Archived link

Laying out key priorities for the EU’s upcoming Clean Industrial Deal, German Economy State Secretary Sven Giegold said on Monday (30 September) he wants the Commission to prioritise renewable energy, taking a tough line on nuclear power and France’s renewable targets.

Alongside a quicker roll-out of renewable energy facilitated by “further exemptions from [environmental impact] assessments,” Giegold outlined several other German priorities for the EU’s upcoming strategy.

Based on the 2030 renewable energy targets, the EU should also set up a 2040 framework, complemented by new, more ambitious targets for energy efficiency, he said.

“It should include new heating standards, a heat pump action plan and a renovation initiative,” he explained, noting a heat pump action plan was last shelved in 2023.

Hydrogen, made from renewables, should be governed by a “a pragmatic framework,” the German politician stressed, reiterating calls from his boss, Economy Minister Robert Habeck (Greens), to delay strict production rules into the late 2030s.

  • Thorry84English
    1·
    2 hours ago

    Do you have a source for that? Because that is not true. A properly built casket can go for at least a thousand years. The issues reported with caskets is where they’ve been exposed to salt water / brine. That’s a facility issue, not a casket issue. There are so many caskets stored around the world and only a very small amount have had actual issues associated with them.

    Even with the issues, the impact has always been very locally. Not like with coal where radioactive matter is blasted straight into the atmosphere and spread in dust form. Radioactive dust getting into your lungs is a big issue. Water contaminated with waste you can simply stay a feet away from and be perfectly fine. And remember a lot of water gets contaminated all the time with a lot of different dangerous stuff, that’s why we monitor and treat the water we use. The leaks have been a problem, but mostly in the form of costs, not in the form of it being dangerous. It has always been detected right away and not gotten into water we use.

    • YourPrivatHater@ani.socialEnglish
      31·
      2 hours ago

      There is no material known to man (or woman) (wich we can effectively build with) that lasts 100 thousand to 1 Million years (wich is necessary for such things)

      We cannot build such a building from pure gold or titanium (wich both wouldn’t last long enough either, but significantly longer than concrete) a structure like that has to be rebuild at least once in 100 years, if not every 50 years, wich is more reasonable. It will cost humanity for all eternity to keep the environment safe from this waste.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-staggering-timescales-of-nuclear-waste-disposal/

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_degradation

      Forgot to add, NO, nuclear, or rather toxic contamination of ground and surface water has the ability to be a super serious environmental issue for very very large areas. We humans produced stuff that might outlast our species, its not just nuclear waste, there is also regular toxic waste with similar storage issues wich we cannot dispose off and that has to be stored in a similar manner, just the need for radiation shielding is not there, but water and air are the biggest enemies of human architecture and long lasting storage solutions.

      There is no such thing as forever lasting human buildings or burrows. They will always be a huge burden.

      • Thorry84English
        12·
        2 hours ago

        Well those timelines aren’t correct. The EPA says 10.000 years and that’s for the entire storage solution. It doesn’t matter that the caskets decay after a 2000 years, once the entire thing is encased in rock.

        The concrete degradation doesn’t really apply, because caskets are specifically made with longevity in mind and aren’t just made out of concrete. Causes for concrete degradation is also exposure to water and mechanical stress. That doesn’t apply in a long term storage facility.

        And we still have examples of Roman concrete around these days, made 2000 years ago. There are also natural nuclear reactors which are contained, so we know in principle containment is possible.

        It may take 100.000 years for something to become completely inert, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t safe much earlier. And something with that long of a timeline doesn’t produce hardly any radiation to begin with. The dangerous stuff is much hotter and becomes safe within hundreds to thousands of years.

        • YourPrivatHater@ani.socialEnglish
          31·
          2 hours ago

          Do you read the articles linked? The EPA doesn’t give out the actual numbers, the numbers you use are for lightly toxic and radioactive material. The caskets will not last 200 years

          encaseing isn’t a option, concrete expands when drying and would crush the containers of the material, wich is just making it easier for water to get in, furthermore concrete is Corrosive and should not touch the waste containers in general.

          Roman concrete is the worst example you can give, its super bad at protecting against water, and it lasts because the concrete is actually not as well made as ours, ours is better mixed and can hold way more load, theirs had faults, wich is the reason why it’s still standing, water gets in, activates the hardening process again and “its fixed” its not safe to use that stuff for nuclear waste or any modern building.

          And you again make a wrong call, it takes over a Million years to get most of the waste to be lead, the stable end product of uranium. The stuff isn’t safe before that state, even lead is still toxic, although more manageable, anything before is extremely toxic and is radiating. Its not safe after a given period, its safe after its tested safe, not a single second before that. Radiation isn’t a joke, especially prolonged exposure.