EU Politics: I miss Renaults(don't make fun of me)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > EU Politics: I miss Renaults(don't make fun of me)

«‹›959 »

Antigravitas: Dec 8, 2019; Die Rettung fuer die Landwirte:

Bar graph snipe:

Percentage of representatives who answered when asked whether they had accepted donations.

Volume of donations per party.

Who thinks the rules for disclosing donations: are sufficient (blue), did not answer this question (grey), insufficient (red).

I guess I don't have to mention it, but� CDU/CSU are corrupt top to bottom.

# ? Apr 20, 2021 22:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 21:13

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

Libluini posted:

that was maybe true before German unification, but even then the German Greens were a pretty mixed bunch, as the were mostly formed on the realization that tiny narrow interest groups had zero chance at the polls

and then after unification, tons of Ex-DDR narrow interest groups joined them, too

The German Green party of today is basically the exact opposite of a narrow interest group. Of course, if all you ever read is CDU/CSU-propaganda, you'd never know that.

every Green party is this, it's like the iron law of Greens

the way Greens work is that they channel our feelings of desperation in the face of how the world is going (climate change, housing markets, ecosystem collapse etc) into a form of action which is both very concrete - appeals to eat less meat, reform agriculture, stop nuclear energy(?), discourage motor traffic, increase density etc - and ultimately insufficient. they do this because they consciously fudge their theory of how society actually works and how change might be possible, replacing analysis of society with appeals to half-forgotten school civics classes and a general sense of moralism. they are not the only ones to do this, but they're the parties most conspicuously denying that they serve any kind of material interest at all.

because their proposed changes are so immediately visible, they get a lot of attention and look very radical, but they have no answer to how they're going to prevent their measures from being immediately subverted. avocadoes and soy products are vegan, but they're still produced in entirely unsustainable ways. plastic wrapping is a problem, so it's eliminated, which causes tremendous amounts of increased food wastage. we must trust the science, even when the science is economics and says that temporal discounting is a sane way to calculate necessary investment in climate change mitigation. the only way to actually deal with these things is by shifting away from an economy based on growth and accumulation of financial power, which is impossible to conceptualise within the Green sphere of thinking. it may well be Actually Impossible as well - i don't know.

this is not to say that the may not be better than SPD, but they are structurally incapable of doing what they are ostensibly there to do, which is to halt our ongoing ecocide. what they are capable of is to represent a coalition of social interests which wants the things they want - a clean conscience (so very much a middle-class focus there), high-density nice cities (getting developers on board), high levels of investment in technology (hello, tech sector) and probably some sort of agricultural policy (so you get a semblance of non-urban support). the problem with the Greens isn't really what they are - the interests are there, and they could certainly find more odious coalitions - it's the discrepancy between that and what they claim to be

# ? Apr 21, 2021 10:32

Osmosisch: Sep 9, 2007; I shall make everyone look like me! Then when they trick each other, they will say "oh that Coyote, he is the smartest one, he can even trick the great Coyote."; Grimey Drawer

V. Illych L. posted:

the science is economics

I don't disagree with what you're saying around this, but treating economics as science is risky business in most cases.

# ? Apr 21, 2021 11:49

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

I find it more difficult to imagine a wave of Green victories in Europe than a Brown one.

# ? Apr 21, 2021 11:59

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

Osmosisch posted:

I don't disagree with what you're saying around this, but treating economics as science is risky business in most cases.

that's sort of the point

"science" is basically a mantle of institutional prestige in this context, which means that general claims of scientific policy or calls to follow "the science" can and will lead to a specific form of technocratic positivism

"believe in science" is not a slogan that allows for this kind of nuance, is what i'm saying

# ? Apr 21, 2021 14:45

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

V. Illych L. posted:

that's sort of the point

"science" is basically a mantle of institutional prestige in this context, which means that general claims of scientific policy or calls to follow "the science" can and will lead to a specific form of technocratic positivism

"believe in science" is not a slogan that allows for this kind of nuance, is what i'm saying

believe in science except when it involves nucular fission or systematic surveys on the health impacts of nucular fission (exceptions from the exception may be made if nucular fission ends up looking super bad)

# ? Apr 21, 2021 17:54

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

like, i don't think technocratic approaches are necessarily bad, but if you pretend you can do pure technocracy while avoiding ideology in the formulation of the goals that technocracy is supposed to achieve i have a bridge to sell to you

# ? Apr 21, 2021 17:55

Lord Stimperor: Jun 13, 2018; I'm a lovable meme.

