RealFknNito

I don't like the implication that Pokémon GO was bad when it got a ton of people to go outside and interact with each other. This is cool too though.

Linux using proprietary drivers always feels like a plane using a transmission to me.

Plaintext should never be used in any application that deals with security, ever.

Lol you mean the corporate owned farmers who milk subsidies and your taxes while trying to convince you they're just small blue collar workers? Fuck farmers.

Ape escape. Holy shit it's ape escape.

Every day I wake up I gamble if I'll enjoy it or not.

Takes at least two years to convince people Gatorade is better than water for plants.

If they last for decades, why is there so much ewaste for specifically photovolatic cells? Theoretically lasting decades, sure, but they seem to have a high chance of breaking.

I don't think there's a single real world instance of a city having batteries being able to sustain the load for the night without any added generation. That would be newsworthy and a massive win for renewables. They might get there eventually with sodium based batteries but that has yet to be seen.

If solar panels were discarded less and battery arrays could be cheaply made so that nuclear and coal weren't nessesary, I'd agree with you, but I haven't seen either of those things. They're "likely in the future" but by that time, we could make another nuclear power plant.

And all this without even considering fusion, which in my humble opinion, would replace renewables.

If you use the metric of LCOE, sure, throwing a bunch of cheap solar panels all over the place can just barely be cheaper than the cost to produce them. However, the article even admits this doesn't include the nessesary use of batteries for renewables, assumes battery technologies will get cheaper and better, while disregarding alternatives. I have to still stress that even if I concede the point they're almost the same where solar just barely wins, the waste is nowhere near the same. The need for batteries is nowhere near the same. These are hurdles solar still faces that nuclear doesn't need to solve.

Photovolatic panels still generate thousands of times more waste than anything I've seen from nuclear and we don't have cheap enough batteries to be able to make arrays to support entire cities the way a nuclear plant can and does.

I get why renewables are attractive but I still don't see the downside to nuclear. The only valid point I've been given is "time to build" which yes, we should have started thirty years ago. Why not right now?

The cost and waste per GW/H of power is also staggeringly different. Even if we took spent reactor parts into account for waste and calculated the cost, would it fall short for solar or wind? I haven't seen any data that would suggest renewables could compete with nuclear in terms of power generation per waste or cost, let alone beat it, but I'm willing to examine anything you put forth.

In fact, I've only ever seen the opposite. That nuclear has a superior ratio in nearly every metric and that's not considering where fusion could end up taking us.

Handwaving the topic at hand to focus on tone policing. Typical.

I've never done much gardening but this seems like a great reason to try to do more rainwater harvesting. Thought about funneling gutters into a barrel with some debris catchers. Might make for a good backup in times like this.