hers a primer on discussion skills: https://www.student.unsw.edu.au/discussion-skills

So your saying the reactor was not safe and should have never been built that way? I agree.

I don’t know. I can also ask: How much damage could have been avoided if Chernobyl and Fukushima would have not been built. But IMHO this makes no sense since these hypothetical scenarios are not the topic of this discussion.

No argument offered here. Ad hominem fallacy again.

I don’t think we should behave as if we are school kids. I think we should behave like grown ups and respect each other, while discussing these matters.