Recent comments in /f/Green

Enheduanna wrote

I can't find anything about them blocking nuclear.

They started acting against nuclear in late 2015. One example is when the government was providing some support for some financially struggling reactors, they lobbied against those measures so that the reactors would be shut down before their operating licenses expired, and they put up gas power plants in their place. They were successful in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut. They also tried but were unsuccessful in New York and Illinois. Another from 2017 is their lobbying against Zero Emission Credits in Ohio, which would promote nuclear and renewable energy in the state. At the time nuclear power was 14% of power generation, and renewables 4%, making it clear which competition they sought to target with that lobbying.

The article I posted is titled

The title of a single article does not change facts. In 2021 Rosatom only supplied 20% of the nuclear fuel used in europe (source: your article), but 44% of the gas. With other suppliers increasing their market share (niger, etc.) but Russia having a stranglehold on gas, it was profitable to push gas and undermine nuclear, both in terms of money and international power. The growth of non-russian reactor technologies was probably also a factor, as they were losing influence there too.

Regardless of the "but why?" arguments, there is plenty of evidence that they did push anti-nuclear stances in much of europe. Some are linked in the wikipedia article "anti-nuclear movement" for example.

The same wikipedia article also provides more sources regarding API and other fossil fuel lobby groups.

1

Enheduanna wrote

Could I have some examples ?

American Petroleum Institute is a big collection of oil companies that have lobbied heavily against nuclear power subsidies along with renewable power in general.

Why would Russia who dominates the global market rally against nuclear?

They rallied against nuclear in europe, where they did not dominate. While they supplied a fair amount, Niger was growing as a supplier, and was supplying more than them in 2021 (to look at one snapshot in time). In contrast they supplied a lot more of the gas, and that supply of gas gave more money. It also gave more potential power through the threat to cut off the gas supply. They used this power after invading Ukraine, and the response from Germany (for example, as I remember that one the clearest from the time) very clearly showed the threat worked. It comes down to money and power, they got more of both through undermining nuclear power to push gas to europe.

2

Benaresh OP wrote

Another interesting point is that a large part of the people pushing against nuclear power (especially in funding the pushback) are also conservatives.

Could i have some examples ?

It has also been identified that a substantial push for anti-nuclear positions in europe came from Russia

weird. Why Russia Has Such a Strong Grip on Europe’s Nuclear Power

Also Kazakhstan's Kazatomprom supplies 40% of the world's U3O8, much of which is delivered to Russia for conversion and enrichment or goes by rail to St. Petersburg where it is shipped to the West

Why would Russia who dominates the global market rally agaisnt nuclear?

3

Enheduanna wrote

Whenever I see her name mentioned I go and do a quick youtube search, If she's posted a new video on a social science, quite often the first results are rebuttals. Some of them are amusing in their presentation, and some are amusing in how scathing the takedown is. I do love a good video that debunks a bad idea in a way that even a grade schooler could understand. I'm not normally a fan of the "debate" and "debunk" type videos normally, but some of those ones are excellent.

3

Enheduanna wrote

When it comes to solar panel and wind turbines, there are much better options, and I have seen ecosystems around me get destroyed to put up solar farms.

It doesn't even make sense in a capitalist mindset, They could easily offer to take over maintenance (or a portion of it) for the roofs of large buildings like warehouses and factories, save the money on purchasing land and paying the land taxes, and get a good amount of space through that.

If they invested money to develop a good modular small solar panel to replace roofing tiles then they could make very good money through sales of those, especially in countries that provide financial incentives and grants for people to implement renewable power in new buildings and renovations.

The biggest problem with nuclear for most countries is waste storage, but that problem is relatively easily solved. The reason it hasn't been solved yet is money and power. Politicians won't allow projects to go ahead that are safe, because they can push back on it and claim "i'm protecting people" and be believed by those who believe in the nuclear-waste-boogeyman. Capitalists won't spend the money on it because it would be a big investment they don't get to cut corners on to make their usual profits from backhanders from substandard material suppliers and the such. Capitalists don't care about solving existing problems, they just want to invent new ones so they have the only "solution" and can charge money for it, they want easy and fast profits even if it means the world burns to ash.

3

Enheduanna wrote

Why are Physicists like that?

There was a good answer to this given in a video debunking her. To summarise it: Physicists are often used to working in shades of grey much closer to black and white, which leads to them often viewing other areas in the same way. They gain a lot of confidence in reading studies and understanding them in "the hardest field" and think they can apply the same methods they use to other sciences. They do this a lot with social sciences, and forget that the differences in fields introduces new biases that should be controlled for, and don't account for them when judging theories and research. The same can be said for participants in studies, they will give equal weight to people directly affected, and those only tangentially affected. In physics measurements are measurements, tools reporting measurements arent biased, but when looking at people this is not the case.