Okay but let's be fair, I had highly doubt that people distrust the *science* of nuclear fission. It's a beautiful technology and I believe many Green voters will agree. The reason they don't want it is because they distrust the people that are going to run it.

Think of the people who ran wire card, the Dutch policy makers who refused to invest 10M in vaccination production because it was expensive and now put more than a billion in public covid events and mass testing, the complete and utter failures across the entire continent to contain covid.

Think of the people who realized years into brexit negotiation that yes, Dover is a big port, actually, and that there'd be a border on Ireland. Think of how the Flint water crisis happened. Think of the entire loving Trump administration and how they dealt with the pandemic initially. That is exactly the kind of people you need to be cool with running nuclear sites if you want them, because sooner or later it *will* be their turn to run them. They will systematically gently caress up the plants and storage sites and cut corners until the holes in the Swiss Cheese are big enough that something happens.

Chernobyl didn't happen because the reactor didn't work, it happened because there was a concatenation of human decisions that cumulatively brought the reactor in an unrecoverable state. Same thing at Fukushima, it was long known that the site wouldn't withstand a natural catastrophe and nothing was done regardless. The workers at Fernald didn't irradiate their families due to some tragic accident but because the facility was run in an unsafe manner.
Look at Asse in Germany, where small amounts of meticulously catalogued waste was meant to be stored in a perpetually safe location, and where now that the location isn't safe anymore, it turns out that no one knows what waste they actually took in, or where it went, or how much there is, costing billions every year just to prevent the waste to leak into the ground water.

In all of the cases there wasn't really anything wrong with the machines or sites themselves. The underlying physics were well understood. All these failures were exclusively related to human factors: the need to get tests done quickly, the need to ramp up production, cut costs, complacency, toxic work environments degrading safety culture.

That is what I believe the reluctance to nuclear energy is really about. And the online STEM lords never address that part, waving away these concerns as mushy human relations things - demonstrating exactly the lack of safety awareness that the industry is suspected of.

# ? Apr 21, 2021 19:12

mortons stork: Oct 13, 2012

e: actually, I misread the topic of discussion. apologies. I need to sleep more

mortons stork fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Apr 21, 2021

# ? Apr 21, 2021 19:18

Antigravitas: Dec 8, 2019; Die Rettung fuer die Landwirte:

When it comes to nuclear energy, a lot of people suddenly trust capitalism.

Also, fun reminder: There is no storage solution for the waste. Spent fuel is currently sitting on site and will become the taxpayer's problem since the companies have extracted the money already. Waste is being excavated from Asse II, also with tax money, after being dumped there with little oversight.

And of course there's an inconvenient fact that despite CDU/CSU sabotaging both domestic solar and wind whenever they could, nuclear is more expensive despite heavy subsidies.

# ? Apr 21, 2021 19:29

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Lord Stimperor posted:

Okay but let's be fair, I had highly doubt that people distrust the *science* of nuclear fission. It's a beautiful technology and I believe many Green voters will agree. The reason they don't want it is because they distrust the people that are going to run it.

Think of the people who ran wire card, the Dutch policy makers who refused to invest 10M in vaccination production because it was expensive and now put more than a billion in public covid events and mass testing, the complete and utter failures across the entire continent to contain covid.

Think of the people who realized years into brexit negotiation that yes, Dover is a big port, actually, and that there'd be a border on Ireland. Think of how the Flint water crisis happened. Think of the entire loving Trump administration and how they dealt with the pandemic initially. That is exactly the kind of people you need to be cool with running nuclear sites if you want them, because sooner or later it *will* be their turn to run them. They will systematically gently caress up the plants and storage sites and cut corners until the holes in the Swiss Cheese are big enough that something happens.

