No, let's make that 20 years of more environmental destruction.
Okay, hold up. Just take a minute here to breathe. Nobody's arguing against renewables. They, just like nuclear power, are a part of a healthy, diverse mix of technologies which will help displace fossil fuels. That's the whole point: get rid of fossil fuels where we can in whatever way we can.
make the leap to nuclear ... in 10-15 year's time
We already did. 70 years ago. Then the fossil fuel industry successfully replaced existing nuclear generators with coal-fired plants.
If I was a fossil fuel lobbyist I'd be pushing new nuclear hard.
Are you seriously arguing that fossil fuel lobbyists do the exact opposite of what fossil fuel lobbyists have been recorded doing? In other words, are you trying to argue for a proven falsehood?
If so, we have a term for that: alternative facts. Go try and deceive someone else.
Cost is cost ... [in 70 years] it's not got cheaper, in fact the opposite has happened.
I suppose you must still think a loaf of bread still costs the same it did 70 years ago, too. Prices are malleable thanks to the free market ... and government subsidies. Why would anyone be so anti-nuclear when it's another valuable tool for displacing fossil fuels? Are you shilling for the oil and gas industry?
Absolutely; but it's hard to go that deep without someone arguing about hairs and how to split them. It's kind of stupid to be arguing which is "safer" when both are orders of magnitude better than fossil fuels. In order to successfully displace fossil fuel generation, we'll need to emphasize all the others: nuclear, solar, wind, pumped hydro, grid batteries, geothermal, etc. None of them are one-size-fits-all. They're all tools in the toolbox for designing an energy system that works for any given context.
That's fair: construction workers aren't magically able to construct more than one reactor over those 10 years. It was late at night and I also lost track of the original point of this whole thread. The study cherry-picked rooftop solar, as opposed to utility solar, in order to prove a point. Nuclear power is safe. Fossil fuels are not safe.
Also, construction of solar panels has more deaths because of the workers involved. The "construction team" adding panels to your house may be just two guys on meth. If the same two guys worked on a nuclear plant, they would have equally high fatalities. If you used the construction workers from a nuclear plant to do a basic home solar panel installation, it would virtually eliminate fatalities due to better safety.
Even if every construction worker was hopped up on whatever you can imagine, it wouldn't even matter.
It takes 2 workers to install 10 kW in solar panels that (might) last 15 years. That's 75 kW-years of energy per construction worker.
It takes 1200 construction workers to build a 1000 MW reactor which will operate for (at least) 50 years. That's about 42 MW-years per construction worker, or 42000 kW-years per construction worker.
Nuclear construction could have over 500x the accident rate of rooftop solar installation and still be safer. Try again.
nuclear is fucking expensive and takes a long time to build
So what? Cost is relative to supply, demand, and political willpower. Also, I suspect it's much cheaper than carbon recapture.
Given this, why would you be in favor of nuclear?
I think you've lost the point entirely. The question is "what do we need to effectively generate electricity without fossil fuels?" Nuclear is one such answer. Heaven forbid we encourage the development of more than one thing at a time.
Audio, like a lot of physical systems, involve logarithmic scales, which is where floating-point shines. Problem is, all the other physical systems, which are not logarithmic, only get to eat the scraps left over by IEEE 754. Floating point is a scam!
You're right that keeping European Honey Bees (Apis mellifera), even though they are introduced/invasive to North America, isn't usually detrimental to native pollinators. However, Apis is in no way in danger; they are an agricultural livestock.
Point is, saying you're "saving the bees" by keeping honey bee hives is like saying you're "saving the birds" by keeping chickens. Weird flex, but okay.
Hard disagree. This is a problem every web service has had to deal with since the beginning of the web: what happens when a host (either the machine or the person) stops working? How do you keep the service up?
Centralized services solve that problem with internally funded, transparent redundancy. Federation solves the problem with externally funded, highly-visible redundancy. They're still the same solution, just a different way of going about it.
You could argue that user identity is lost due to the discontinuity between instances, but that's probably something the Lemmy devs could fix without too much hassle.
Suggest reporting post for breaking community rules:
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda will be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating will be removed.
To your point, though, the learning process ideally ought to be seamless and linear; each new thing you can do with the application should be mostly obvious given what you already know about the UI, not force you to learn everything from scratch or do work to learn it (unless you're into that kind of thing). I don't think Discord is the worst offender of this rule, but they could make it better.
You're right: it's probably not practical to paint a building with the stuff. Nighthawkinlight briefly comments on this. I believe the idea is to use it on passive radiator panels to sink heat from a pumped coolant fluid. That way you can strategically place panels (e.g. on the roof) and control them, just like solar heating panels.
Ahh, okay, so nothing new under the sun:
Hipsters hate normies and September never ended.
Although I'm under the impression that Mint and Pop have taken a bite out of the "beginner desktop" market, Ubuntu is most of what I observe in the office when everybody else is booting Windows.
I can understand selecting for novelty; I'm usually in that camp. But novelty shouldn't come at the expense of an argument to IT departments that they should support at least one Linux distro.
Okay, hold up. Just take a minute here to breathe. Nobody's arguing against renewables. They, just like nuclear power, are a part of a healthy, diverse mix of technologies which will help displace fossil fuels. That's the whole point: get rid of fossil fuels where we can in whatever way we can.
We already did. 70 years ago. Then the fossil fuel industry successfully replaced existing nuclear generators with coal-fired plants.
Are you seriously arguing that fossil fuel lobbyists do the exact opposite of what fossil fuel lobbyists have been recorded doing? In other words, are you trying to argue for a proven falsehood?
If so, we have a term for that: alternative facts. Go try and deceive someone else.