stickly @ stickly @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

225

Joined

5 mo. ago

I believe it was this article. The main point was on how incredibly shitty coal is but I thought it was interesting how the others stacked up as well

By all means, enlighten me. Show me your sources. Everything I've looked at shows current gen solar having a larger construction impact and higher lifetime greenhouse gas emissions per unit electricity.

Or is this just your "common sense"? Surely if you have such a strong opinion it's not based on sound bites and headlines?

It's very telling that you think I should be more concerned about my backyard and neighbors rather than the billions of people who will suffer while we try to dig our way out of this pit with more palatable tech that can't do the whole job.

Also funny that you think having a radioactive hole in the ground that loses the majority of its potency in less than 100 years is too high a price to keep our planet habitable. I'd rather be relocated out of my neighborhood than deal with billions of climate refugees moving in. Your NIMBY-ass logic is why our planet is fucked.

Did I miss something or are we moving the goalposts from dirty to hazardous?

The average operating age of nuclear plants in Germany was 30+ years old. Yes they're not built to modern safety standards. Yes, operating with radioactive materials is more dangerous than not doing that. But they still ended with a minimal impact to climate change over their lifetime.

If you want sensational claims about energy saftey you can write a whole expose about working conditions in Xinjiang, which produces 45% of all of solar grade polysilicone. Are those deaths less important because they didn't happen in your neighborhood?

So yes, it's political because a handful of human deaths override an energy technology that is, mathematically, one of the best tools to save our planet. Throwing away nuclear energy because people can get preventable cancer is like throwing away wind energy because an aluminum blade can drop on your head.

Again, efficiency is not the same thing as scalability. You're optimizing for investment cost (maybe build time? I can't tell). If we planned/regulated our usage better that's irrelevant because power usage is predictable.

People won't need more tomorrow than today unless they make a drastic change. If electricity isn't cheap and elastic by default, they just won't buy that high watt GPU or electric car. Bitcoin isn't such an important social good that it needs instant access to a continent's worth of power, but it gobbled it up because nobody stopped it.

And even if you do need account for something unpredictable, you can still adjust with other sources. That doesn't mean they need to be the foundation of your whole grid.

"After all, why wouldn’t we burn billions on a technology that requires destructive mining and large scale plastic waste production for a worse climate footprint? What a solar shill"

See, I too can make emotionally charged statements with no basis in reality. All energy solutions have more nuance than "radiation bad" or "cheap good"

What do people mean by "less efficient" in these conversations? Energy generated is energy generated, the number one efficiency we should talk about is using less of it. Past that you're just choosing to optimize for cost, ecological impact, carbon footprint, etc...

Well if we're talking about lifetime carbon footprint, renewables. The drawbacks for nuclear are almost entirely political and economical, but that doesn't make the technology irrelevant.

IMO, any energy plan needs to have reduced consumption as priorities 1-10 and past that nuclear isn't always worse than renewables.

Let's bring back lead, CFCs and all the stuff we have band because we were careful

Lead, CFCs, Asbestos and the like have all been banned for consumer use, but that's not what we're talking about here. Being unhealthy doesn't mean they have no application and can't be carefully used.

still has no real waste solution

At scale, neither do renewables. Solar panels are a sandwich of dozens of trace elements, heavy metals, plastic and everything else. Nitpicking nuclear here is silly because the amount of waste generated is the least by an order of magnitude. Keep waste generation under control and its management basically an afterthought.

Nucular is extremely expensive

These conversations always get bogged down in $/kW, which is not what we should be worried about. Nuclear has a lower lifetime carbon footprint than renewables, which is worth the extra spend in our current climate crisis. It's an important tool for sustainable energy usage; you can't use renewables as a drop in replacement for everything.

Here's a wrench for you: the Luddites were 100% right

The F sure as fuck doesn't stand for Army you fucking ape.

The FBI has the authority to enforce laws passed through regular congressional channels by elected officials.

Here the commander in chief is declaring a policy and enforcing it directly with his own power. It's the textbook definition.

Eminent Domain

Military unilaterally policing civil affairs on US soil

HoW iS tHaT mArTiAL Law??

Just look up the definition you fucking stooge.

Out of curiosity, what constitutional basis do they have to do this? Elections are explicitly run by the states and there's nothing about RCV or any voting system that prevents a fair election.

If I had to choose between panicking over chlorinated water or spending billions of dollars to disinfect water in a less effective way...

I'd probably just let the water sit out for a while or run it through a cheap carbon filter because I'm not an idiot.

You're high as a kite if you think a super pac doesn't have infinitely deeper pockets. They just bid the minimum for these politicians. If millions of grass roots donors gave everything they could, it would be a rounding error for them to match it.

Don't mince the issue. Deserved or not should be determined with due process in a court and not on Twitter while he's chained up in a concentration camp.

I don't disagree with your conclusion but in this case it's actually irrelevant. A simple majority in the house doesn't mean shit for following through with an impeachment.

This feels exactly like people fighting against gun control while schools are shot up on the regular. Get over your individualism and sparkling ideals and realize that something has to be done. If your privacy and personal freedom are tied to Facebook and Twitter, maybe that's a you problem.

Why does every country on earth need to do it? Will a massive majority of the population switch to VPNs just to watch some YouTube videos? Is that any different from kids trying to circumvent other age gated activities? Does YouTube even want that VPN traffic if it makes them less money? Why not just ban smart phones for kids?

What measures do you need to enforce it beyond what already exists? The only ones that matter are massive mega-platforms. If a platform isn't complying just punish it.

The main question is how much of your life really needs to exist in a digital space? People paid bills, shopped, watched porn, played games and read news before the internet. Democracy falls when an entire generation of voters is raised on supporting Tate-endorsed fascism. This is not a non-issue. It's happening no matter how much you tut-tut everyone's parenting.