erentz

Seems to have been directed by CAISO for both Palo Alto and Alameda:

https://twitter.com/nukebarbarian/status/1567358316174622720

No you’re not being consistent. Your argument is no reprocessing, breeder, or seawater farming technology is allowable in calculations about the sustainability of fission. But all kids of similar recycling, or new chemistries, or not yet proven technologies are allowable for calculating the sustainability of wind/solar/batteries.

No because no one defines sustainability on the infinite terms you do. If people did then your batteries, wind, and solar would not qualify either.

You then proceed to ignore the facts on CO2 emissions because you don’t like them. Adding batteries and storage isn’t going to lower your embedded emissions or minerals use is it. And you go on to invent more claims about uranium mining while ignoring the mining for materials that go into renewables and batteries, which is much larger. Your reasoning here is motivated by the outcome you want to believe and you aren’t willing to do research or accept anything else.

No, I was reflecting your argument back to you but it goes straight over your head apparently.

> Unlike Uranium, which is relatively scarce and the cost of which, in $ and kg of carbon, after mining and enriching to 5% LEU is considerable.

Simply not true. Nuclear power when considering all lifecycle emissions is lower than wind and solar: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Batteries and storage haven’t proven to be economical at scale. And also aren’t infinitely sustainable either (renewables and their storage don’t grow on trees, they use more resources and valuable minerals than nuclear). So by your measure we shouldn’t do that either.

Nobody died in Germany from this. Yet tens of thousands have died in Germany and neighboring countries from the pollution form its coal plants that is delayed shutting down so it could shutdown nuclear sooner, and now tens of thousands more will die as Germany starts burning more of that that dirty coal again because it shut those NPPs down and even now in this crisis is hellbent on shutting down the remaining ones. But nobody cares about those deaths in Germany, nobody seems to look at those statistics when they think about their anti-nuclear legacy.

Ukraine disagrees with you. They’ll be building more nuclear power after the war. There are much easier ways to terrorize people than trying to cause a radiological release from a plant like this. And that is already happening! Witness the constant shelling, bombing and missiles strikes a of civilians. Of the friends that go missing in occupied areas and are found tortured weeks later. Of the children that are being abducted and filtered into Russia.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ukraine-planning...

Also the electricity sector is organized around provinces in Canada. So it makes a sensible comparison.

> There is not and never will be enough uranium on this planet to completely power humanity for more than a few decades.

This source says up to 4 billion years. Nuclear power is sustainable.

https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-...

Saw this interesting chart recently on the French case. Shows generally decreasing costs between first to last of a generation but then stepwise cost increases when moving to the next generation.

https://twitter.com/autommen/status/1559097869940006916?s=21...

The footage was released by the Russians in their telegram accounts and spread on their social media. Of them torturing and dehumanizing and then killing a POW. Precisely to dehumanize the Ukrainians. This article just identifies the perpetrator of that. Your suggestion makes absolutely no sense.

Even when we spend billions on transit we build it badly. US obsession with turning Light Rail into a Frankenstein that tries to fill all roles (eg commuter light rail). The resistance to electrification and reliance on slow loco hauled trains. Billions thrown at beautiful but not functionally helpful stations (cough Moynihan or Transbay). Not aligning new transit with development and not implementing station area land use changes. Etc. And of course top it off with how little we get for the money in terms of track miles. It’s tragic really.

> But, in the early hours, the company’s technicians had not yet pinpointed the cause of the catastrophe. Rogers apparently considered the possibility that its networks had been attacked by cybercriminals.

I mean, if you just pushed a config change and the whole network goes kaput, take a look at the config change before you start suspecting hackers.

They’ve also put a lot of dams on the Mekong River which is seriously affecting flow downstream in Laos, Cambodia and southern Vietnam.

Well by definition if nosafetystandardsland decides to build a nuclear ship you won’t have a say in it anyway. It just won’t get to enter ports in safetystandardsland.

For nuclear shipping to become viable a reasonable set of trading countries would need to come together and set the standards that it’ll operate under.

Probably best not to engage. These people simply do not see Ukrainians as humans with their own agency and really seem to believe they should just lay down and let the genocide happen to them.

US cities looked like European cities before we decided to change course (they just had grids instead of mazes). We tore down dense cities, built freeways, and mandated suburbia as basically the only development style permitted. We can turn it around quite easily if we wanted.

[1] is a great twitter account that shows the before and after destruction of our cities.

[2] is a great series of videos contrasting our NA development to European development. Plenty of videos demonstrating the course Netherlands was on were following US development styles there too (car dominated inner cities) in the 70s/80s but they consciously decided to change course which is why they look like they do now. So we can change course too. If we want to.

