Хроники озеленения 4

[ny_quant]

EU plans to label gas and nuclear energy 'green'

Вот ведь как всё просто решается! Я щетаю, надо теперь ещё назначить "зелёными" дизель и уголь и всё будет ханки-дори. Вот только (не)сознательные немцы почему-то недовольны.

Comments

[nameless--one.livejournal.com]

[misha-b.livejournal.com]

I consider nuclear to be green personally. There are essentially no emissions.

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

I agree but the Germans ...

[sydorov47.livejournal.com]

Как им соглашаться если они как раз позакрывали АЭС.

[vsopvs.livejournal.com]

bad timing :)))

[alexanderr.livejournal.com]

> ... I consider nuclear to be green personally. There are essentially no emissions...


right. we should tell that to 35,000 people still evacuated due to 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant disaster

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

disaster?

Сколько там человек погибло? Пять?

[alexanderr.livejournal.com]

а вам обязательно погибнуть? 35,000 больше 10 лет не могут вернуться домой, это не disaster по-вашему? а что же это тогда

(кстати, именно поэтому было использовано слово "disaster", а не "catastrophe". между ними есть разница)

земля отравлена, вода отравлена радиацией. но нет это "green", да?

и если немцы не верят, что атомными станциями можно безопасно оперировать в долгосрочной перспективе, а французы верят, pas de probleme, то тут есть над чем подумать

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

Это неприятность. Кто-то (г-во?) заплатило этим людям за новые дома и переезд, компенсировало убытки - жизнь продолжается. Какой же это на хрен disaster?

[alexanderr.livejournal.com]

да, когда в Японии, то все легко и просто. давайте поговорим, когда радиация потечет в Hudson, и вам придется покидать дом в 24 часа. а компенсация, по гос ценам придет потом, через год.

[misha-b.livejournal.com]

If it functions normally, there are no emissions. There are still risks, of course, but there are quite low compared to coal or oil. Wind and solar are better, no doubt, but they require batteries which still have to be built.

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

And wind blades are not recyclable.

[misha-b.livejournal.com]

That is likealy solvable. Even it is not, easier to deal with those than with nuclear waste.

[alexanderr.livejournal.com]

right. Germany supposedly did the in-depth analysis on the long term safety of the nuclear power, and they concluded that they cannot guarantee it. but hey, what do they know. The French are saying "pas de probleme"

based on known history, the chance of a major accident on a nuclear plant is on the order of 1 or 2 per 100 years. so if you have one near you, you likely will have to deal with it at least once in your lifetime. is that an acceptable tradeoff? Germans do not think so

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

Exactly - what do they know now that they didn't know when they built theirs?

Past performance doesn't guarantee future results. Is that familiar? Especially when we talk about exceedingly rare observations.

Consider: Someone was buying a lottery ticket every week for 25 years and finally hit the jackpot. What will you say about the conclusion that such a weekly playing strategy, based on known history, has a chance of hitting jackpot of order once in 25 years?

[alexanderr.livejournal.com]

for one person and one case it means nothing of course. or it means that chances are low

I am no arguing that chances of a nuclear plant disaster are high, they are indeed very very low.

All I am saying is that the product of the low chance and of the high cost of consequences of such an event might not be acceptable to some countries. Like Germany

it is a hard calculation to do, and hard to get it right, I agree with that as well

I guess the real target for those accidents should be "basically never", and that is impossible to guarantee

[misha-b.livejournal.com]

I think it is much less than 1/100 years per reactor. There were perhaps three or four major accidents in the last 60 years out is hundreds nuclear reactors.

Either way just Deepwater Horizon accident on its own was quite comparable to nuclear accidents in scope.

[alexanderr.livejournal.com]

fair enough, OK, it is probably much lower than 1 in 100 years per 1 reactor. the concern is that if you build more of them, your exposure grows as well. unless you are also making them safer somehow, by the same factor

[misha-b.livejournal.com]

Say, the actual probability is 1/1000 years (even that is likely too high). A lot of people live in places where nasty natural events happen far more often than that, perhaps every 50 or 100 years or even more frequently. Earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc. I just don't see it as a huge deal, especially if you take climate change disruptions seriously.

[alexanderr.livejournal.com]

the aftermath of a nuclear event lasts much longer than earthquake or a hurricane or even a volcanic eruption. the polluted area becomes uninhabitable for decades if not longer. is anyone going back to Pripyat/Chernobyl? I do not think so

I know one thing with 100% certainty: rich folks definitely do not want a nuclear plant in their backyard. And they will go a very long way to make sure it does not happen. Back in the 1990s when I lived on Long Island, LILCO had plans to build a nuclear power plant on the island. They even started digging on the construction site. In the end they were not only forced to stop the construction, but they had to prove that it would not be possible to re-start the construction at any time in the future. they had to pour cement all over that site, making it completely useless. That's how rich folks deal with the nuclear power. Sure, build it upstate or whatever. Not in my backyard. And I agree with them, they are smart people

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

Nor do they want to see wind farms blocking their view.

[alexanderr.livejournal.com]

good point, wind farms are ugly. there should be a better way

[misha-b.livejournal.com]

> the aftermath of a nuclear event lasts much longer than earthquake or a hurricane or even a volcanic eruption.

True. On the other hand, the damage from nuclear disasters is much smaller. The tsunami in Fukushima killed over 15000 people and leveled the city. The radiation killed maybe one.

> rich folks definitely do not want a nuclear plant in their backyard.

I agree that they don't, but that is not a good argument. As ny_quant said they don't want windmills either.

P.S. In many places they don't even like rooftop solar because it is not pretty enough for them

[aklepatc.livejournal.com]

[snake-d-ha.livejournal.com]

[ivanoff272.livejournal.com]

off-topic
как Вам рынки? кто рУлит, быки али медведИ?

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

По утрам медведи, а ближе к вечеру они идут спать и во вторую смену приходят быки.

Общее ощущение, что it will get worse before it will get better. С учетом моих выдающихся прошлых успехов в market-timing, покупать надо сейчас.

[ivanoff272.livejournal.com]

С учетом моих выдающихся прошлых успехов в market-timing, покупать надо сейчас
да? ... а вот мой друган окэшился ...
PS anyway thx -- i am mostly on the German market

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

Так и я почти окэшился, that's the point ;(