Yep, the dead definitely wouldn't want their loved ones to continue living.
narp
joined 1 year ago
What line are you talking about? The Russian army is in ukrainian territory and needs to be kicked out, no one is talking about invading Russia.
Humour and logic, keep your comments coming! Lately it felt like Lemmy was overrun by people arguing in bad faith.
"Which is still what she's doing"
I know, I was talking about her.
"it's just reached the point where she can't get away with not pretending anymore"
Exactly, and that's a good thing.
"owner donors"
If true it means that even they think it's beneficial to change course which would be great.
"It's too late"
Yes, it's too late to reverse time. But I'm pretty sure the Palestinians that are still suffering at the moment would appreciate help anyways.
And real "help" is only going to happen if not only the politicians with principles but also the opportunistic ones agree on it.
Feels like your top priority is to hate on them instead of moving forward on a path that might finally bring a halt to that genocide.
Maybe you should reconsider what's really important to those people dying right now, I'm pretty sure they don't give a fuck about that senator.
Most politicians will play it safe and stick with the most popular opinion for their voter base, or just stay silent.
Sanders, AOC and the protesters helped to turn the tide, which is the reason some politicians speak out now. Those new voices will continue to change public opinion, force others to speak out and apply more pressure.
You rather want this not to happen?
I thought, getting people and politicians to agree that Israel needs to be stopped was the goal?
And why would it be "too late" while Palestinians are still dying?
"In the short term"
The main problem is that all this theory doesn't track with reality.
The mean construction time for nuclear reactors worldwide is 9.4 years and the US seemingly only finished one reactor (Watts Bar 2) in the last ten years which took 42.8 years to complete and ended up costing more than 12 billion. Watts Bar 1 was finished after 23 years and two others were abandoned, one by TVA after 47 years.
Correction: Unit 3 of the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor (Vogtle) was finished in 2023 in only 14 years costing 34 billion, while Unit 4 is still in construction.
The reason why China was able to build 39 reactors in a short amount of time is because they are using them to increase their nuclear arsenal. Projects like this tend to go faster if a dictatorship wants it to be done no matter the cost, public opinion and safety concerns.
Air and sea temperatures, ice shelf thickness etc. going back to fit perfectly with the current models and 2023 going down as a "freak occurrence" is, at least in my opinion, highly unlikely.
But it's also missing an important point: this is a scientific problem and realizing that we were not able to predict what could potentially happen in just a few years in the future, is worrisome in its own regard.
"Uncharted territory" basically means that scientists confirm it's anybody's guess what is going to happen next, since they don't understand why it's happening in the first place.
"It could imply that a warming planet is already fundamentally altering how the climate system operates, much sooner than scientists had anticipated."
Nono, it was the CIA, planting false information! The huge attack on multiple fronts at the same time was meant to fail, all just to disprove the "3 days"-propaganda!
But even with all this effort, the brainwashed westerners are still to stupid to see that!
Yeah. I bet you also thought Russia was going to take Kyiv, too.
Here is a copypasta from another user:
*When it comes to generating electricity, nuclear is hugely more expensive than renewables. Every 1000Wh of nuclear power could be 2000-3000 Wh solar or wind.
If you’ve been told “it’s not possible to have all power from renewable sources”, you have been a victim of disinformation from the fossil fuel industry. The majority of studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and industry – is feasible and economically viable.
This is all with current, modern day technology, not with some far-off dream or potential future tech such as nuclear fusion, thorium reactors or breeder reactors.
Compared to nuclear, renewables are:
- Cheaper
- Lower emissions
- Faster to provision
- Less environmentally damaging
- Not reliant on continuous consumption of fuel
- Decentralised
- Much, much safer
- Much easier to maintain
- More reliable
- Much more capable of being scaled down on demand to meet changes in energy demands
Nuclear power has promise as a future technology. But at present, while I’m all in favour of keeping the ones we have until the end of their useful life, building new nuclear power stations is a massive waste of money, resources, effort and political capital.
Nuclear energy should be funded only to conduct new research into potential future improvements and to construct experimental power stations. Any money that would be spent on building nuclear power plants should be spent on renewables instead.
Frequently asked questions:
- But it’s not always sunny or windy, how can we deal with that?
While a given spot in your country is going to have periods where it’s not sunny or rainy, with a mixture of energy distribution (modern interconnectors can transmit 800kV or more over 800km or more with less than 3% loss) non-electrical storage such as pumped storage, and diversified renewable sources, this problem is completely mitigated - we can generate wind, solar or hydro power over 2,000km away from where it is consumed for cheaper than we could generate nuclear electricity 20km away.
- Don’t renewables take up too much space?
The United States has enough land paved over for parking spaces to have 8 spaces per car - 5% of the land. If just 10% of that space was used to generate solar electricity - a mere 0.5% - that would generate enough solar power to provide electricity to the entire country. By comparison, around 50% of the land is agricultural. The amount of land used by renewable sources is not a real problem, it’s an argument used by the very wealthy pro-nuclear lobby to justify the huge amounts of funding that they currently receive.
- Isn’t Nuclear power cleaner than renewables?
No, it’s dirtier. You can look up total lifetime emissions for nuclear vs. renewables - this is the aggregated and equalised environmental harm caused per kWh for each energy source. It takes into account the energy used to extract raw materials, build the power plant, operate the plant, maintenance, the fuels needed to sustain it, the transport needed to service it, and so on. These numbers always show nuclear as more environmentally harmful than renewables.
- We need a baseline load, though, and that can only be nuclear or fossil fuels.
Not according to industry experts - the majority of studies show that a 100% renewable source of energy across all industries for all needs - electricity, heating, transport, and industry - is completely possible with current technology and is economically viable. If you disagree, don’t argue with me, take it up with the IEC. Here’s a Wikipedia article that you can use as a baseline for more information: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy *
Here is some info about the only construction projects in the US from the last 25 years:
-
The V.C. Summer project in South Carolina (two AP1000 reactors) was abandoned after the expenditure of at least A$12.5 billion leading Westinghouse to file for bankruptcy in 2017.
-
Vogtle project in Georgia (two AP1000 reactors). The current cost estimate of A$37.6-41.8 billion is twice the estimate when construction began. Costs continue to increase and the project only survives because of multi-billion-dollar taxpayer bailouts. The project is six years behind schedule.
-
The Watts Bar 2 reactor in Tennessee began operation in 2016, 43 years after construction began. That is the only power reactor start-up in the US over the past quarter-century. The previous start-up was Watts Bar 1, completed in 1996 after a 23-year construction period.
-
In 2021, TVA abandoned the unfinished Bellefonte nuclear plant in Alabama, 47 years after construction began and following the expenditure of an estimated A$8.1 billion.
Ah, but shitting on Biden and the US at every opportunity is completely reasonable while talking bad about the guy who is actually pulling the trigger is fucking scapegoating!?