[1] https://twitter.com/SegByDesign [2] https://www.youtube.com/c/notjustbikes

Yeah, I think this is how it works for example in Australia too. You could conceive of this in the US just as easily, for example Medicaid (not Medicare) is a bit like that, run and jointly financed by the state and federal. But again that's "big government" to these states that want to reject healthcare.

What I would bet too is if you go and poll people on whether they like their "big government" program or what to get rid of it, most people would rather keep it, Medicare is big government I don't see seniors wanting rid of it. Social Security is big government. The military, I don't see anyone in these "small government" states saying they want rid of that.

Supreme court determined a long time ago that a state cannot implement a residency requirement (e.g. 1 year minimum residency) before accessing that states benefits.

> If a state wanted to implement something like Medicare for All, I think they could just do that.

Yes. But for the problem explained. Also you can throw in issues such as states can't issue their own currencies or treasuries to finance things.

Really the USA is not set up for this kind of "confederation". We are a federation of states that have very limited powers and very stupidly drawn borders. If we want what it sounds like you're after then we need more a European Union style set up. Not separate states. But entirely separate countries. Basically we should decide if we're a country called the USA and are all American's first, or if we're all Kentuckians, Texans, Washingtonians, first and American's second.

> The federal government was supposed to be small, because the founders understood the downside of a large federal government.

Those that want to return to this need to start advocating to abolish freedom of movement and permit states to implement residency requirements to access services. That way State A can go ahead an implement locally the "large federal government" services like Medicare or Social Security, while State Z can choose not to. At the moment our constitutional rights mean State Z residents can freeload by moving to State A. This kind of problem simply wasn't conceivable when the country was founded.

Here’s Medicare for All. It’s 130 pages. But double spaced with massive margins and indentation space and geriatric sized fonts so really probably about 20 pages. You can read it pretty quickly (I have).

https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1976/BILLS-117hr1976ih....

As below commenters have pointed out this is a choice. Uranium can be sourced from many locations. It can also be processed in Germany if they had wanted (Germany is a part owner of Urenco which also has a small enrichment plant in Germany amongst other locations).

To steel man your argument though in the context of funding Russia’s genocide in Ukraine when comparing Germany’s use of gas vs if it kept its nuclear plants operating we should look at the Euro per joule cost of the gas bought from Russia vs the Euro per joule cost of enriched U bought from Russia. I suspect we are talking orders of magnitude difference. But that information is conveniently not being provided in this article.

Neither is discussed the ability to easily stockpile a couple of years of fuel supply as many plants have done, which right now would enable you to continue operating while spinning up supplies from elsewhere.

Another note regarding the claim in the article: “For the operators of so-called WWER reactors, Russia is therefore even the only supplier of custom-made hexagonal fuel rods.”

Westinghouse can make these fuel assemblies, they started on this for Ukraine. Framatome I believe has also offered to do this. There’s nothing secret about Rosatom fuel assemblies.

The problems at Hanford have zero to do with civilian nuclear power. It's a weapons facility with problems dating back to the Manhattan project.

Hard to buy that conclusion. 35 countries with existing or under construction nuclear power. But only 9 countries with nuclear weapons, 2 of which do not even have any nuclear power. And when you go through the history countries seeking nuclear weapons don't start by building nuclear power, they tend to go straight to fit for purpose reactors dedicated to producing plutonium (e.g. Dimona or Hanford or the French and English equivalents) or to enrichment plants (e.g. as Pakistan did long before it ever had a civilian power plant).

I'm assuming the bulkhead is secured inside the tube. Once complete you enter at the end of the tube (on landside) and sequentially go through removing each bulkhead from the inside of the tube.

In many countries the first time offender 20-something would spend a night in jail, be arraigned the next day, and likely enter a diversionary process where they need to face up to what they did. Perhaps a conference with the victim. Do some community service. Etc. 9/10 this will give someone the chance to seriously rethink their behavior.

If you just want one government owned and operated payment system what does that have to do with having a CBDC?

I haven’t seen any good arguments for it that couldn’t be done in more mundane ways. Want to make banking easier? Regulate free accounts or set up postal banking. Want instant transfers? Other countries have had that for decades. So on so forth. Really most of this is a solution looking for a problem, but unfortunately it comes with a lot of baggage around privacy and controlling what you can do with your money that people wave away.

No. A measly $1 million of funding from an American NGO to prodemocracy initiatives in an authoritarian country racked by inflation and other longer running issues is NOT to blame for Putin deciding to invade. Putin makes his own decisions and the people of Kazakhstan have their own agency, they are not stupid puppets of America.

Russia seems to point at things like this to create a silly narrative that their actions are actually America’s fault. Lots of people lap that kind of thing up in the west then excuse Russia for their crap. It’s amazingly effective.