UnPassive

Maybe Australia's grid is 90% ready for solar, I've heard they're pushing for full renewable in 2 States. But the USA's isn't ready.

Again, I understand that new installations of solar power plants are cheaper than nuclear. My points against solar are:

• its footprint (solar farms outside every town/city)
• its lack of power generation during night (batteries aren't cheap and don't last long, new tech will help but doesn't exist yet)
• how quickly output changes due to weather. This is extremely hard for the grid to adjust to. The best solution is filling gaps with natural gas (methane) because it starts up fast. Methane is a potent greenhosue gas and it's supply chain is extremely leaky so that stinks.

Meanwhile points agaisnt nuclear are

• cost
• waste

Both of which seem like much simpler problems to solve:

• subsidize (like renewables)
• store on site, reprocess, or build a storage facility (last point being expensive, but solving the problem completely). Reprocessing is my favorite choice.

I guess it depends on perspective. On one hand, it's an enormous amount of land - on the other hand, the USA is extremely big. I personally think the footprint is significant. It's not like we'd tear down suberbs to make solar farms, we'd tear down nature (undeveloped land).

The cost being the motivator that makes solar better than nuclear I don't believe to be accurate. Short term, solar is cheaper, but also we're making panels as fast as we can. It takes a lot of materials and is hard to scale quickly, so we can't just decide we want to switch the USA to solar and think we'll have enough panels in a decade even.

Additionally, nuclear isn't expensive in the long run. It's quite profitable and low maintenance. Nuclear waste is blown up by people who don't understand it. And our grid is ready to be powered by nuclear. Our grid can't yet handle the quick variablility of solar. If that weren't a problem, we still need additional power from events where there isn't a lot of sun for a while. Batteries may get us through the night someday (also another enormous manufacturing feat) but they won't get us through the week.

If both can be profitable, it's really a question of what we want to build. I argue that we can't even run off solar yet without some new technologies being made. Nuclear is the quick fix we need. The only reason we don't have it already is because of attitude towards it ("not in my backyard"), which I think would be different if people understood it.

Yeah agriculture isn't great for the environment either, but that doesn't actually make solar any better

Coal was also considered clean in the beginning because they didn’t have to sacrifice forests anymore.

False analogy fallacy

We may not consider the waste a problem now, but that may very well look differently in 50 or 100 years.

Argument from ignorance fallacy

I am not so fine pretending it’s without tradeoffs

No one is saying it's free energy or perfect energy. I myself would argue it's clean and solves some of our current energy problems, while renewables still can't. Unfortunately it suffers from a bad reputation and misinformation.

Nuclear power plant waste doesn't significantly contribute to climate change or pollution? So it's "clean" by most metrics.

Nuclear waste can generally be stored on-site without issue. Reprocessing would be nice, but not even necessary. Just because you don't understand the problem, doesn't mean others are "religiously defending a technology."

Remember that blanketing the world with solar panels isn't exactly great for the environment. Rooftops makes a lot of sense, but the cost goes way up, an maintenance becomes a nightmare. The footprint of nuclear is much smaller

I'm definitely all for some decentralization, but our power grid would need to be overhauled drastically to support solar/wind at a large scale. A cloud going over a bunch of solar panels, for example, is a massive engineering problem and can bring down a grid temporarily.

Our tech just isn't ready to go full steam ahead into renewables. Storage tech will be a large step closer, but remember the scale we're talking about. I understand that investing in renewables invests in research, but I fail to see how nuclear isn't the off the shelf answer.

Cheap - sustainable - steady power - thorium reactors are even renewable. Modern designs and computers make nuclear disasters far less likely (to the point where it's not really a valid concern). Nuclear waste isn't even as big an issue as people believe. Most of the waste can just decay on-site. The Boring Truth About Nuclear Waste

Gotta be pretty sensitive, in my opinion, to interpret feminism as misandry...

I just watched Critical Drinker's review and wow... I disagree with most of his opinions in general (cousin frequently sends me his videos asking if I agree), but this time he really didn't try analyzing the movie or what its goals were or anything of the like. Instead he constructed a narrative on how the movie hates all men and wants a matriarchy...

I get that some people today are somehow still frightened by feminism, but this was too far. To the level of deceptive. I'm guessing most of his audience is conservative men, and not movie lovers. I'll be sure to not hold his opinion as anything close to objective in the future.

On another note, probably the most fun I've had at a theater ever. We live within walking distance so we have an unlimited movie pass and see everything and I've never seen the theater so packed. Laughing with an audience was super cool. I'm young; did movie theaters used to always be this way?

Been enjoying Arkham Horror LCG with my wife! Hoping I can find expansions used online

I've been wanting to pick up Hogwarts Battle to play with my wife! We're playing Arkham Horror the card game right now, so maybe after

Love go! I have not had many opportunities to play it unfortunately, but I hope to one day have a friend who will regularly play games with me