Does anyone have any insight into why Bezos (Bezos "Earth Fund") has been reliably donating to anti-nuclear organizations?

WWF. NRDC. They're "environmental" but also overtly anti-nuclear. Doesn't appear this contradicts Bezos direct investment in fusion tech, as such orgs haven't ever specifically opposed fusion, but that's also far from commercialization... now that atomic energy is actually needed today to meet Amazon + other's needs, it should be pretty obvious that Bezos philanthropy is fighting Bezos financial interests.

It is really that hard to find environmental non-profits that are tech agnostic?

I'm seeing criticism of China's choice of salt, and their enrichment of Lithium. This was the same FLiBe salt choice USA used for their MSRE 1965-1969. FLiBe is the salt of choice for Kairos Power, which uses solid pebble fuel, and FLiBe as working fluid. USA did enrich Lithium for MSRE. Kairos Power will enrich lithium for their reactor as well, their Hermes test reactor review process began in 2021, you can monitor their HERMES licensing progress here... https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/n... ...Kairos is already running a non-nuclear reactor with non-enriched Lithium.

Not sure how often it is presented as Quadrilogy rather than a Trilogy, but beware the publisher lists a 4th book as part of the series. It is just fan fiction. I've not heard of anyone who thinks it compares to the actual trilogy. This TV adaptation is of the 1st book, "The Three Body Problem" the 1st book in "Remembrance of Earth's Past". I thought all 3 books in the series were excellent.

âoeWe could always just launch the stuff into spaceâ

https://youtu.be/Us2Z-WC9rao

â¦absolutely fantastic video deep-dive on why not.

Recycling it into new fuel is very doable. Only 5% of âoenuclear wasteâ energy potential has been tapped.

Use it all up, becomes 500 year problem of Fission Products, rather than mostly Plutonium+ unused uranium.

A spokesperson for the governor clarified that Newsom still wants to see the facility shut down long term. "It's been six years since PG&E agreed to close the plant near San Luis Obispo, rather than invest in expensive environmental and earthquake-safety upgrades."

...folks the ENVIRONMENTAL "upgrades" is a thing. It is a nonsense thing... Diablo outputs warm water into the infinite-heat-sink which is The Pacific Ocean. There's no actual impact since that started in 1995... that tiny amount of warm water is now normality as far as marine life is concerned.

But the spokesperson saying there's EARTHQUAKE-SAFETY UPGRADES required?

No. That's NOT a thing. No regulatory body, not the NRC not the Feds not California gov, no one has ever specified any earthquake safety upgrade is required.

I was at a hearing about the warm-water nonsense and every anti-nuke that came to speak talked about earthquakes. No one actually spoke about warm water. Warm water is why PG&E was forced to plan to close Diablo. Not earthquake safety.

But possibly 100 anti-nukes taking to the podium to each repeat "The Big One" over and over has confused the issue in Newsom or Newsom's staff mind.

Because he saw the original 79 Scientists+CEOs open letter asking Newsom keep Diablo open...

https://mobile.twitter.com/sla... ...by way of Slashdot feed, and responded "Agreed" and I'm personally hoping he'll chime in on Diablo again, to clarify his agreement. I think his (more vocal) support of Diablo would help improve the chanced Diablo stays open.

I'd like anyone to tell me about "earthquake-safety upgrades."

Seriously, I've been trying to figure out what the spokesperson is referring to.

I did find that video informative. It seemed to debunk SpinLaunch's video more-so then the general concept, although I'll agree the general concept might never work. The follow-up Thunderf00t video contrasting SpinLaunch with a supergun makes me wish someone was developing a supergun.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/s...
"Agreed" -@elonmusk

Elon Musk has been voicing support for nuclear power for years.

This is his first direct support for Diablo Canyon itself.

There are geographic AND mineral constrains on wind turbines. There are mineral constraints on grid battery storage.

Carbon Footprints carbon lifecycle 2021 study by UNECE LCA
https://unece.org/sites/defaul... ...put nuclear at 6g CO2eq /kWh.

The UNECE 2020 is represented here on Wikipedia with a nice table (2nd table down):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It shows nuclear as THE LOWEST CARBON source of electricity /kWh. That's LIFECYCLE.

I see some comments here about some particular part of the nuclear lifecycle that the poster assumes UNECE overlooked? No, that's typical anti-nuclear FUD.

LIFECYCLE means LIFECYCLE. Nuclear IS LOW CAROBN. According to UNECE, it is THE LOWEST.