Chernobyl didn't happen because the reactor didn't work, it happened because there was a concatenation of human decisions that cumulatively brought the reactor in an unrecoverable state. Same thing at Fukushima, it was long known that the site wouldn't withstand a natural catastrophe and nothing was done regardless. The workers at Fernald didn't irradiate their families due to some tragic accident but because the facility was run in an unsafe manner.
Look at Asse in Germany, where small amounts of meticulously catalogued waste was meant to be stored in a perpetually safe location, and where now that the location isn't safe anymore, it turns out that no one knows what waste they actually took in, or where it went, or how much there is, costing billions every year just to prevent the waste to leak into the ground water.

In all of the cases there wasn't really anything wrong with the machines or sites themselves. The underlying physics were well understood. All these failures were exclusively related to human factors: the need to get tests done quickly, the need to ramp up production, cut costs, complacency, toxic work environments degrading safety culture.

That is what I believe the reluctance to nuclear energy is really about. And the online STEM lords never address that part, waving away these concerns as mushy human relations things - demonstrating exactly the lack of safety awareness that the industry is suspected of.

The same people run coal power plants.

Antigravitas posted:

Also, fun reminder: There is no storage solution for the waste. Spent fuel is currently sitting on site and will become the taxpayer's problem since the companies have extracted the money already. Waste is being excavated from Asse II, also with tax money, after being dumped there with little oversight.

Just dump it in a desert mine.

Antigravitas posted:

And of course there's an inconvenient fact that despite CDU/CSU sabotaging both domestic solar and wind whenever they could, nuclear is more expensive despite heavy subsidies.

Nuclear power serves a different purpose, being on-demand power. Solar and wind gets to be cheaper because we accept that it's intermittent.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Apr 21, 2021

# ? Apr 21, 2021 19:30

breadshaped: Apr 1, 2010; Soiled Meat

Nuclear waste is better off in the deep ocean than anywhere on the land, no matter how deep.

# ? Apr 21, 2021 20:45

feller: Jul 5, 2006

Bedshaped posted:

Nuclear waste is better off in the deep ocean than anywhere on the land, no matter how deep.

do not trust this agent of r'lyeh

# ? Apr 21, 2021 20:58

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Bedshaped posted:

Nuclear waste is better off in the deep ocean than anywhere on the land, no matter how deep.

The land location is better if you can recycle it for other purposes/new technologies.

# ? Apr 21, 2021 21:07

breadshaped: Apr 1, 2010; Soiled Meat

If/When the time comes to use fast breeder reactors we're definitely not going to be digging through our old faeces for useful fuel.

# ? Apr 21, 2021 21:45

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

the nuclear power thing is more of a legacy issue anyway - modern Greens are deeply split on the issue and i fully expect them largely embrace nuclear by the end of this decade

# ? Apr 21, 2021 22:18

WAR CRIME GIGOLO: Oct 3, 2012; The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

V. Illych L. posted:

the nuclear power thing is more of a legacy issue anyway - modern Greens are deeply split on the issue and i fully expect them largely embrace nuclear by the end of this decade

Embrace nuclear. Dethrone germany.

# ? Apr 21, 2021 22:56

Antigravitas: Dec 8, 2019; Die Rettung fuer die Landwirte:

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Just dump it in a desert mine.

Germany, famous for its deserts and its geologically stable mines.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 07:09

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Antigravitas posted:

Germany, famous for its deserts and its geologically stable mines.

It doesn�t have to be in Germany.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 07:22

Antigravitas: Dec 8, 2019; Die Rettung fuer die Landwirte:

How exactly? Nobody takes that waste voluntarily now and I don't see that changing in the future.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 07:32

Randarkman: Jul 18, 2011

Lord Stimperor posted:

Okay but let's be fair, I had highly doubt that people distrust the *science* of nuclear fission. It's a beautiful technology and I believe many Green voters will agree. The reason they don't want it is because they distrust the people that are going to run it.

Think of the people who ran wire card, the Dutch policy makers who refused to invest 10M in vaccination production because it was expensive and now put more than a billion in public covid events and mass testing, the complete and utter failures across the entire continent to contain covid.

Think of the people who realized years into brexit negotiation that yes, Dover is a big port, actually, and that there'd be a border on Ireland. Think of how the Flint water crisis happened. Think of the entire loving Trump administration and how they dealt with the pandemic initially. That is exactly the kind of people you need to be cool with running nuclear sites if you want them, because sooner or later it *will* be their turn to run them. They will systematically gently caress up the plants and storage sites and cut corners until the holes in the Swiss Cheese are big enough that something happens.

