"Is “degrowth” a noble environmental solution — or one of history’s truly terrible ideas? In this episode of Saving the World from Bad Ideas, Mark Lynas sits down with Adam Dorr, Director of Research at RethinkX and author of The Degrowth Delusion: Dispelling One of History’s Truly Terrible Ideas."
Today is Digital Independence Day, a German initiative to move more and more away from Big Tech in 2026. Let's reclaim our independence!
A step closer to fully artificial wombs from conception. A step closer to making humans on demand.
"Idaho National Laboratory has launched full-scale production of enriched fuel salt for the world's first test of a molten chloride salt fast reactor - technology that could be deployed as soon as the 2030s for both terrestrial and maritime applications."
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/first-fuel-produced-for-molten-salt-reactor-experiment
Idaho National Laboratory has launched full-scale production of enriched fuel salt for the world's first test of a molten chloride salt fast reactor - technology that could be deployed as soon as the 2030s for both terrestrial and maritime applications. ;
@johnlogic Read the sources. The 4000 number comes from the UN from the early 2000s and describes a *model* of people expected to die between 1986 and 2065. Why this period? Because it is one human lifetime and the biggest impact was expected from thyroid cancer, which affected young children the most.
Thing is, since then the model didn't pan out. There was no higher rate of thyroid cancer observed. It dwindled into statistical irrelevancy. The 4000 number is therefore no longer used by the UN.
I'm not familiar with a 60k estimate by reputable sources.
But let's say 60,000 people would indeed die between 1986 and 2065. Fossil kills around 8 million people a year [1]. This is where I got the "a Chornobyl every five minutes" statement from btw.
I don't want this to be a pissing contest. Fact is that nuclear is among the safest energy sources known to mankind [2]. Your original statement that we need "a reminder of the dangers of nuclear power" is what I replied to. I hope you understand why this is a highly problematic statement.
[1] https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
"A Rockefeller Foundation study sees nuclear potentially delivering 20% of electricity generation in eight key emerging economies by 2050 - and says that philanthropy can play a "catalytic role" in making it happen."
A Rockefeller Foundation study sees nuclear potentially delivering 20% of electricity generation in eight key emerging economies by 2050 - and says that philanthropy can play a "catalytic role" in making it happen. ;
RE: https://greennuclear.online/@ElTico/115621785704736930
The strongest anti-nuclear argument in the face of fact: *blocks you*
@lalonsander "Méndez Galain told me. I interviewed Uruguay’s former energy minister, who served from 2008 to 2015[...]"
I don't want to be that guy, but I don't actually see a transition. Sure, solar and wind was added, but in 2001, 2002 and 2003 the country already ran 100% on renewables (hydro).
Our World in Data doesn't have the mix of total energy use, which is a lot more (45 TWh total energy, 17 TWh is electrical), so if someone has data on this I'm all ears.
Emil Jacobs - Collectifission