This seems to mean that priests can theoretically make any liquid holy, thereby making holy Gatorade.

I’m trying not to fed post but what’s even the solution for this rampant indoctrination of the uneducated and gullible?

Yet another rewrite of “we didn’t start the fire” incoming.

Part of me wishes they didn’t, part of me wonders who would use his martyrdom to do even worse.

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

Based on Trumps defenders, it’s a legal gray area, so yes.

I feel it. I forgot what it was like. I feel… The Bern.

What’s the best possible justification for vandalizing a library?

Dead children who will never grow up to learn to read. When what you’re doing isn’t working, you have to expand the discontent. The protestors of BLM and Antifa burned buildings down, yet who asks for the justification? Is vandalism not the answer to bring awareness to the slaughter of marginalized and silenced groups, or is it only acceptable when it’s closer to home?

I don’t give a shit if a hundred libraries burn to save the lives of even ten children. The dead cannot learn from their pages.

Yet we haven’t even found other planets with complex dumb life, much less ones with intelligence, communicative life. Nothing like what we have on Earth, not even close. Either space is too big or we’re past the filter.

Hard to determine with what we know. We haven’t met any other intelligent species which suggests we’ve passed the filter. Yet, making that conclusion before knowing there are no others to meet is too presumptuous. But, if I were to guess, I’d think the filter is adaptability.

We’re superior to animals for being able to use tools, live in radically different climates, and shape every spot on earth into a livable climate. Even on Mars, the moon, and space. How else would a species venture through space if they can’t adapt?

That might be too general a concept for the question though.

Aggressively.

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.

390,000 metric tons since nuclear was started. In 1954. It wouldn’t even register a .5 on this chart.

It’s fucking insulting you know so little about what I’m talking about yet still disregard it. I shouldn’t need to hunt down something that should be readily apparent yet here I am.

$10 DLC.

It wouldn’t show up because nuclear waste is beyond miniscule and nearly every atom is accounted for. No other industry can claim that.

I love this graph because what it illustrates is that instead of going with the option that has virtually no waste, nuclear, everyone is fine with ramping up one that still is making a rather concerning amount of waste.

Celebrating taking the second best option seems really dumb when the even better one is right there.

The electronic waste crated by photovolatic cells harms nature. It’s not just a problem, it’s approaching the waste created by vapes. It’s not possible. I am yet again harping in about nuclear being the option.