This doesn't, however, cover her absolute failure in reading the literature or doing basic background checking into conflicts of interests of those presenting findings, something that IS known about in the field of physics. Nor does it explain her willingness to dismiss studies that disagree with her, or ignore retractions of studies that support her, but I think this comes down to typical human confirmation bias, entering the topic with an opinion and seeking evidence to support it, rather than looking at the evidence and using that to form an opinion.

Not quite as summarised as I planned, and I know I've missed some things, but there's part of an answer at least. :)

6

postleftpuppy wrote (edited )

Yeah like, the video may have been shit, but from what I know about nuclear (as not a specialist in the field) it seems to be safe and incredibly eco-friendly in operation (not in construction of course).

I’m very disillusioned with solar panel/wind turbine energy because, at least where I’m at, they’re fucking mowing down forest to put up solar fields.

Now there’s quite a few anti-civ against all of this shit, and those are very fair.

2

Enheduanna wrote

Another interesting point is that a large part of the people pushing against nuclear power (especially in funding the pushback) are also conservatives. The ones against it just happen to be the conservatives who make money from fossil fuels.

It has also been identified that a substantial push for anti-nuclear positions in europe came from Russia, who supply the majority of the gas used there. They have been verified to have infiltrated "green" parties in various countries including Germany and pushing the idea, and funding those who side against nuclear power so they can maintain their control on the fuel supply for europe. It is notable that since the invasion of Ukraine that many of those groups in countries that have cut off Russian gas have seen a drop in funding.

1

Enheduanna wrote

Don't forget transgender people and autism too, she did videos on both of those which listened to hate groups on each side, repeated debunked claims in both, and ignored most of the actual science by cherry picking papers to support what she said.

She also claimed "not enough research" on several topics by finding criteria to exclude studies, some of the things she dismissed as not having enough support from existing research were better supported than claims she has made in other videos that she said had a plenty of support.

If you want a bad take on anything non-physics related then just wait for her to do a video. Even some of her physics videos are questionable, with how she will sensationalise anything that supports a niche idea she supports, even when it is a tiny detail in something much bigger that barely supports the idea at all. I'm not a physicist, but I've seen responses by other physicists that explain the fallacies and exaggerations she has made in ways that make them clear without needing to understand the underlying physics in great detail.

8

postleftpuppy wrote

Even though the job of physics is fundamentally just to build mathematical models to represent complex systems, a lot of physicists like to extrapolate often absurd philosophic positions from the math.

Physics leaks into philosophy, and philosophy leaks into everything.

This is just my conjecture though, I would have to work with physicists more personally to understand this better.

5

Benaresh OP wrote

There are definitely purposes for nuclear energy. For instance, the mars equipment can't reliably get solar or wind power, and so micro-nuclear systems work quite well. But that is a very, very niche scenario, and requires a whole discussion on the role of space exploration in a green system

Yeah i think i mentioned niche uses in another answer.Nasa's Kilopower project was genuine intresting as is thermoelectric batteries Curiosity Rover had one!

Scientists are reasonable and don't hope for a tech fix that saves the status quo. Thats where all the undue nuclear hype comes from.

3

EAN_BAW wrote

I think the growing popularity is from the lens of trying to achieve one thing with the language of another. When they say that nuclear is green and sustainable, they don't mean it in the same way. It is true that, per energy unit, nuclear is less harmful than traditional fossil fuels, but it doesn't excuse:

  1. That it still produces pollution during its lifespan, and that the radionuclides are an ongoing issue, especially in countries like the USA without proper nuclear waste handling facilities

  2. Nuclear has an incredible carbon footprint and startup time that can often become worse when a project is cancelled partway through and left to rot.

  3. Perhaps most egregiously is the fact that it continues to support the non-green lifestyle of high power usage (and especially the entire concept of base load) and modern consumerism without having to make significant changes.

In total, it means that the right and tech bros can SAY that they are using the most "realistic" green option, but this is best translated as "The best green option that lets us keep living the way we have been."

(Quick Side Note: There are definitely purposes for nuclear energy. For instance, the mars equipment can't reliably get solar or wind power, and so micro-nuclear systems work quite well. But that is a very, very niche scenario, and requires a whole discussion on the role of space exploration in a green system)

4

postleftpuppy wrote (edited )

From an engineering standpoint Modern Nuclear is far better than solar or wind when it comes to environmental impact. Though it depends on use-case. I hate how much land those systems destroy.

Conservatives supporting something does not mean the technology is inherently good or bad, though it’s fair to be wary, as conservative interest often reflects corporate interest.

Here’s a good video on it: https://youtu.be/0kahih8RT1k?si=6L5oIZ-9gj6AA_do

1