Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "TLDR News EU"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@demoniack81 You're making several assumptions there that's just wrong.
The process of getting a nuclear power plant up and running involves a lot more than just building the plant itself.
You need a mine that's mining the fuel itself (unlike nuclear power plants these can't be made safe for the surrounding environment and the people there, so they've been closed down rapidly with the fall in demand and increasing hostility towards them, so supply isn't what it was in the eighties.
Even if you get a mine willing to sell to you there's the issue of transporting fuel into and waste out from the plant from the mine and to the disposal site.
That's a logistical nightmare that takes years to set up in a democracy because people there have a right to be involved in the process of what happens near them.
Then there's the complete lack of people willing to invest in or insure nuclear power plants.
As it turns out that when you factor in the costs of dealing with the waste products and decommissioning a nuclear power plant isn't profitable anymore as these easily outstrip the income generated in its lifetime, because nuclear waste while technically does become safe one day in practical terms never does so and remains a permanent cost from the day of their creation, long after the plant has shut down and no longer generate power.
In the eighties it was possible to get fuel and store waste and get financing where these concerns didn't need to be factored in as costs, in today's world companies and goverments are held responsible and that kind of behavior is no longer possible.
Getting past all of that and setting it all up as well as just training the engineers needed and qualified to run a power plant safely takes time.
The ones that used to run them have retired.
And while the fifties where seen as the age of nuclear power when a lot of people studied the field there's a shortage of qualified engineers now.
Training people in the field takes time.
Time we don't have.
Technically we're already too late to avoid irreparably damaging our planet and causing huge amounts of suffering.
It takes time for the damage we've already caused to move through the system of our Earth climate and even if we produced 0 new CO2 and even started removing was one from the atmosphere the effects of climate change would continue to get worse for many years to come, especially when you factor in feedback loops and Earth running out of one of the major stabilizing factors that held climate change from impacting us much in the nineties (the sea floor used to be full of alkaline substances that helped neutralize some of the acidity then, that's practically all gone now).
So, no, we don't have time for this.
Also the very concept of a base load that traditional power grids built on is a problem for renewables.
And sure, you can disconnect a powerplant from the grid, but all that does is making them even more uneconomical.
And they still need power for the cooling etc.
And nuclear fuel being radioactive can't just sit there unused without degrading in quality.
So nuclear power ends up always being a base power that other sources has to come on top off.
Works great with coal, gas etc that can be turned on and off as needed.
Works poorly with renewables that needs a system where power is distributed over much larger areas from much larger areas, where customers themselves will produce power at times completely and utterly outside the control of the electricity companies destroying the very concept of base load, where power production will exceed what's needed but actually be stored for sale when prices are higher (something that requires them to sometimes *get higher) again a base load is problematic.
And if you have the energy production of a powerplant it ensures a constant amount of power in the market that discourages investment in other power generation at a industrial scale (customers will still do it) meaning that power prices will be too low for building of large scale renewable power, and continued CO2 production from nuclear fuel mines, fuel and waste transportation etc.
All of this ignores nuclear accidents, terrorism, wars faught on ground powered by nuclear power like Ukraine right now.
Russian forces only recently retreated from around Chernobyl, and when they took the Chernobyland other nuclear sites they where shelling them.
You can't build a nuclear power plant immune to the ingenuity of humans that wants to cause damage.
They can be as smart or smarter then the engineers and others that got the powerplant and the surrounding systems (fuel mining and refining, waste management, transportation, security etc) up and running to begin with.
And there's always people who don't care about the suffering of others.
Putin being a example here...
Basically, we don't live in the eighties anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There's a couple of other details worth noting.
First of all, Denmark signed a international Treaty making Iceland a nonmilitarized zone before Iceland gained independence, while never signed by Iceland they've continued to honour it.
Another thing is.
Iceland was technically part of Norway for most of the time Denmark ruled on Iceland, basically in Norway we had our own laws, administration, succession laws etc, we just happened to end up with the same kings as Denmark for many, many years, leading to us being a junior partner in the union.
Iceland as a result had essentially been ruled by Norway for most of that period when Danish kings ruled.
Eventually Norway was legally integrated, but it took a long time to fully implement that with shared administration, laws etc.
When Norway was ceded to Sweden in 1814 Iceland really got integrated into Denmark.
Although as you mentioned, some self rule was given back again some years later...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@valcarlin2537 Fighting alongside the Nazies in WW2 doesn't necessarily mean that you are one.
Just look at Finland for instance.
The USSR always tried to paint the opposition as being foreign influences or attached to their foreign enemies.
It gave them a pretext for persecution.
With such a hostile force as the Soviets and now Russia to deal with the enemy of my enemy ends up being my friend.
Finland faught to regain territory lost in the winter war as a co-belligerent but not a axis member (never signed the treaty).
And likewise when trying to achieve Ukrainian independence after having their language and culture suppressed as has happened many times since the Russians started treating "Rus" as being a single ethnicity instead of a collective term for all Slavic people as it used to be used as at the time of the principality of Moscow if I don't remember wrong, and started acting as if they where the rightful rulers of all Slavs.
Refusing to acknowledge that the Kievian Rus where not a single ethnic group but rather a state with many ethnicities, made up of many tribes that had faught each other in the past.
(Edit, okey, sorry about the long sentence, just too tired to fix it right now)
Yet now Moscow was supposed to rule over all the other Slavic peoples and only the culture of Moscow where to live on...
Obviously this didn't go down too well with peoples who didn't belong to their culture...
Who had their languages and cultures suppressed in attempts at Russification...
Crimea and much of eastern Ukraine used to be Ukrainian speaking, but isn't anymore.
Between settlement of Russians there and suppression of Ukrainian culture...
And indeed the intentional death of many Ukrainians...
Still every part of Ukraine, even Crimea voted to leave the USSR and had a majority in favour of independence, although it was awfully close in Crimea (54,19% in favour of independence in Crimea vs 90,13% in Kherson, 83,90% in Donetsk, 83,86% in Lugansk etc)
1
-
1
-
1