Waryle
- 0 Posts
- 45 Comments
101·22 days agoThat’s not brain drain. Brain drain is when high qualified people leave their country, mostly because of the lack of infrastructures costing them opportunities for studying or working in their respective field.
What you’re talking about is capital flight. This is an issue that is systematically raised as a counter-argument by liberals in debates on taxation. The problem is that it is seriously overestimated:
- Leaving a country is a lot more complicated than it sounds: you lose your family, your friends, your culture, your habits. Many millionaires who leave their country end up coming back after a few years.
- You can’t relocate your real estate investments.
- Going abroad doesn’t exempt you from paying taxes (especially exit taxes).
- A country that wishes to do so can prohibit the relocation of a profitable company, or even nationalize it.
- Many rich people who threaten to leave if taxes are raised end up doing the math: if there’s a profitable business, they’ll stay. And in a country that finances its infrastructure soundly and has a good distribution of wealth, there’s profitable business to be had.
11·25 days agoWhile true, how is that any different to the arguments that were used for TV?
Television is bad because it is a passive activity, but it is less harmful than the continuous ingestion of micro-videos. But I don’t see what it has to do here.
Additionally, Lemmy is a social network in the same way that Reddit is. Is this not also dangerous?
What’s the connection? I didn’t mention Reddit.
As has been the recommendation for practically everything for the four decades I’ve been on this earth, moderation is key. Instead of hating new media, either regulate it (if the evidence is truly that great) or treat it with healthy moderation.
This would be to ignore the particularly addictive nature of this kind of content. It would be like comparing apples to Snickers: both are sweet, yes, but one is much more problematic.
Let’s be blunt here. Most of the people in this thread aren’t worried about health
That could be a point, but I’m pretty sure that if you ask anybody, the main reason given would be that it makes you stupid. But I can agree that this opinion would not necessarily be based on anything other than the eternal contempt for novelty as video games or manga were, for example, before they became popular.
ITT: People in their mid-twenties or later, who feel superior to those that like one form of media over their preferred media.
You’re just waving away an important fact, which is that shorts and their equivalents are notoriously known for killing attention spans and disrupting the management of dopamine in the brain, causing depression in particular.
We are no longer simply in the traditional custom of the elderly who despise the activities of the younger generations, we are talking about health.
Hexgears and of course lemmygrad.ml are of the same kind
- Those are tires, not wheels.
- 35% which uses them means that 65% don’t use them.
- You said “no matter gear you have”, so you can’t use that point.
- With 20cm of fresh snow, even a normal car would be stuck. But if you tell me that you use a special car (a pick-up for example), I will argue that you can use a special bike (such as a fat bike) and roll with it without problem.
And we could save a lot of people if they put on helmets to walk down stairs, and yet I don’t see anyone saying that people are stupid not to wear them.
And your friend, if he drives at 30mph, of course he has to wear a helmet, but the subject is not a sporty practice of cycling, but bike commuting. And helmets does not protect you from a shitty infrastructure and tank-like cars that run you over, so maybe it would be good to stop insulting people and bring some nuance to this debate.
Guess dutch people are stupid, but at least they have way less death per kilometer while cycling ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Come on, even the comment above it specifically mention waste generated by nuclear power and its management
I did not berated you, I corrected you. If being corrected feel like being berated to you, maybe fact check yourself before commenting
I brush it off because nuclear has exactly the same problem. Worse, actually. We know what happens when you build solar, wind, and storage: on average, things get built on time and in budget. We also know what happens when we build nuclear: it doubles its schedule and budget and makes companies go bankrupt. One is way easier to scale up than the other.
No, just no.
We know what happens when we build nuclear:
- We invest 140 billion.
- We build more than two reactors a year for 25 years.
- By building up skills and an industry with projects, you can even put 1 plant and 4 reactors in the same place in less than 7 years from a vacant lot (Blayais power plant) .
- We decarbonize almost all of its electricity in two decades.
- It runs smoothly for more than 50 years.
- You don’t rely on fossils and the dictatorships that sit on it anymore.
- We become the biggest electricity exporter of Europe for decades, and the biggest of the world most of those years too
It’s called France.
We also know what happens when we want to do without nuclear when we don’t have hydro-electricity:
- We invest two trillion of euros.
- 25 years later we have 60% renewables, but we’re still burning coal and gas.
- so we are still one of the most polluting electricity in Europe
- We’re always at least six years away to get out of coal.
- We don’t have a date to get out of the gas because we have no idea how we’re going to build enough electricity storage to make renewable to work
It’s called Germany.
Take this [map] (https://app.electricitymaps.com/map)
- On the top right corner, click on “Country”
- On the bottom left corner, click on “Yearly”
Can you tell me how much green countries do you see which does not rely on hydro and/or nuclear?
The answer is: >!not. A. Single. One. Even after trillions of euros invested in it worldwide, not one country managed to reduce their electricity carbon print without nuclear or hydro.!<
If all the paperwork was done and signed off today, there wouldn’t be a single GW of new nuclear produced in the US before 2030. Even optimistic schedules are running up against that limit.
Why this arbitrary date? In five and a half years, there would be no power plant, but if you launch 15 1GW projects in parallel, maybe it will take 15 years to build because of legal recourse as well as a shortage of engineers/technicians because people have been told for 30 years that nuclear is Satan and we want to stop. But after 15 years you have 15GW of nuclear.
But how long before we find a solution for storage? How much will it cost? Is it even possible to store so much energy with our space constraints and physical resources?
