![](/static/b5c6caef/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/gWmVEUZ94Z.png)
Lmfao are you serious? Supporting renewables makes me a shill for fossil fuel companies? You’re stretching so far you’re going to split.
Lmfao are you serious? Supporting renewables makes me a shill for fossil fuel companies? You’re stretching so far you’re going to split.
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:
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:
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.
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.
No, they’re pretty comparable in terms of emissions, and renewables are cleaner in terms of other environmental impacts. You can look up total lifetime emissions for nuclear vs. renewables - this is the aggregated and equalised emissions 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 generally show that renewables tend to be as clean or cleaner in terms of total lifetime emissions, and in addition, since nuclear relies on fuel extraction (mining) and has lots of issues regarding waste, renewables is overall cleaner than nuclear.
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
Hijacking your thread to advocate for my lazy ideology. Disclaimer I have pretty severe ADHD so this might be extreme for most people but for me this makes life liveable.
Forget trying to make things look super tidy and neat like in an IKEA commercial. Make your living space functional, comfortable and easy to maintain. Reduce the amount of physical, mental and emotional effort required to maintain your environment. For example, for laundry:
You get the idea. Embrace your laziness, don’t bother yourself with half a second what people might think of how you live. This is surprisingly neat and orderly and takes almost no effort to maintain. If you keep finding your basket is misplaced, buy another basket and keep it in two places. Stop fighting the current and go with your flow. Accept who you are, even if you’re a lazy bitch like me!
I would have been interested in your perspective if it wasn’t for your attitude. You seem really aggressive and chauvinistic, so I don’t really want to engage further.
All of the evidence says that vaping is much less harmful than smoking, so I’m afraid that I will have to disagree with you on that. This kind of misinformed comment is not helpful to discourage vaping, as it just makes all anti-vaping messaging seem deceptive, which is why I asked for personal stories from people about their experience.
I agree with what you wrote about vape products being marketed at young people, but that isn’t the focus of this post.
Thank you for sharing, this is very insightful.
So it’s a monetary thing, mainly? If it was cheap would you still want to quit?
I’m very curious on the topic - having had many friends and relatives who have started vaping, I wanted to get an understanding of the topic, both in terms of health data, but also the perspectives of people who vape.
It’s incredibly difficult to get good, clear information about this - lots of responses are from smokers talking about how much better vaping is than smoking - but we know that kids/teens have been picking up vaping at a high rate without ever having smoked and have been doing so now for a number of years, so those responses aren’t helpful.
On the other hand, when it comes to finding the negatives of vaping, it’s very difficult - so much has been written about one or two overblown stories (e.g. vitamin E acetate in THC vapes, or issues involving black-market or gray-market vapes/nicotine solutions) which absolutely drowns out the ability to find information about the negative health effects of a typical vape user buying name-brand products from reputable suppliers.
Long story short, I’m just trying to gather opinions and personal experience with vaping products. I have no real opinion either way, I’m just looking for the truth.
If you do want to help people avoid nicotine, all of the research has shown that the best anti-smoking campaigns used storytelling and strong emotional messaging - so I would encourage you to share your story if you’ve had a negative experience with vaping.
Edit: I just saw your edit saying my questions were a bit specific, it’s possibly my autism or something that makes me inclined to the way I asked, if that helps. It’s genuinely just curiosity, I’m just weird, haha
Thanks for sharing - but why? What is your reason for quitting?
The BBC hasn’t been impartial for at least 20 years. Not only that, but they’re the most transphobic publicly funded institution in the UK.
Oh boy, Travis Worthington comes off as such a selfish asshole in this interview. Paraphrased, and being a bit unfair to him, he just kind of says, “oh, we know fine well that we are benefiting from stealing art from others, and I’d really like if you believed that I cared about that, but the reality is that I don’t really give a shit, and if you’re an illustrator, just give up on your dreams of getting a job someday, because I certainly won’t be paying you”
Definitely gonna be avoiding indie games studios from now on.
Was chatting with a young (17-ish) atheist guy recently who misremembered this as “isn’t there a bit in the bible where Christian licks a prostitute’s feet?” which truly left me with so many things I wanted to say that I could bareky say anything without laughing so much, but I managed to get out “did you think Jesus was called Christian??”
Okay so imagine that you’re on Elon Musk’s private jet, 36000 feet in the air, and he asks you to strip down into a thong and perform an erotic dance for him. It’s his property, he has the right to tell you what to wear. If you don’t like it, you’re free to leave; of course. Do you think that’s acceptable?
So that’s a no, then - you don’t have a right for something if you have to leave the system to exercise the right. For example you wouldn’t have the right of freedom of speech if I said “yeah you can say whatever you want if you leave the country!”
So, why do companies deserve more rights than people?
Do workers have the right to refuse to be associated with something that the company want them to display on their dress code? For example, a corporate sponsor? If no, why do companies deserve more rights than people?
single-handedly destroying globalism
Oh no! Anyways…
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
A threat to CCP interests it may be, but that wouldn’t justify a military invasion that would kill a shitload of people, would it? It would have to be sinking food or medicine shipments with coastal guns or something equally abhorrent to justify such an act. And again, that would absolutely be valid justification for an invasion, so they wouldn’t do it. How can you claim to be one of the good guys when you justify a military invasion and the deaths of thousands of innocents as “just a fact of how things will turn out”.
Oh, my apologies, you’re quite right, I initially misread your message, sorry about that - thank you for your answer and I appreciate your consistency. I appreciate you arguing in good faith and I understand your position.
I disagree with you, I think you have an altogether a bit too optimistic perspective of the CCP, but I understand why you would be inclined to feel that way.
My point is, I think it’s pretty clear that Taiwan stands no chance whatsoever in a hot conflict with the Red Army - I hope that’s something that we agree on. I am sure that Taiwan is also very aware of that fact.
So what threat is posed by providing conventional munitions to Taiwan? If they were used in aggression, they would guarantee their own demise. Do you really think that they would be so desperate to strike a meaningless blow against the CCP that they would trade everything to accomplish that?
If so, why would these weapons change anything? They could have sacrificed everything for a single meaningless act of violence long before now. It’s not like Taiwan is being supplied with nuclear weapons, is it?
Providing Taiwan with conventional weaponry only accomplishes one thing: making an invasion of Taiwan less compelling.
You’re not engaging with my argument because you know fine well what the outcome would be. I think we’re done here.
There really should be a law requiring companies which provide online services to be required to release self-hosted server software once they discontinue the provision of the service.