Chernobyl didn't happen because the reactor didn't work, it happened because there was a concatenation of human decisions that cumulatively brought the reactor in an unrecoverable state. Same thing at Fukushima, it was long known that the site wouldn't withstand a natural catastrophe and nothing was done regardless. The workers at Fernald didn't irradiate their families due to some tragic accident but because the facility was run in an unsafe manner.
Look at Asse in Germany, where small amounts of meticulously catalogued waste was meant to be stored in a perpetually safe location, and where now that the location isn't safe anymore, it turns out that no one knows what waste they actually took in, or where it went, or how much there is, costing billions every year just to prevent the waste to leak into the ground water.

In all of the cases there wasn't really anything wrong with the machines or sites themselves. The underlying physics were well understood. All these failures were exclusively related to human factors: the need to get tests done quickly, the need to ramp up production, cut costs, complacency, toxic work environments degrading safety culture.

That is what I believe the reluctance to nuclear energy is really about. And the online STEM lords never address that part, waving away these concerns as mushy human relations things - demonstrating exactly the lack of safety awareness that the industry is suspected of.

As mentioned the same people run coal power plants, hydroelectric dams, chemical plants, they produce and store fertilizer. Let's just do nothing ever. You're almost certainly familiar with nuclear power causing less deaths and injuries per MWh compared to basically any other energy source and comapred to many other industries the demand and consciousness around safety measures and regulations is much greater to the extent that you have a certain acceptance of these to an extent you don't see in other types of (far more dangerous) energy production, this is good.

Antigravitas posted:

How exactly? Nobody takes that waste voluntarily now and I don't see that changing in the future.

The volume of spent fuel is grossly exaggerated and central storage vs on-site storage is mostly a political issue. If you actually got some central storage up and running transporting the spent fuel for storage, once the most highly radiaoctive components of it have decayed away, shouldn't be as difficult as you seem to believe. Again the actual volume you're dealing with is much smaller over time than alot of people imagine (a result of the energy differential between nuclear and chemical reactions).

Most of the long-lived waste, in contrast to the incredibly hot short-lived waste (which has to be stored on-site to allow the worst of it to decay away), is plutonium which can almost certainly be utilized as fuel in similar types of breeder reactors proposed for use with thorium as a fuel. Which gives some weight to the argument that waste should be stored in a manner where it is still accessible instead of just dumped in the ocean.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 08:00

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

Embrace nuclear. Dethrone germany.

Something something, nuclear throne, also putting the green in greens.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 08:46

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Lord Stimperor posted:

Chernobyl didn't happen because the reactor didn't work, it happened because there was a concatenation of human decisions that cumulatively brought the reactor in an unrecoverable state. Same thing at Fukushima, it was long known that the site wouldn't withstand a natural catastrophe and nothing was done regardless. The workers at Fernald didn't irradiate their families due to some tragic accident but because the facility was run in an unsafe manner.
Look at Asse in Germany, where small amounts of meticulously catalogued waste was meant to be stored in a perpetually safe location, and where now that the location isn't safe anymore, it turns out that no one knows what waste they actually took in, or where it went, or how much there is, costing billions every year just to prevent the waste to leak into the ground water.

Chernobyl, the world's worst civil nuclear accident, caused less loss of life and quality adjusted life years than a coal plant of the same capacity running normally for the same amount of time would have done. More environmental damage in the strictly local sense, but even then most of the relocations were not necessary and keeping the areas occupied would have had less negative health impact than living in a city like London, and far less than the effects of particulates from solid fuel heating in Poland or outdoor burning in Romania.

Fukushima is more a matter of government panic, not a single person needed to be permanently relocated, not a single kilogram of topsoil needed to be destroyed, but they ruined a hundred thousand lives out of anti-nuclear panic and paranoia, and possibly millions of lives out of the worldwide retreat back to coal that led to.

