schroedingershat @ schroedingershat @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

375

Joined

2 yr. ago

What luxuries and comforts are you giving up for the sake of future generations

Red meat, dairy, most other animal products, driving, cheap electricity, a large house, 24/7 climate control, and cheap new clothes. Cheap imported food. Bought-new electronics. Higher paying jobs I am qualified for, higher paid jobs that require a car for no reason. Not having my face in a facial recognition database my local police makes of people recorded at protests which is used to screen public servant applications (in spite of nothing illegal happening). Just to name the most significant that immediately come to mind.

I also still own my culpability for not doing more rather than narcissistically trying to deflect blame.

Your turn, asshole.

If you're not giving up luxuries and comfort to prevent it, then you are complicit.

Japan's population density is around 340/km^2 about the same as Massachusetts.

What you're describing is a lack of sprawl, which is a good thing unless you try to cram cars into it.

The only real problem you've identified is an increase in car ownership. This takes massive amount of space away from people and makes infrastructure like sidewalks necessary where previously people could just walk along the road safely.

Any software that passes whatever local safety standard should be installable (or software that doesn't pass if the car is not being used on public roads).

Otherwise the car is not being sold, it's being rented, and all the advertising that says anything about buying is fraud.

This point is raised by a bad faith idiot as a "gotchya" every time the topic comes up. Rudeness is already far more tolerance than they deserve.

Generally guidance for "safe" following distance is to be able to stop before you hit a car that is also stopping with the assumption that the car ahead is stopping at the same rate. So 2 seconds of headway between cars (roughly reaction time alone). Obviously this does not give enough time if the car ahead has a head on collision or similar (but the third car will collide at lower speed and the fourth might stop).

Most traffic is a little closer together than this (hence the prevalence of pile ups), but there is also uneven speed and gaps at traffic lights and similar

If loss of expertise were the cause, then there would have been a cost minimum in the late 80s when the maximum number of engineers had 5-15 years of experience.

Instead costs rose for each new reactor (including repeat builds of each model).

This theory has no explanatory power over reality and predicts the opposite of what happened.

Every year a reactor operates is a year of experiencing new ways they suck. The fixes and added complexities are rolled into the next reactor.

Thr grifters running the show also learn new ways to grift, so the small new delays and costs are amplified.

For older reactors the costs this imposes are rolled into operational budgets (and more often than not reactors are closed as unprofitable and the public or ratepayers are left holding the bag).

Additionally regulatory agencies keep finding new instances of fraud, stopping these adds costs to the regulator and regulatee.

This has happened since well before three mile island, so all misdirections to "scare mongering about meltdowns" are lies (the rate of cost escalation actually slowed significantly after three mile island).

More deranged doublethink.

ARENH can't be causing losses if the price it sets is profitable (so by citing it you are claiming that the french nuclear fleet has never broken even).

It also can't be causing a production shortfall requiring buying expensive hydro if the reactors are off because of a "strategy".

Your debt doesn't go up every year if you're making a profit.

Deferring maintenance doesn't make costs magically vanish.

Decomissioning, waste management and hundreds of billions for license extensions are also completely unfunded. So the french people were just bilked another €10 billion for taking on a larger share of a half trillion dollar liability.

Yes it was a "strategy" for EDF to go tens of billions into debt, and the other 30-50% of french power infrastructure is there just for fun. These mental gymnastics are incredibly tiresome.

If the cars are moving at over 5m/s then there will be for minimum safe followong distance.

If they are moving under that, you don't have a transport system that is more capable than a brisk walk.

This is extremely stupid because, to be an accurate model of the effect of congestion on rail travel, people would have to get out of their car, perform a magic trick to disappear it, and then hop into a stranger's car every time they entered a congested area.

Given that nobody has ever done this, we can see that your comment is just bizarre mental gymnastics.

This is even more ridiculous.

It's sand. Literally the most abundant element in earth's crust. And quartz sand isn't even as particular as construction sand, because only the composition is important, not the shape.

You're literally pearl clutching about the scarcity of Silicon as a way of justifying calling it a rare earth.

The only limitation is manufacturing, and you can build manufacturing and the output faster than you can build a nuclear reactor. You're also comparing an industry that's adding >300TWh/yr to one that is adding zero net (and about 20TWh/yr gross) as if the latter is significant and the former is not.

The insane reaches that nukebros go to to justify their insanity would be comical if it wasn't so harmful.

Daily reminder. Monocrystalline PV, LFP or sodium batteries, and the dominant onshore wind generator types involve 0 rare earths. Offshore wind doesn't technically need them but they are used in most installations for now.

EVs can be made without permanent magnets if you don't insist on every soccer mother car out-accelerating an early 2000s ferrari and don't insist on perfectly silent motors (rather than merely much quieter than ICEs). EVs are also not the only form of non-fossil fuel transport.

Ban them, put a price on carbon and the green transition will happen faster. It's not a necessary component.

Hahaha! Doing that thing you said (but still with some hoops for mental healthcare and housing) only makes it way better! Check-mate! Let's double down on spending ten times as much pujishing the homeless for being homeless!

The myth they are dog whistling is just that. You can see it repeated everywhere the topic comes up and where they tried to conflate it with breeding. The method of lying is called paltering.

In reality reprocessing has no significant impact other than leaking Cs, Kr and Tc everywhere, increasing the volume of waste so it's harderto handle and raising costs.

Instead we only have to worry about immediately running out of beryllium for breeding blankets just on the demo reactors.

Not only is the amount of land required insignificant, and optional (agrivoltaics and built up areas are capable of providing enough for marginally higher labour cost). Low yield uranium mines like Inkai (so most of them going forward) take up more space than a solar farm with the same energy output because the ore has lower energy density than coal.

If you're going to pearl clutch about land use, pearl clutch about the idea of developing any of the 90% of Uranium resource that has abysmal yield.

Norway has much much lower homeless proportion than more neoliberal countries. It is a prime example of this strategy working.

Just a heads up. France has reached germany's per capita emissions if you don't counterfactually decide that their uranium comes from cigar lake and that nuclear fuel cycle emissions are zero.