Ertebolle @ Ertebolle @kbin.social

Posts

7

Comments

466

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think - correctly or incorrectly - a lot of people perceive the typical Burning Man attendee nowadays as being a rich and/or famous person who is somewhere between indifferent to + amused by the suffering of other people less fortunate than they. And - again, not saying this is correct - they perceive this as being more of an annoying/inconvenient/uncomfortable thing (lots of wallowing in filth, but only 1 death AFAIK) than a bona fide natural disaster; totally different order of magnitude from what just happened in Florida, for example, or Hawaii.

So it's less serious than a hurricane or flood or whatever in a populated area, and affects much more deserving people; if, heaven forbid, a bomb went off and hundreds of Burning Man attendees died it would be a very different story, and certainly in that case I don't think any decent person would laugh about it, but a bunch of rich assholes stuck in the mud playing "Survivor" for a week is much more farce than tragedy.

I think the fundamental problem is that people had different expectations for a game set in space, both because Bethesda stoked them (all of that talk of having the idea decades ago / first new franchise in however many years / Microsoft bought the company just to get it as an exclusive / etc) and because after No Man's Sky people kind of expected that with their budget / resources they would manage to fix that game's problems and create something richer + more seamless.

In retrospect, if they'd simply sold it as "Skyrim in Space," admitted to the limitations up front - same underlying engine, limited amount of variety to procedurally-generated content, loading screens instead of seamless takeoff/landing, etc - and not pretended that it was something new, the response would have probably been much more uniformly positive.

As a dad constantly frustrated with the shittiness of my kids’ math curriculum: thanks, this is wonderful, puts to words a lot of what I’ve been feeling and more.

The people of Kentucky also elected a Democratic governor, and at the time they did so (2019), the law that requires Senate replacements to be from the same party did not exist yet. So they voted for him fully expecting that if McConnell keeled over he might be replaced by a Democrat.

They’re really not, and if you think that then you need to read more. And “political capital” isn’t some big fungible pool of quatloos, it’s a lot of little tiny stupid slow fights.

Again, I’m arguing we do both. And anyway this is a volume question, not a construction time one (enough renewables fast enough) - I’m OK with waiting 20 years for new nuclear plants if in 20 years we get a fuckton of them.

"A 2010 National Nuclear Laboratory report" "for some years ahead"

It's 2023, "some years ahead" is, y'know, now. 13 is "some." Quite a few, actually.

Based on what? And how can you possibly make that claim with any confidence if nobody's built one until now?

I'll cheerfully concede both of those statements, I just don't think they result in you winning the argument.

It's not clear that we can build enough renewables fast enough, or that we can build storage capacity fast enough when we do; you cite vague studies that suggest we might be able to do, but that's all they are. I'd rather not bet everything on that and then discover in 20 years that we made the wrong bet.

According to the anti-nuclear group cited in one of your articles, nuclear produces about 4x the CO2 emissions of solar but 1/4 the emissions of natural gas. (1/8 those of coal) And it also assumes we can't improve on that any, even though there is a tremendous amount of money + research going on right now on lowering CO2 emissions from construction materials like concrete and steel. (perhaps we don't have any of those improvements up and running for in 20 years, but meanwhile those shiny nuclear plants are getting rid of 3/4 of the CO2 from the natural gas plants they're replacing)

Well now you're back to arguing about new construction instead of keeping existing plants running.

Also, we can build both. Surely you appreciate that there are other factors slowing the speed of the energy transition besides the availability of capital, and that while nuclear has its own roadblocks, many of them are different from + don't overlap or compete with those standing in the way of renewables.

He is, in fact, arguing against keeping existing plants running too. (I suspected he believed this and he did indeed)

rules limiting how close they can be to residential buildings (apparently 10 times the height of the turbine)

These... don't seem like crazy rules; I don't know how this works in other legal systems but in the US every little podunk wind installation in a residential area is going to be tied up in years of lawsuits over this sort of thing.

building new nuclear instead of using the same resources to build solar or wind at this point means relying more on fossil fuels

I don't think it is the same resources, that's part of my point. I don't think there's a finite pool of money here; the limitations on solar / wind have as much to do with raw materials and suitable locations as anything else, if nuclear provides an additional path to getting carbon-free energy on line (and with the added benefit of not needing to worry about storage, which is going to bring its own rat's nest of location + raw material problems once we get to it) then we ought to be encouraging it as well.

