Right. That doesn't detract from the fact that modern nuclear reactors are (significantly) safer than older reactors. Something that is taken into account by nations addressing energy needs. In the future it's obvious that much or most of our energy will come from renewables, however for now we run on a mixture.
As Europe decouples from Russia as an energy source, it means that in the short-term we'll have to go to other sources of fossil fuels (no magic way around that), but in the medium and long term it should definitely help speed up greater transition to renewables.
Solar farms have no place on arable land. Stick them in the bogs (or deserts abroad) but wasting 5 acres per MW with a capacity factor of 11% in Ireland should be a criminal offence.
Before anyone sits down to plan the future relationship between Russia and any soverign/democratic state it would be very wise to Google the following - evaluation of Russia by Finnish intelligence colonel. . IMO I would not bother with the iron curtain. I would just decide to have NOTHING to do with RUSSIA in principal. I might allow a very very small embassy and very tight controls overANY Russian coming into my country. For the first few years and review the relationship after that. I would make it VERY VERY clear that I would have NO intention of EVER invading it. I would let them live in their own SWILL.
if the above is not substantially taken on board then RU will continue biting off bits here and there, continue its strategepy of placing Russians in areas that it wants to sow decent/ conflict, cyberattacks , etc
Whoever REPLACES PUTIN will carryon the same strategy UNLESS they can prove otherwise - and it might take them YEARS to prove so. Part of this proof might be financing the cost of putting back Ukraine to the way it was before the invasion, vacate Crimea, Donbas and lunask
I just have absolutely no faith in humanity and don’t trust our species with anything potentially dangerous no matter how many safeguards in place. 😞
And there will always be somebody or some country willing to corrupt a powerful thing for their own gain, so it’s preferable that thing cannot destroy things if possible.
I find it fascinating that she's so open about her vision for Russia in the future.
Nazi propaganda was actually very similar though. Goebbels portrayed the western powers as deeply corrupt and decadent and the word "democracy" as a byword for corruption and moral decay i.e. people needed to live in an authoritarian state, where the state knew what was best for them and had their best interests at heart.
Modern nuclear reactors are much safer.
Yes, and that's one of the reasons for the interest in hydrogen. Also, this event has highlighted the critical importance of fertilisers to maintaining the human overpopulation of the planet. Much of that fertiliser is made from natural gas, but if you use solar energy to manufacture hydrogen and convert that to ammonia, it becomes relatively easy to transport compared to hydrogen and is an ideal precursor for making ferilisor - just add nitrogen - ammonium nitrate. I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to just make that in close proximity to your solar farms and cut out the transporting ammonia bit as well.
Imagine hearing that on Prime Time or Claire Byrne live. How can any population think that is acceptable? Or are they completely stupid over there in Russia and so far gone down the hole blinded by a nationalist mindset.
Couple of things with this (as I had heard it). Firstly that doesn’t say much for humanity as a species in general, that an area that had a radioactive disaster is doing ecologically better now then before the disaster because there’s less human interference.
secondly , there have been reports of Russian soldiers suffering from some sort of radioactive poisoning for digging around Chernobyl. Is this true or lies? Or is it that some areas of Chernobyl are ok and others are not?
Thirdly, the generational damage caused to families by Chernobyl is not to be sniffed at. The potential of killing millions across Europe was a reality back at the crisis. Many people died of cancer and have suffered health wise as a result.
Not specifically a reason to completely rule out nuclear power but you can’t ignore its risks because it’s cheap and doesn’t add to CO2 levels as much as oil.
Graphic stuff, Russians being ambushed
Is one of the biggest problems with solar not storing it?
The Chernobyl exclusion zone has one of the most thriving ecologies in Europe. The environment is doing better now than it ever did with humans in it.
Early days, but t does seem the eastern Russian offensive is underway. I post a pro-Ukrainian view for this.
Early gains by the Russians. Kreminna is about 25km north of Sieverodonetsk ( Siverodenestk capture important) Heard reports the Russians are now attacking multiple Ukrainian defensive areas but it's too early to tell the success.
You are being completely ridiculous. Uranium is mined in Australia. No one has died from the radiological aspects and mining it does not spread radioative dust into the air which then encircles and polutes the entire planet. Absolute mindlessly stupid nonsense.. You get no radiation exposure from global uranium mining while you do get a dose of radiation from flying in a plane.
Nuclear energy has produced more CO2 free energy than all the worlds renewables combined. The only energy source that has done more to decarbonise energy is hydro.
Bad faith point there, as if there’s nothing else possible ever but oil or nuclear power. Issue with humanity is usually the will to do something. If something is hard humanity will usually find the easiest way out of avoiding pain now so it can put off the pain for later. Nuclear power seems like one of humanity’s many lazy solutions.
One candidate would be hydrogen, and there are already some efforts being made to replace some existing fuels with hydrogen made from renewable energy. Costs aren't there yet, and may never be.
Scary but 'optimistic'.
Sure thing..
If only one country had weapons and those pesky neighbouring countries simply agreed to be invaded and taken over there would be no need for war.
Similarly there would be no rape if their women and children just agreed to whatever the invading army 'special military operators' wanted to do with them.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
I don't agree with nuclear of any kind. Once you open a uranium mine that stuff is getting into the atmosphere, the sea...and it is there forever. They you start digging out the rock and more of the stuff is coming out. And they would have to open hundreds of these mines and dig the ore out. You don't need a nuclear accident at that rate. That stuff should be left in the ground.
Nothing beats russian tanks when it comes to turret tossing,t72 is in the lead followed closely by t80 and t90.
t72 still holds the world record
I was thinking of something that has less potential to cause a catastrophic environmental disaster if something should go wrong and leave such toxic waste (even if minimal). Settling on a fuel that could leave an area uninhabitable for generations is a low bar.
These people are truly evil.
Yes why would neutral countries like Sweden and Finland send weapons to Ukraine i wonder
It's like watching a parallel universe.
Your wan is obviously part of the Russian elite, where her social status depends on treating ordinary Russians like 'grib'.
Yoda, correct is.
We should send weapons, they want their country back and want the tools to do the job. They do not want to be homeless refugees. Look here:
The more weapons sent the less Ukrainians raped, murdered........
Strangely compelling viewing……
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9429a6e87ca90295fb14e1083556c0c3.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c635d680d76ce16e490d61f21d7a1353.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eedacf599b4135dfd56d6fdbddcbd867.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/05bfdb0bc9f81b358ccf2f55186422bb.svg)