And that's operating off of the conservative view that all radiation bad. Ramsar in Iran has a background radiation level in some areas 10x higher than that permitted for workers in nuclear environments, and yet the only long term health effect seems to be a slightly reduced rate of lung cancer from that expected. That may be a long term adaptive response, and doesn't suggest that short term acute radiation exposure is healthy, but I'd much rather live in a high background radiation area than a high PM2.5 area, or a high benzene area, or a 5m high water area because we cooked the planet, so collectively I think we just need to get over our fears and objections to it.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 09:20

Honest Thief: Jan 11, 2009

https://www.europapress.es/economia/finanzas-00340/noticia-bbva-plantea-despido-3798-empleados-cierre-530-oficinas-20210422124420.html

BBVA just shutdown 530 shops and fired almost 4k workers

# ? Apr 22, 2021 11:57

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

imo there's also something to be said for just having a big ole state bureau of atomic energy with practically full transparency run nuclear plants

regardless, as i say, the greens are slowly pivoting on this as they shift from a counter-cultural activist tendency to more ordinary interest politics

# ? Apr 22, 2021 12:48

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Lord Stimperor posted:

Okay but let's be fair, I had highly doubt that people distrust the *science* of nuclear fission. It's a beautiful technology and I believe many Green voters will agree. The reason they don't want it is because they distrust the people that are going to run it.

Think of the people who ran wire card, the Dutch policy makers who refused to invest 10M in vaccination production because it was expensive and now put more than a billion in public covid events and mass testing, the complete and utter failures across the entire continent to contain covid.

Think of the people who realized years into brexit negotiation that yes, Dover is a big port, actually, and that there'd be a border on Ireland. Think of how the Flint water crisis happened. Think of the entire loving Trump administration and how they dealt with the pandemic initially. That is exactly the kind of people you need to be cool with running nuclear sites if you want them, because sooner or later it *will* be their turn to run them. They will systematically gently caress up the plants and storage sites and cut corners until the holes in the Swiss Cheese are big enough that something happens.

Chernobyl didn't happen because the reactor didn't work, it happened because there was a concatenation of human decisions that cumulatively brought the reactor in an unrecoverable state. Same thing at Fukushima, it was long known that the site wouldn't withstand a natural catastrophe and nothing was done regardless. The workers at Fernald didn't irradiate their families due to some tragic accident but because the facility was run in an unsafe manner.
Look at Asse in Germany, where small amounts of meticulously catalogued waste was meant to be stored in a perpetually safe location, and where now that the location isn't safe anymore, it turns out that no one knows what waste they actually took in, or where it went, or how much there is, costing billions every year just to prevent the waste to leak into the ground water.

In all of the cases there wasn't really anything wrong with the machines or sites themselves. The underlying physics were well understood. All these failures were exclusively related to human factors: the need to get tests done quickly, the need to ramp up production, cut costs, complacency, toxic work environments degrading safety culture.

That is what I believe the reluctance to nuclear energy is really about. And the online STEM lords never address that part, waving away these concerns as mushy human relations things - demonstrating exactly the lack of safety awareness that the industry is suspected of.

Nuclear power under capitalism is worse than nuclear power under socialism. Nuclear power under capitalism is better than every fossil fuel and even most renewables under capitalism.

For all the faults of the nuclear industry it has actually failed to kill more people per unit energy than coal, oil, gas, or even the supply chain of renewables. Just pointing at Chernobyl and saying "nuclear waste disposal" a lot doesn't change any of that (and i'm increasingly just smugly pointing at Finland and Sweden because nuclear waste disposal not being done properly is a political choice, not a technical problem).

Green parties absolutely refuse to recognise this as being true and pretend that if we replaced coal with nuclear we would all die.

suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Apr 22, 2021

# ? Apr 22, 2021 12:50

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

V. Illych L. posted:

imo there's also something to be said for just having a big ole state bureau of atomic energy with practically full transparency run nuclear plants

regardless, as i say, the greens are slowly pivoting on this as they shift from a counter-cultural activist tendency to more ordinary interest politics

the green pivot on this is happening in scandinavian countries and perhaps some other places, in german speaking areas and western central europe it's going to be a problem with the greens until the current leadership generation (and all before them) retire or die of old age.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 12:54

Antigravitas: Dec 8, 2019; Die Rettung fuer die Landwirte:

Randarkman posted:

The volume of spent fuel is grossly exaggerated

That's grossly misleading. I know people love pretending the volume of waste is tiny, by ignoring all the waste that isn't fuel.