Yeah, it's still commercial-scale, not a "pipe dream" or "not viable with current tech."

definitionally if you’re arguing with me about this then you have no idea what you’re talking about

And this is why I said I don't think you're open to an argument. But I'm not actually trying to argue with you about this, to the extent I'm arguing here it's for the benefit of other people reading who are perhaps a tiny bit less pig-headed than you are. Which is great, because I don't have to actually persuade you of anything but simply to give other people an alternative perspective to yours.

If Germany had built renewables instead of nuclear, would they have turned off the renewables that were producing the cheapest, cleanest energy ever known, with zero fuel costs and minimal maintenance costs?

Yes, because they're still tied up in anti-nuclear politics. (hardly a phenomenon unique to Germany)

"Often more expensive" "no longer any real advantages" according to a "professor of renewable energy" who doesn't actually seem to have anything against them except that somehow he wants to "make way for renewable energy" which he somehow perceives an existing, functional nuclear plant as a hindrance to? Again, politics.

"Provides investment certainty for renewable energy" is likewise a weak / hypothetical / pie-in-the-sky argument - show me where existing nuclear power plants are actually getting in the way of new renewables.

"Replaced them with fossil fuels" natural gas is also, y'know, a fossil fuel. Even the anti-nuclear people cited in one of your articles admit that the lifecycle emissions of a gas plant are 4x as high as a brand new nuclear plant. Coal is even worse, sure, but even absent the Ukraine situation they'd be producing a lot more carbon with a very, very thin justification.

This chart is from the "Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems," I wonder whether they might be a wee bit biased. It also puts the "consequential cost to health, environment and climate" of nuclear as higher than coal, which is bananas, and their data on lifecycle carbon emissions from nuclear comes from a noted anti-nuclear group (and the article even admits as much).

"When you factor it all in, you’re looking at 15-to-20 years of lead time for a new nuclear plant." Cool, let's start building a whole bunch of them right now and then worst-case in 20 years we'll have too much electricity.

"In the next 10 years, nuclear power won't be able to make a significant contribution" I appreciate your optimism but we are deeeeeefinitely not going to come anywhere close to phasing out fossil fuels in power generation in 10 years; we're not even going to be done with fossil fuels on days that are particularly sunny in the solar cell areas and particularly windy in the wind power areas.

World's first commercial thorium reactor approved in China

Germany literally just shut down their existing nuclear plants and replaced them with fossil fuels.

So even if what you're saying were true (and I'd happily sit here and punch holes in it if I thought you were actually open to an argument - anti-nuclear people somehow seem to think that you can build all the solar/wind farms and transmission lines you want without running into the same endless messy regulatory battles you get with nuclear), none of it would be relevant here because the plants were already built and already working and responsible for like 1/8 of Germany's electrical production - it wasn't a cost decision, it was a bullshit anti-nuclear one.

Also: the graph at the top shows the growth in Germany's installed wind capacity in Germany leveling off - do you think that's happening because they just don't feel like building any more wind power, or is it possible they're running into some limits on how much they can generate efficiently that way?

It's not as useful for day-to-day budgeting as a more granular one, but people generally only look at their finances closely once a year at tax time and so it's a good point of comparison for that; get a sense of how your financial life is evolving.

It's also the number you're asked for on tax forms, other financial forms (loans, financial aid, bank accounts), questionnaires (though you can lie or 'prefer not to say' on those)... comes up a lot, basically.

He's not resigning unless there's a Republican president + Senate to replace him; all we can do is hope that that doesn't happen until he dies of natural causes. (and that the Democrats triumph in the election after that, so we don't end up with a Scalia-Garland-Gorsuch situation again)

They're not full-time:

The opportunity to wear a badge allows officers to make extra money. In the state of Texas, a commissioned reserve officer may work off-duty performing traffic control duties, commonly known as “road jobs.” Of the 50 sworn officers at the Coffee City Police Department, 38 are reserves according to state records.