Thank you for taking the time to reply. I think I kinda understand what you say but I have more reading to do. Currently I’m on some relevant wiki pages trying to get a better understanding [Spent nuclear fuel, Radioactive waste, Long-lived fission product].

In case you (or anyone) have any other links to suggest, please do not hesitate.

Thank you for sharing this link. It was very interesting listening to someone from within the US that is head of an office now and started from Shell Solar.

There is a reasoning that I didn’t get. Maybe I misunderstood something or I lack some information/knowledge. Anyways, here it is:

At 1:02 they talks about nuclear waste saying that all the nuclear waste produced in the US by the nuclear power plants is like a football field that is 10 yards tall and then he talks about why this waste is not concerning.

Later at 1:07 He mentions that the US is not reprocesing the uranium fuel rods, in which 95% of the energy is still there, and that the US should do reprocessing like other countries do.

Doesn’t that mean that these unprocessed rods in the US that are in the “football field of nuclear waste” are therefore a concern?

What kind of a moron are you? When you make claims you bring the proof.

Or you know, I could assert that you’re, say, a donkey-fucker. If you got proof to the contrary, please provide it.

I am not making claims. I shared an article on a matter that bugs me. I wanted to see what people think and potentially inform myself further.

And your input was definitely invaluable!

These are not my points, they come from the article. So for example in relation to your question on the

SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power…

they have a couple of paragraphs that give an explanation.

I find it difficult to follow your reasoning. Initially you said 77 people died from the Chernobyl disaster.

Now you have opinions related to the different estimations but talk about thousands of people, without retracting your previous position.

My personal stance is that sustainability cannot be achieved within capitalism due to its model of eternal growth. We can have one or the other, but not both.

So creating more energy could not be the solution. Creating less demand would be, and the demand comes from industries.

More often than not, I it seems to me this discussion about clean energy is a deflection of the real problem which is industrialisation under capitalism. We don’t question anymore what this energy is needed for.

You find “sane and realistic” to claim that 77 people died due to the Chernobyl accident?

Nuclear energy has, by a staggering margin, the lowest death toll of any form of energy generation per kW produced. And almost all of these come from Chernobyl, where 31 people died due to the explosion, then a further 46 died due to radiation poisoning from the cleanup.

The number of people that died on the spot, could be as low as you say. 77 people is far from being the death toll of the Chernobyl disaster, and that is taking into consideration the fatality numbers are disputed.

The World Health Organization (WHO) suggested in 2006 that cancer deaths could reach 4,000 among the 600,000 most heavily exposed people, a group which includes emergency workers, nearby residents, and evacuees, but excludes residents of low-contaminated areas.[26] A 2006 report, commissioned by the anti nuclear German political party The Greens and sponsored by the Altner Combecher Foundation, predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of worldwide Chernobyl fallout by assuming a linear no-threshold model for very low doses.

A disputed Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[29]

Well what happens in a war or apocalypse

I don’t think you need to go that far. Accidents happen regularly in all industries. Here is a list of some that have been public:

List of nuclear power accidents by country wiki

Building large reactors isn’t economically attractive, so maybe SMRs could help with that.

It looks like this is not the case, at least by reading the following:

Some advocates misleadingly claim that SMRs are more efficient than large ones because they use less fuel. In terms of the amount of heat generated, the amount of uranium fuel that must undergo nuclear fission is the same whether a reactor is large or small. And although reactors that use coolants other than water typically operate at higher temperatures, which can increase the efficiency of conversion of heat to electricity, this is not a big enough effect to outweigh other factors that decrease efficiency of fuel use.

From Five Things the “Nuclear Bros” Don’t Want You to Know About Small Modular Reactors

If you have a source that claims otherwise, please share.

These articles are also quite interesting:

Five Things the “Nuclear Bros” Don’t Want You to Know About Small Modular Reactors

Why Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Won’t Help Counter the Climate Crisis

Just a clarification. The term “Zionism” was first coined by the Viennese writer, Nathan Birnbaum in 1885.

[Source: United Nations - Historical timeline on the question of Palestine]

According to some other* Jewish people:

Jewish Voice for Peace - Our approach to Zionism

While it had many strains historically, the Zionism that took hold and stands today is a settler-colonial movement, establishing an apartheid state where Jews have more rights than others. Our own history teaches us how dangerous this can be.

Palestinian dispossession and occupation are by design. Zionism has meant profound trauma for generations, systematically separating Palestinians from their homes, land, and each other. Zionism, in practice, has resulted in massacres of Palestinian people, ancient villages and olive groves destroyed, families who live just a mile away from each other separated by checkpoints and walls, and children holding onto the keys of the homes from which their grandparents were forcibly exiled.

(* I use the word “other” because jewish zionists are super active in the relevant wiki pages. See relevant video: Former Israel PM Naftali Bennett at a wikipedia editing instruction event)

There is this conversation about nuclear power that bugs me. The downvoting part in this section motivated me enough to talk about the following.

The way I see things humanity does not have an energy issue, industries do. We don’t need more energy to heat our homes, for example. More energy is needed for the industries to be able to expand. So I don’t understand why this SMR “adventure” is so well perceived by the public or even environmentalists.

We know that businesses, corporations etc care only about their monetary profit, and not about the environment or humans. Governments take tones of money to enforce these kind of policies worldwide. Some bribes have even evolved to taxable salaries.

Why are people so eager to defend SMR like it’s a solution? It’s like pretending that the problem is not related to the eternal growth model of capitalism. No?

As you can tell, I cannot see an ecological solutions withing capitalism. Is there anyone who can? If yes, how would those solutions bypass or change the eternal growth model, to a sustainable one?

I might need to change my point of view, this is why I shared this rant.

Israeli independence itself is not identical with the Nakba

Please tell me more about this. But -god forbid- do not take a look at the Jewish Voice for Peace link provided above.

Your answer is a conversation stopper and I will respect that.

Socialist countries? Of course definitions vary, so which ones are you referring to?

Also neo-libs don’t want any state interference on business, unless it involves bailing them out with tones of money. So which capitalist country will do otherwise with so much lobbying going on?

CO2 is not an existential threat, corporations and financial entities are because what we call polution, they call it life.

This week, Israel actually marks its 76th Independence Day.

Some call it the Nakba, like Jewish Voice for Peace among others.

Environment Minister, Paulina Hennig-Kloska, said the investment would be in the public interest and align with Poland’s energy and climate policies.

Some more greenwashing then, in the name of _ public interest._