tb_

The costs of climate change are costs the people and our governments have to bear; just look at the billions in damage done by the recent hurricanes.

Those costs are a subsidy to the “cheap” fossil fuels we’ve been using. In fact, fossil fuels receive a ton of subsidies upfront too. Nuclear can be subsidised too.

I don’t have faith our governments will switch to 100% renewable, and any fossil fuel is too much fossil fuel given how far we have already gone. We need to actively start scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere, and we’re going to need as much power as we can generate for that.

Nuclear is expensive because it’s relatively rare. Economies of scale don’t apply to it as is. If we start building, it will become cheaper. Not cheap, perhaps, but cheaper. And it’s a cost worth paying. We are already paying the price for the “cheap” fossil fuels.

And I think, you have absolutely no idea how incredibly expensive nuclear power is.

Less expensive than whatever the fuck we’ve been doing with our climate these last 100 years. But those aren’t direct costs, so who the hell cares.

It’s dead now

But what if it turns out we do need it in 10 years?

All renewable everything is cool, but that’s also going to require a lot of storage for the days where it isn’t so windy or sunny. I think having nuclear to cover (some of) the base load on the grid will be very helpful.

• Where we should keep the waste, since we have not yet found a place for the decades’ worth of nuclear waste we already have.

Pumping all of our waste into the atmosphere is a much better solution!

How should we get nuclear plants running in any time frame relevant to our current problems?

If we had started building them the first time that question was asked we’d have them by now.

It’s not like the Republican house thwarted all of Biden’s efforts either

For added perspective: spending a million as a billionaire is the same as spending $1 when you have $1000 in your bank account.

It is utterly meaningless.

You mean the underage “dating” servers?

But you just said

Mozilla could have focused on being user-supported through fundraising like Wikipedia.

It is an option.

Clearly it isn’t working well enough for them.

It’s a long one, but Climate Town did a great video on this.

You can donate to Mozilla.

Perhaps they should’ve put that more front and center. But if they add a prominent donate button the people on here would probably lose their shit too.

We’ll find someone else to blame, like women!

Wait, no–

As a neutral nation you need to have some way to ensure that neutrality as there is no NATO or other group of nations to have your back.

Hence the military spending.

Ah, like so. I thought you were referring to the article on the Patreon website with your initial comment, rather than the article in the post itself.

You’re right, the article is wrong. “Gross revenue” makes no sense.

Which is contradictory to the first line of the linked essay.

Is it though?
Current sign-ups are likely through Patreons own payment system, which will stay as it is. It would be like signing up in the web version, then going on to use the iOS app. That wouldn’t suddenly subtract 30% from a payment Apple has no control over.

Yeah but my short term gains!

Figure skating is also an olympic competition, is it not?

I don’t think 100% renewable is the way to go, given that energy output can vary.

And as long as any amount of fossil fuels are left in the energy supply chain, I’d rather they be replaced with nuclear. Even if it’s more expensive.

I’m not making the decision so it doesn’t matter.

Perhaps not directly, but assuming you live in a democracy your vote does matter.

It may not reduce the delta, but we gotta cover the base load somehow. Nuclear is ideal for that job.

Nuclear doesn’t reduce the difference between supply and demand.

How does it not?
There’s a certain “base load” to any power grid which could easily be done by “inflexible” nuclear powerplants.

Sodium doesn’t address the problem with EV weight.

Inefficiency is fine if you have an abundance of energy.

Running a country exclusively on renewables comes with its own costs in storage and emergency solutions.
I’m not saying “go exclusively nuclear” either. Supplementing it with renewables should be done.

Going 100% renewable is going to require an immense amount of storage, nevermind their instability. Any base load we can replace with nuclear is going to lessen that burden.

EV’s are heavy and require a ton of rare Lithium.

Using over capacity to generate hydrogen seems to me like a way to solve that. Hydrogen which in turn can be used to power cars, trucks, ships.

I don’t see how nuclear would slow the transition away from oil and gas.