mierdabird

joined 2 years ago
[–] mierdabird@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

The fact is that Israel has been creating the conditions for this violence for decades. Hamas wouldn't even exist if Palestinians weren't the victims of an apartheid state and ethnic cleansing

[–] mierdabird@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago

OP, how does it feel being a fuckin loser with no prospects in life

[–] mierdabird@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago

This is so fuckin sad lol

"Look at our technological prowess! We can copy an Iranian design with a lot of help!"

[–] mierdabird@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That's interesting you say that because building nuclear plants is also a "bloody nightmare", see Vogtle, Hinkley Point, Flamanville, etc

[–] mierdabird@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Budgets are a real thing. If you tie up $28.5 billion constructing say, the Vogtle #3 and #4 reactors, you are taking away significant amounts of money that could have already produced working wind and solar installations that would produce far more power. Stating that reality doesn't make me "evil," get a grip.

Additionally, with upgrades in high voltage transmission lines and grid-level storage systems the need for nuclear or fossil fuel baseload in the future is going to be far less than you expect

[–] mierdabird@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

starting to add more nuclear capactiy so in 10 years we can use it, isn't a bad thing.

Unfortunately this is only true if the money tied up building a reactor for 10 years doesn't take away from the budget for wind and solar projects. If it isn't then you're literally stealing clean energy from the present to hopefully get roughly 1/4 that rate of power production in a decade

[–] mierdabird@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 years ago (12 children)

Chernobyl was a 50 year old design, and happened 40 years ago, involved multiple human errors ... nah can't consider things have changed since then.

Things have indeed changed, now construction regulations are far tighter. This is good because the risk of a Chernobyl event is far lower, but at the price of extreme cost overruns and project delays

Ignoring the fact that coal and natural gas still hurt and kill people daily

So is it better to start a nuclear project and hope it can start reducing coal & NG emissions 10 years from now? Or is it better to add solar and wind capacity constantly and at a fraction of the price per MWh?

There was a time when nuclear was the right choice, but now it is just not cost effective nor can it be brought online fast enough to make a dent in our problems

Somehow Dams that would be devistating to destroy are given a pass, but hey Nuclear power, so scary.

I think you're forgetting that once the waters from a dam break dry up you can rebuild....a nuclear accident has the potential to poison the land for generations

[–] mierdabird@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago

I'm not sure if you're getting paid to say this or just incredibly stupid but either way it's pathetic

view more: ‹ prev next ›