The debates and even this thread are filled with “we could totally go 100% renewables with political will and investments”. No you could not, that’s called wishful thinking. In reality you can’t force your way through technological innovation by throwing money and gathering political will, or else we would skip renewables and go straight to nuclear fusion.
On thing that money and political will can help with, on the other hand, is to speed up and reducing costs to build nuclear. But somehow, you act like nuclear is inherently too slow to build, before an arbitrary date that you forget conveniently when we’re talking about renewable storage. It’s called hypocrisy and double standards.
React to demand in minutes? Cute. Because most energy storage works by being pulled by demand directly rather than reacting to it, things change almost instantly.
I just proved that your theory is wrong by bringing up empirical data gathered over a whole country, why do you keep insisting?
France made a record year last year, with 320TWh of nuclear power produced for a total of 434 TWh of electricity, while being the top exporter of electricity of Europe.
I don’t know how they got to 1000TWh of nuclear a year, I suspect weed.
In Germany, we’ve got a location with 47,000 cubic meters: https://www.bge.de/en/asse/
Read your link: 47 000m³ of low and intermediate radioactive waste.
Low radioactive waste is objects (paper, clothing, etc…) which contain a small amount of short-lived radioactivity, and it mostly comes from the medical fields, not nuclear plants, so even if you phase out of nuclear, you’ll have to deal with it anyway.
This waste makes up for the vast majority (94% in UK for example) of the nuclear waste produced, and you can just leave it that way a few years, then dispose of it as any other waste.
Intermediate radioactivity waste is irradiated components of nuclear power plants. They are in solid form and do not require any special arrangement to store them as they do not heat up. This includes shorts and long-lived waste and represents only a small part of the volume of radioactive waste produced (4% in UK).
So you’re mostly dealing with your medical nuclear waste right here, and you can thank your anti-nuclear folks for blocking most of your infrastructure construction projects to store this kind of waste.
They just need to be scaled up at this point.
“We totally can go to Mars, we have engines, they just need to be scaled up at this point”
Scaling up is almost the entirety of the problem that needs to be solved, you can’t just brush it aside like this.
Check my comment that shows the scale of the problem
No traditional power plant can match demand exactly, and large amounts of power are wasted as a result
Absolutely false. Power consumption is very stable and previsible, plants can react in minutes, and the surproduction is small enough to be stored or exported.
The French electricity system operator, RTE, provides all the information on this subject:
That’s some nice fanfic you wrote but I don’t think we should base our real world decisions on your little ideas.
Point the flaws in my logic, debate my ideas, or just leave. Don’t waste your time making another reply if you can’t keep respectful, I won’t bother reading it.
It’s very easy to find this information so I can only assume you’re arguing in bad faith, but regardless, here are a few starting points for your research. You could also maybe just search it yourself instead of wasting my time and yours with your ridiculous example of a single hydroelectric dam.
Asking for sources and data to support a disputed claim is the basis of scientific debate. Becoming aggressive and disrespectful after such a mundane request is much more revealing of who is debating in good faith here.
TLDR : The study does not support the claim made in the title. It just says that it will be economically feasible. When asked about if its physically possible, they just throw some vague techno-solutionism, and even admit that 100% renewable will may never be actually possible
A request must be made to access this article, I highly doubt that you made one and actually read that report, so I won’t waste my time either.
This report does not even relate to our debate at all, it theorizes multiple scenarios for 2050, does not tell if it’s feasible and how, and none of these scenarios are 100% renewables anyway. This is out of subject.
I’m not going to bother to keep going, it becomes obvious that you just took random studies whose title seemed to support vaguely your points , hoping that I’m as bad-faith as you and I that I won’t open them.
Your statements are based on void and you become aggressive when asked for explanations. I take back what I have above: don’t bother to answer at all, I’m just going to ignore you from now on.
You know what uses even less fuel and produces even less waste
That’s false, solar and wind power consume considerably more resources than nuclear and therefore produce considerably more waste than nuclear power.
What’s more, because of their low load factor and intermittency, they require oversized capacity, storage devices and redundancy, further increasing their footprint.
at the same or cheaper cost
Only if you don’t account for oversizing the capacity, the storage and redundancy induced by the wide adoption of solar and wind power.
Please provide those “studies and researches” that backup your claim, because a simple calculation shows that the world’s largest WWTP, Hongrin-Leman (100GWh in capacity and 480MW in power, over a 90km² basin) contains just 10% of the capacity needed and only 0.7% of the power required for a country like France to last a winter night (~70GW during ~14h of night).
So we’d need “only” 10 Hongrin-Léman stations in terms of capacity, but 142 Hongrin-Léman stations in terms of power. In other words, we’d need to flood at best 8.5x the surface area of Paris, and at worst the entire surface area of the Île de France department, home to 12 million inhabitants. And that’s just for one night without wind (which happens very regularly), assuming we rely on solar and wind power.
Then we need to find enough water and enough energy to pump it to fill the STEP completely in 10 hours of daylight, otherwise we’ll have a blackout the following night.
Wind and solar power cannot form the basis of a country’s energy production, because they are intermittent energies, and the storage needed to smooth out production is titanic. These energies rely on hydroelectricity, nuclear power and fossil fuels to be viable on a national scale.
The government does not decide for the cost of producing nuclear electricity, which has barely changed that year.
Macron is turbo economical liberalism, and he does everything he can to not be affiliated with the left.
He even dissolved the Assemblée Nationale (our Parliament), and when a left-wing coalition came out on top, which should have secured them the prime minister’s seat, Macron delayed the appointment for months trying to buy time for the right to secure an agreement with the far right, and ended up choosing a prime minister from a right-wing party who did had only 7% of votes.