frezik

No way they're replacing the bigger ones, like the Moskva. That one was built in a yard that's now in Ukraine, and Russia hasn't gotten that part back. Even if they did, Ukraine hadn't really maintained it.

It was also launched in 1979, and they haven't built anything that size since the USSR fell.

They'd have to rebuild the infrastructure needed to build the ship. These losses are irreplaceable.

On the tank side, some planned updates/replacements for the Abrams were very suddenly canned and went back to the drawing board. The DoD didn't say why, but a good guess is that they saw how things were going for tanks vs drones in Ukraine, and decided that these new designs would be obsolete before they're built.

China built a few Ap1000 designs. The Sanmen station started in 2009 with completion expected in 2014 (2015 for the second unit). It went into 2019. The second, Haiyang, went about the same.

This is pretty similar to what happened in the US with Volgte.

And 5 years is what nuclear projects have promised at the start over the years. Everyone involved knows this is a gross lie.

Nuclear is nothing bog standard. If it was, it wouldn't take 10 years. Almost every plant is a boutique job that requires lots of specialists. The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design was meant to get around this. It didn't.

The experts can stay where they are: maintaining existing nuclear power.

Renewables don't take much skilled labor at all. It's putting solar panels on racks in a field, or hoisting wind blades up a tower (crane operation is a specialty, but not on the level of nuclear engineering).

Then we just move the problem. Why should we do something that's going to take longer and use more labor? Especially skilled labor.

Money is an imperfect proxy for the underlying resources in many ways, but it about lines up in this case. To force the issue, there would have to be a compelling reason beyond straight money.

That reason ain't getting to 100% clean energy in a short time. There is another: building plants to use up existing waste rather than burying it.

Earthbound is a somewhat more traditional rpg with a lot of grinding/random combat.

One of the things that makes ChronoTrigger approachable is that all combat is prearranged by the design of the areas. You get the XP you need just by traversing it. Makes it easy compared to other rpgs from the time go. Take that as you will.

... it's currently not possible to store the renewables anywhere

Every time someone argues this, it's immediately obvious they haven't actually paid attention how the storage market has been progressing.

Next, you'll probably talk about problems with lithium, as if it's the only storage technology.

If you're going to do that, then also consider the co2 output of all the concrete needed for nuclear power plants.

No, you just pay out the nose up front.

If I had money to invest in the energy sector, I don't know why I should pick nuclear. It's going to double its budget and take 10 years before I see a dime of return. Possibly none if it can't secure funding for the budget overrun, as all my initial investment will be spent.

A solar or wind farm will take 6-12 months and likely come in at or close to its budget. Why the hell would I choose nuclear?

But the technology to rely entirely on renewables isn't really there either.

Yes, it is.

https://books.google.com/books/about/No_Miracles_Needed.html?id=aVKmEAAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description

This is a book by a professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering that goes into the details. We don't need nuclear. All the tech is there.

Except we have better options than we did 10 years ago.

I'd be all for nuclear if we rolled back the clock to 2010 or so. As it stands, solar/wind/storage/hvdc lines can do the job. The situation moved and my opinion moved.