From @LaChasseuse ---Ugh.

[jones@todon.nl]

From @LaChasseuse

---
Ugh. Quite disgusted to discover there is a Fediverse instance doing propaganda for ☢️ nuclear power, and that they do the same tired old thing they always do:
A) claim all the other ways of generating power are dirty too
B) don't mention how outrageously expensive it is to build, run, clean up after
C) don't mention how it can be used by invading forces or domestic terrorists - like Zaporizhzhia

...and so much more disinformation.

Pls join me in blocking the instance
@greennuclear.online
---

Here is their "about" page: https://greennuclear.online/about

[jones@todon.nl]

@LaChasseuse

cc: @gubi

[jones@todon.nl]

@LaChasseuse @gubi

I've just marked it as noxious on mastodon.help, https://mastodon.help/instances?id=12695 :)

I can't do more now.

[jones@todon.nl]

@LaChasseuse @gubi

I just want to add that, to my knowledge, when pro-nuclear people claim all the other ways of generating power are dirty too, they are right. I guess solar, wind and hydro aren't as much damaging, but they are, currently very much: https://gerrymcgovern.com/new-thinking/

cc: @gerrymcgovern

[77nn@goto.77nn.it]

@jones @LaChasseuse

Why should you? Are they inciting violence, hate-speech, homo/trans-fobic or nazi ideas?

Seeing the world differently doesn't give you any "moral superiority", so why hiding a different worldview?

[lachasseuse@mastodon.scot]

@jones Every thing we do - eating, breeding, exhaling CO2, is "dirty", but nuclear is so many orders of magnitude "dirtier" than pretty much everything other than coal.

Wind turbine blades are now being made of recyclable material, and there is an ongoing process to make every component of photovoltaic panels recyclable too. Hydro is less easy to characterise, as it can be done sensitively, or stupidly.

Using pumped hydro for longterm storage is superb!

@gubi @gerrymcgovern

[lachasseuse@mastodon.scot]

@77nn The justification would be that they are spreading disinformation, ie, things that are well-known to be untrue - and to my mind, purposely leaving out key pieces of information is equally mendacious.

Compare vaccine misinformation?

@jones

[gerrymcgovern@mastodon.green]

@LaChasseuse
Funny how recycling is always an ongoing process, never planned from the beginning ... Oh, we're dumping these multitude of wind turbine blades and solar panels, but don't worry we're working on a solution.

Every gigawatt of wind power causes about 600,000 tons of rare earth toxic mining waste, much of it radioactive.

Wind and solar are just the latest tech fantasy that require hugely areas of the earth to become Green Sacrifice Zones.

@jones @gubi

[77nn@goto.77nn.it]

@LaChasseuse @jones

I will not be dragged into a discussion on information vs misinformation and who holds each. It looks like each side of this topic has their own valid sources, facts and legitimate opinions, differently from anti-vaxxer or chemtrailers and other conspiration theorists. It is not so clear where misinformation stands, and in my neutral stance over the two, I still can see the possibility of coexistence of different energy technologies, with possible mitigations for legitimate fears and criticism.

I feel there's more potential in coexistence than in segregation.

[jones@todon.nl]

@77nn @LaChasseuse

I think we should just turn off all the polluting power plants and all the polluting infrastructure, like this, https://bu.noblogs.org/the-necessary-socialist-international/ (and then, obviously, we should not build new ones).

[77nn@goto.77nn.it]

@jones @LaChasseuse
What do you mean by "polluting"? Releasing chemicals in the environment in order to produce anything (i.e. transform one energy into another), including production processes to build the necessary technologies? Find me anything that doesn't pollute then. Even the blacksmith or the woodworker are polluting, just to say. If you mean "pollute less" then one should be careful to set the threshold, as many things could be excluded that one would never think of.

[lachasseuse@mastodon.scot]

@gerrymcgovern I had the interesting experience of visiting the first modern wind turbine in Denmark around 1980, at an experimental college in Denmark called Tvind. It was huge, had only two blades, and the students had made it as part of their physics studies. It was done completely by discovery, trial and error.
Making the blades that large, and yet keeping them lightweight was a difficult problem for them to solve. /1

@jones @gubi

[lachasseuse@mastodon.scot]

@gerrymcgovern Fibreglass reinforced boats were becoming popular at that time, making pleasure craft more affordable, lighter and easier to build than traditional wooden boats.
I guess it was a no-brainer for them to adapt this technology for building the blades.
It is a great shame that it is such a difficult material to recycle - the upside was that the experiment at Tvind launched the Danish wind turbine industry, laying the foundations for the wind power we have today.
/2

@jones @gubi

[lachasseuse@mastodon.scot]

@gerrymcgovern Science moves forward through increment and iteration. The Danes are very eco-conscious and have been making refinements to the materials they use the whole time.

One can ask, Would this industry have managed to establish itself and succeed if there had been an absolute stipulation on 100% recyclability from the beginning, with only the material sciences available 40 years ago?

I think we are getting better at it now though!

@jones @gubi

[gerrymcgovern@mastodon.green]

@LaChasseuse
Unfortunately, the very foundations of the Scientific Revolution have demanded the destruction of Nature, as Carolyn Merchant pointed out in her profound book, The Death of Nature. The environment nearly always comes last, and is seen as a resource to be exploited. It's why we are where we are, on the verge of collapse, and wind and solar merely accelerate us forward because they simply add to the poisons and pollution.

@jones @gubi

[ukeleleeric@mstdn.social]

@gerrymcgovern @LaChasseuse @jones @gubi your argument falls down, as wind and solar are LESS polluting than the alternatives. The promises from the nuclear industry haven't changed much, except that, whereas we were promised energy by now so cheap that it wouldn't be measured (I recall that in the 70s), it is the most expensive form.

[gubi@sociale.network]

@UkeleleEric @gerrymcgovern @LaChasseuse @jones I agree with all your REN reasoning, but I am still dubious in blocking that pro-nuke instance, as a scientific attitude would rather welcome the comparison between pronuclear claims and actual data about the better performance of renewables. Furthermore, some countries like France are tied to tens of nuke plants and that instance could provide info on how they suggest to deal with them.