DOE Announces $2.7 Billion From President Biden’s Investing in America Agenda to Boost Domestic Nuclear Fuel Supply Chain

Wow, some industry lobbyists got government funding, amazing. Global fossil fuel subsidies are at $7 trillion, so I guess those are really relevant to our future as well!

I don’t want developing countries to waste their money on nuclear power when they can get much more cost effective renewables.

I don’t understand why Julian Assange gets any credit for Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton, because that should clearly go towards the mainstream media.

So much ink was wasted by the press over Hillary’s nothingburger email scandal. I think it’s something like 50 headlines in the New York Times over a single month?

Not to mention James Coney’s part to play, basically he hates Hillary Clinton so just took any opportunity to sink her election chances. He holds much more blame for Trump’s election than Julian Assange.

I wonder why, out of all the journalists who could be blamed for Trump, Assange gets so much more hate? I suspect a lot of it is because there’s already so much anti Assange propaganda because he damaged the hegemonic interests of the US.

No industry has quite so much vaporware technology as nuclear power. Any idiot can promise and never deliver. Look at Elon Musk.

There is so much uranium in the world. Even if we completely switched over to nuclear power and without improvements in Nuclear tech, our sun would have fizzled out and we still would have uranium left.

TL;DR: If we switched over to nuclear, we’d burn through the world’s reserves of accessible uranium ore in less than twenty years. Hopefully the sun will last a bit longer than that.

According to 2022 Red Book, there are around 8 million tonnes of Uranium which we could extract for $260 or less, per kg. The current price for uranium is around half that, FYI, so nuclear fuel prices would have at least doubled by the point we’re extracting that last million tonne.

Nuclear power plants use around 20 tonnes of uranium per TWh, according to the world nuclear association, and world energy consumption is around 25,000 TWh per year, according to the IEA. That would be half a million tonnes of uranium consumed per year. Meaning we would burn through the world’s reserve of reasonably accessible uranium in just sixteen years.

In hot countries, thermal solar is a great opportunity - Imagine big mirrors that concentrate the sunlight on one particular spot.

But Photovoltaic is used just fine - one of the largest solar farms is near Dubai, and Saudi are planning on being a massive provider of solar power in the future - Saudi Arabia launches world’s largest solar-power plant

So, no, sorry, nuclear power isn’t relevant anymore. I know it’s tempting to cling to outdated technologies sometimes, I enjoy using a typewriter for example, but when it comes to solving climate change, I think we should use the best tools available, which nuclear is definitely not. It’s just too expensive and slow to provision.

So many public health problems would be solved if we publicly funded cafeterias to provide subsidised breakfast, lunch and dinner to any member of the public. Economies of scale on providing those meals would make them incredibly cost effective and the improved health among working class people would lead to increased tax receipts which are would (at least partially) mitigate the cost of such a policy.

The point of these kinds of efforts is to shift the blame. “It’s easy to know which foods are good and bad with this handy system, so if someone is only eating bad foods, that’s their choice, and the rest of us can blame them for their poor health.”

I read the paper you linked. Are you seriously suggesting that if we stopped animal agriculture, wild animals would flood the countryside to the same extent as in the Kenya study? I don’t think that is broached by the study at all.

The United States supports genocide and colonialism around the world relentlessly, and acts like it’s a crime against humanity when there is even the slightest pushback, even though they have never been held to account for any of their own crimes against humanity. I’m sorry if awareness of that fact caused you distress, it wasn’t my intention.

Mate, you got bullied ONCE, and then decided that meant “Immigration is an issue in France.”

You are using something minorly shitty that happened as justification for an extremist policy position.

And you’re calling me foolish.

Yeah, are you going vegan, though?

Except when we have 100% renewable low emission electricity and transition away from CFC refrigerants, they’ll essentially drop to zero emissions. There’s nothing particularly bad about air conditioning. It is more and more becoming a necessity for survival due to climate change. If you don’t like that, your target is the fossil fuel industry, not the working class people who use air conditioning to avoid suffering.

Meanwhile, animal agriculture will always be extremely harmful to the environment due to methane, nitrous oxide, and various other issues. I’m happy for you to criticise people for using air conditioning if you’ll commit to going vegan.

Yeah, no wonder it was removed - entirely without citation and low relevance. To be honest, the existing line “…been criticised for its methodology” is on shaky ground, I checked the citation and I would not characterise it as a critique:

“Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific.”

That is the entirety of what the source says, it doesn’t go on to mention it more in later paragraphs, just that one sentence.

CNN’s own source for that claim is a single tweet with no reactions to it whatsoever, which doesn’t feel very iron-clad to me.

Considering the massive incentive for powerful companies and individuals to cast doubt on the veracity of media bias/fact check, it seems irresponsible to interpret the source in that way and to spread that claim as though it’s entirely watertight.

Can I ask, why did you even post your original reply? Did you do your own fact check in January, see that paragraph, and decide to share it to discourage people from trusting the fact-checker?

that’s something you deal with on a case-by-case basis, not systemically.

I clicked your link. Not only is the quote you provided not actually present in your source, but the sentiment isn’t even there. The article is mostly about how reliable and consistent the website is.

i’m sorry, but I can’t bring myself to care about anti-american “racism” in europe. it might do the world some good tbh

fascism is when you ignore rights of rich people

Are you vegan?

My point is that the anti air conditioner stuff is just greenwashing, that’s all. The facts are that air conditioning isn’t a particularly bad technology in any way.

Sure, of course, air conditioners have environmental impacts, that’s obvious - but so does building solar panels or electric cars.

Inverter heat pumps are one of the obvious solutions to mitigate climate change because they’re much, much more efficient than other forms of heating and cooling, we should be pushing for them to become common in Europe, not jumping on some bandwagon we don’t really understand because traditionally Europe hasn’t been hot enough to need it.

This pretty much shows and proves that one small state is the ‘leader’ of every country, even the US.

Could you clarify what you mean by that?