There are currently 125 787 barrels of low radioactive waste (but frequently toxic) and >16 100 medium radioactive waste barrels (that includes 13 000 mystery barrels that were not declared) sitting underground in an unstable, leaking salt mine that all have to be excavated because the corrupt poo poo heels running that operation decided to ignore all expert advice. Paid, of course, not by the companies that created that waste.

So, once again, I ask: Where is that waste to be stored? This needs an actual answer, not hand waving and pretending it doesn't exist, or pretending other countries will find a solution and take it off Germany's hands.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 13:08

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

maybe, but what's happening in northern europe is going to start reflecting on the continent and it's a much more consistent with general Green doctrine. of course, in countries with high anti-nuclear sentiment the process will be slower, but the people green parties can realistically win tend to be more pro-nuclear than the general population

# ? Apr 22, 2021 13:13

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

Antigravitas posted:

That's grossly misleading. I know people love pretending the volume of waste is tiny, by ignoring all the waste that isn't fuel.

There are currently 125 787 barrels of low radioactive waste (but frequently toxic) and >16 100 medium radioactive waste barrels (that includes 13 000 mystery barrels that were not declared) sitting underground in an unstable, leaking salt mine that all have to be excavated because the corrupt poo poo heels running that operation decided to ignore all expert advice. Paid, of course, not by the companies that created that waste.

So, once again, I ask: Where is that waste to be stored? This needs an actual answer, not hand waving and pretending it doesn't exist, or pretending other countries will find a solution and take it off Germany's hands.

a hundred and fifty thousand barrels is objectively not that much waste. this is absolutely a question for which an answer can and will be found if there's any interest in it

# ? Apr 22, 2021 13:15

Antigravitas: Dec 8, 2019; Die Rettung fuer die Landwirte:

V. Illych L. posted:

a hundred and fifty thousand barrels is objectively not that much waste. this is absolutely a question for which an answer can and will be found if there's any interest in it

Well, I have bad news for you then.

V. Illych L. posted:

maybe, but what's happening in northern europe is going to start reflecting on the continent and it's a much more consistent with general Green doctrine. of course, in countries with high anti-nuclear sentiment the process will be slower, but the people green parties can realistically win tend to be more pro-nuclear than the general population

The only pro nuclear people in Germany are voting for the Nazi party or are taking massive kickbacks from the nuclear industry.

The real solution, which could be implemented if aforementioned corrupt pieces of poo poo in the CDU/CSU could be kept from power for a decade or two, is a massive expansion of energy transit infrastructure along with investments in off- and onshore wind power. Right now CDU/CSU are extremely invested in keeping coal alive and will gleefully destroy domestic renewables (see: Germany's solar industry that used to be world leading). Germany has already wasted two decades and none of the fission or fusion pipe dreams have any chance of becoming a reality before the grid has to be carbon neutral.

And also, cut Bavaria from Germany. They don't want hydro, they don't want nuclear, they don't want wind, and they don't want transit infastructure. Let them figure it out on their own.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 13:31

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Antigravitas posted:

That's grossly misleading. I know people love pretending the volume of waste is tiny, by ignoring all the waste that isn't fuel.

There are currently 125 787 barrels of low radioactive waste (but frequently toxic) and >16 100 medium radioactive waste barrels (that includes 13 000 mystery barrels that were not declared) sitting underground in an unstable, leaking salt mine that all have to be excavated because the corrupt poo poo heels running that operation decided to ignore all expert advice. Paid, of course, not by the companies that created that waste.

So, once again, I ask: Where is that waste to be stored? This needs an actual answer, not hand waving and pretending it doesn't exist, or pretending other countries will find a solution and take it off Germany's hands.

1) <150k barrels of waste in total isn't that bad, and there is no reason to put most of it in that dumb loving salt mine in the first place

2) "low radioactive waste (but frequently toxic)" means you dispose of it in the same way as we dispose of the toxic waste coming out the rear end end of the Bayer Chempark or BASF, the low level radioactivity isn't the main problem here. If you say the disposal of waste coming out the rear end end of the Bayer Chempark or BASF is not being done properly then that might be worth having a look at because if we have to dispose of toxic waste we should do it properly, but for some reason (dishonesty and ignorance, no need to pretend it's anything else) the toxic waste landfills next to chemical industry sites get negligible negative publicity and public outrage even in the context of "chemicals bad" takes.

