The scientific community is not a unified body, so having scientists questioning any scientific model does not seem like a “wow” moment. But, when the discourse starts including strong vocabulary, admittedly I start questioning/researching claims. And I appreciate it when studies conclude by saying things like: cautious of interpretation is needed, or further studies are warranted, etc.

Apart from that, sure, maybe the LNT model needs some re-evaluation, maybe not - I dunno, time will tell. Still, to my understanding, one problem with ionising radiation is that the dosage received by people is not always as tightly controlled as needed for it to be safe, despite all efforts. Not even in work environments.

• If I got this right, from in table 1, p3 one could get to the conclusion that to decommission photovoltaics creates 7 times more CO₂ (more precisely g CO2e/kWh), than decommissionning a nuclear plant for decades, as shown above. It made me wonder how they arrived to these measurements. But the link to the study for the nuclear is dead (see Heath, Garvin A., and Margaret K. Mann. 2012). So this cannot be verified.

• Having a solution in the works, is very different from what you said, which was: Nuclear waste is not and has never been a real problem.

Bye-bye now

The lifecycle emissions of nuclear plants are similar to (…)

The link you provided talks about something more specific than what you just said. It’s about the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation. This means that the decommissioning of a nuclear plant for example is not taken into account for these emissions, and it is well known that decommissioning a nuclear reactor can easily take several decades (example from world nuclear news)

Nuclear waste is not and has never been a real problem.

The links I added above about France tell another story.

In terms of cleanness it is also incredibly clean.

I believe nowadays it would make more sense to compare nuclear to renewable energy, not coal. Apart from that it’s important to keep in mind the nuclear waste problem.

• France seeks strategy as nuclear waste site risks saturation point | Reuters
• Exposed: French nuclear companies dumping radioactive waste in Siberia | Greenpeace

Bill Gates is a notorious capitalist. As mentioned in this article:

Gates sees nuclear power as a way to provide data centers with the power they need as well as to lower electricity costs.

He only cares about his projects and money, definitely not about people. See:

Tell Bill Gates: Stop Microsoft’s partnerships with the Israeli Military and ICE

“Fast action” in what sense? It looks like the nuclear phase-out in Germany started decades ago.

The history behind Germany’s nuclear phase-out

The nuclear phase-out is as much part of the Energiewende (energy transition) as the move towards a low-carbon economy. (…) a majority of Germans is still in favour of putting an end to nuclear power.

after 1989 no new commercial nuclear power stations were built

This is exiting news! Fingers crossed that this process goes as smoothly as possible for you, and thank you for everything.

Of course cultural appropriation of spiritual indigenous narratives from westerners is something that has been happening for decades. And I totally see the point of your analysis.

In a way, what I was trying to say is that even tho this kinds of appropriations need to be fought so they don’t take over the political discourse about ecology, by itself this doesn’t seem enough imo. In order to fight the power imbalance that colonisers have created throughout the centuries, I believe there is also a need to consciously take into consideration, as well as incorporate the suggestions and approaches of indigenous people in the relevant discourses in western politics, ecology, and their intersections. Certainly, without the element of appropriation, but as as equals.

I tend to agree with this article, but it is also a very slippery slope.

We must be careful not to erase once more indigenous/local narratives because we don’t like the vocabulary used. We risk to contribute into reproducing the colonisers’ power imbalance by disregarding local knowledge, just because it is presented in non-western way (i.e. cultural burnings).

Maybe, I really don’t know. Do you perhaps have a relevant tutorial to share?

I’m not too sure if I missed it, but what’s the budget for this?

I only know that it is both casually used as a park and that they are also regularly doing stuff there.

Thanx!

I don’t have access to this articles, I get a paywall after a few sentences. Same with the archive link. Any ideas how to access it without a subscription?

I am not too sure I understand what your objection to this article is. Ok gas is considered sustainable under some conditions. This doesn’t seen to me like something contradicting that the EU Court ruling on Taxonomy sets a dangerous precedent. For me this is the point.

Did I get something wrong?

If I get you correctly, I totally agree with what you say. I didn’t like the tone of this article in the sense that it presents it ok to clear out forest for solar panels, and personally I believe it’s criminal, or something. I just thought it had some important info.

Thank you for giving me the chance to clarify where I stand on this and I will edit the post to reflect this.

Anything I suppose, this is why I’m asking.

I could be no, don’t cut the trees, or no, don’t talk bad about solar energy expansion, or… you name it! No?

Meaning?

I believe when we talk about emission related to the US we shouldn’t take into account only the emissions inside the country, but also those created by the US elsewhere, from its military for example. And this is a problem that dates way back, long before the last couple of elections.

The US military’s carbon footprint is mind-bogglingly big. Here’s how they could cut it | BBC Science Focus

The US military is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases of any institution on Earth, generating an estimated 636 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent (a standardised measure of greenhouse gas emissions) between 2010 and 2019.

If it were a country, this would make the US military rank 47th globally in emissions, ahead of nations like Sweden and Portugal.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. These figures only include what’s known (…)

But accounting for global military emissions is a tricky business. Because the reporting is voluntary

This is definately a project to keep an eye out and see how it goes.

If I got this right, the floaters were placed incide the breakwater. So, how can they estimate the impact on the actual marine life of the area (plants, fish, their migration routes, marine mammals etc), meaning outside the breakwater, where the positioning is optimal.

If we consider the the term triple planetary crisis to be a valid one, then we cannot exclude the impact on the local biodiversity and ecosystems of the green energy projects, for example. It looks like in this article they are not even mentioned.