Comments by "Peter Lund" (@peterfireflylund) on "The 2024 European Commission EXPLAINED" video.

@JessicaDainese it's better and cheaper and more environmentally friendly. There are no good reasons to be against it.
8
@JessicaDainese yeah, I don’t like earthquakes and tsunamis either. They are dangerous.
4
@JessicaDainese lots of destruction caused by earthquake and tsunami. Huge and utterly unnecessary mass evacuation (that did kill some fragile people). Very expensive cleanup due to very dumb and unscientific environmental standards. Practically no real damage caused by the nuclear reactors. The reactors were safe because they had a strong encapsulation of reinforced concrete (several meters thick) which kept almost all the radioactive matter safely inside. Chernobyl famously did not have such an encapsulation because it was a true Soviet tech disaster with no regard for safety. The encapsulation has been standard everywhere else since the 60’s. It works.
3
@JessicaDainese Wind isn't stable. That means the more wind turbines we get, the more do we need something else that can take over -- at very short notice! -- when the wind doesn't blow. That is water reservoirs in places where the geography makes sense (mountains) -- with all the associated environmental problems -- and natural gas, which comes with both environmental problems and geopolitical problems (Russia, Qatar, Libya, Morocco). The whole package is a lot more expensive than we are usually told in the media. Using nuclear power instead is a much better choice -- no need for foreign gas from nasty countries, much cheaper, much safer, huge future stability (we have plenty of uranium in Europe + it is super easy to stockpile decades of fuel), essentially zero pollution.
2
He is also generally known to be... "not the most power consuming light bulb", so to speak. Quite dim, in other words. I want the current Energy Commissioner to continue, even if that results in two Commissioners from Estonia. They are both very qualified for their jobs.
2
@TheOnlyPilm I know and I am generally very much in favour of that rule. But in this case, Estonia actually has two very qualified people -- and they are both women, which some people mistakenly believe is very important.
2
@JessicaDainese again, get a high school education in physics and look at the evidence. Nuclear power is safe. You may have reasons to be skeptical but you have zero good ones. The Soviet Union ran an extremely successful disinformation campaign against nuclear power in the West… while building nuclear power plants like crazy back home, precisely because it was so cheap and safe. Unfortunately, they also built some very dumb and unsafe designs, too, namely the Chernobyl type Google “void coefficient” if you want to know more about why the Chernobyl design was so unsafe.
2
@_o..o_1871 keep lying, you are doing such a good job. Nuclear testing has got nothing to do with nuclear power, so that’s not a real argument. It’s pure demagoguery that only works on the naïve. You’ve also got your timescales for nuclear waste very, very wrong. You are also implying (without saying it outright) that there is a lot of nuclear waste (there isn’t) and that it is very radioactive (it mostly isn’t). You can make anything artificially expensive with a hostile regulatory climate. That’s what happened to nuclear power. A smaller part of the cost came from lack of standardization and mass production. Look at the costs of nuclear power in South Korea if you want to see what happens when the regulatory climate is less hostile (but still very, very hostile!) and when there is more standardization and mass production. Go on, I dare you, take a look. It completely destroys your case…
2
Seems fair to me. If any country should pay asylum-related fines to the EU, it should be Germany. Certainly not Hungary. Why punish them for doing the right thing?
1
@JessicaDainese Albanians are not known for being smart, are they? That really matters, since intelligence is mostly genetic. Take a look at the PISA and TIMMS reports if you want to get a good idea of how intelligent people are in various country. Or aren't, in this case...
1
@JessicaDainese Again, you don't know the first true thing about nuclear power. Get a high school education in physics or get started reading up on reactor design and actual harm from nuclear power (extremely little). While you are at it, look into the extreme harm from massive and unnecessary evacuations (Fukushima). Regarding Russia, it wasn't us who chose to invade Ukraine now, was it? And it wasn't us who orchestrated terror in Europe (Lockerbie), was it?
1
The Council (a mix of directly and indirectly elected people) and the Parliament (directly elected). You don't get to vote for your Prime Minister, either.
1
@JessicaDainese it’s not my fault you are wrong (and scientifically illiterate). Perhaps look into how and why one of the Chernobyl reactors went wrong (and why the others didn’t)? And how it required an immensely stupid reactor design, with essentially zero monitoring sensors, incompetently operated by people who tried to idiotic things? And how no other reactor design before and after was so stupid and unsafe? It is possible to build all sorts of dumb and unsafe chemical plants (remember Bhopal? Seveso? Minamata? Chernobyl was a tiny rounding error compared to those). It is also possible to build safe chemical plants. Nuclear power is no different, except that it is probably a lot easier to build safe nuclear power plants.
1