All of Blippo's Comments + Replies

Ok, you got me on my lack of precision and missing sources. Estimates like "billions of Euros" and "hundreds of tons" are horribly vague and not a proper base for discussion.

To walk back my reputation I want to add this link: which provides a lot of hard facts. According to this report Germany hast to manage 11.500 metric tons of nuclear fuel. There's a state fund of 23.6 billion € for managing the waste. Also the energy companies have put back 38 billion € to build b... (read more)

Most readers will agree the term "ugh fields" describes the avoidance part of basic procrastination. Finding an brand level scientific term for it with an emotional storytelling soundbite with only three letters is the part that needs to be acknowlegded here – kudos ... but flattery, ugh, read next article.

It's only expensive when you want to have long-term safety. Given that we don't even have short term safety with coal that kills a lot of people, nuclear without any long-term safety would be an improvement on the status quo.
Online discussion about this subject is traditionally full of people making bald assertions like this, without evidence they understand any of the subject quantitatively. "Hundreds of tons" is not an intensifier that you stick in a sentence like the word "very"; it's a number that (a) should be sourced, and (b) is only meaningful in comparison with other waste streams, eg fly ash.

Buerocracy seems to be tedious at times, but in my opinion it's quite efficient.

Most buerocratic rituals still serve a purpose. There are a lot of decisions to be made by people and they simply want to follow an algorithm. Or a checklist. To do that without friction, people want to normalize their input, that's why everyone insists on the right form. It's standardization. 

Let's have a look where buerocracy is happening: when dealing with money. Nobody wants to be responsible, so everybody is trying to secure a paper trail that proves they made the rig... (read more)