3) we paid over 30 billion euros to fail at turning a lovely German salt mine into a nuclear waste dump while Sweden spent like 1 billion euros to drill a hole into a massive geologically stable chunk of rock with no risk of waste leaking out of the granite slap the hole was drilled into even if their barrels totally fail. I'm sure we could have spent, like, 29 billion euros to bribe them into drilling a few more holes so we get functioning waste disposal at a lower cost.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 13:33

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Antigravitas posted:

And also, cut Bavaria from Germany. They don't want hydro, they don't want nuclear, they don't want wind, and they don't want transit infastructure. Let them figure it out on their own.

Bavaria, also known as the German Coal Mafia here in Denmark.

suck my woke dick posted:

3) we paid over 30 billion euros to fail at turning a lovely German salt mine into a nuclear waste dump while Sweden spent like 1 billion euros to drill a hole into a massive geologically stable chunk of rock with no risk of waste leaking out of the granite slap the hole was drilled into even if their barrels totally fail. I'm sure we could have spent, like, 29 billion euros to bribe them into drilling a few more holes so we get functioning waste disposal at a lower cost.

That has the advantage of not taking the waste through third countries too.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 13:43

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Bavaria, also known as the German Coal Mafia here in Denmark.

they plan on getting their electricity from natural gas, there is absolutely no disadvantage to this plan whatsoever

# ? Apr 22, 2021 13:47

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Antigravitas posted:

That's grossly misleading. I know people love pretending the volume of waste is tiny, by ignoring all the waste that isn't fuel.

There are currently 125 787 barrels of low radioactive waste (but frequently toxic) and >16 100 medium radioactive waste barrels (that includes 13 000 mystery barrels that were not declared) sitting underground in an unstable, leaking salt mine that all have to be excavated because the corrupt poo poo heels running that operation decided to ignore all expert advice. Paid, of course, not by the companies that created that waste.

So, once again, I ask: Where is that waste to be stored? This needs an actual answer, not hand waving and pretending it doesn't exist, or pretending other countries will find a solution and take it off Germany's hands.

These aren't difficult questions. Low level waste can safely be stored pretty much anywhere, which is why typically it's just stored on site nowadays. Most of it is just used gloves and dirt that is barely above background radiation. As long as people aren't licking it they're fine, so dig some shallow trenches and stick a fence around them. The French just stick them under major highway projects, and it is completely safe.

Medium level waste constitutes a small percentage of the overall, and it is also not particularly radioactive compared to the expended fuel rods that are 99% of the radioactive waste. The 16,000 barrels you're talking about, as well as about half the low-level waste at Asse, are already designated for storage in the Schacht Konrad mine in Salzgitter.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 14:21

Antifa Poltergeist: Jun 3, 2004; "We're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you"

Honest Thief posted:

https://www.europapress.es/economia/finanzas-00340/noticia-bbva-plantea-despido-3798-empleados-cierre-530-oficinas-20210422124420.html

BBVA just shutdown 530 shops and fired almost 4k workers

“In 2020 we achieved excellent results in a year of great complexity. We have also announced a historic transaction for BBVA: the sale of our U.S. subsidiary. An operation that puts us in an unparalleled position of strength in the sector, allowing us to increase shareholder distributions,” said BBVA chairman Carlos Torres Vila.

Btw , bbva is a financial canary , expect this poo poo to follow at every major bank.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 14:35

double nine: Aug 8, 2013

https://twitter.com/heimbergecon/status/1384742734863511552

Jaws theme intensifies

# ? Apr 22, 2021 18:18

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

double nine posted:

https://twitter.com/heimbergecon/status/1384742734863511552

Jaws theme intensifies

oh no there's debt because we spent all the euros*

*on the banks**

**who gambled their euros away in the first place***

***not that the eu economy will ever actually run out of euros by spending them all

# ? Apr 22, 2021 18:21