Nuclear power is not a renewable power source in the technical correct meaning of the word. Fission material is "only" abundant, in that we can win nuclear fission material from many sources, including recycling spent nuclear material, but it is not available and spent without human intervention (otherwise we could argue fossil fuels are renewables, too).
As an aside, nuclear fission power differs from renewable power in many other ways, too. It is not clean, it is not easy to harvest, it is not safe, it is not cheap, it is not a mass job engine, it is not low-maintenance, it has less utility, and it has less flexibility.
IF the world got its primary energy from today's kind of light water reactors, uranium available at up to 3x the current price would only last for about five years.
A fully nuclear-powered world (including all energy use, not just grid electricity) would need breeding of some kind; otherwise the uranium just gets too expensive. So when you hear people claiming nuclear is cheap, ask them if that cheapness includes the technologies that would actually be needed for nuclear to do the full job.
If we needed more nuclear fuel we would be producing more of it. Comparing current production to a world where we use a thousand times more of it is ridiculous. Uranium is not that rare, and spent fuel rods still have well over 90% of their potency so they can be recycled.
Nuclear energy could easily power the entire planet for thousands of years.
Sure, we could produce more. It would have to be from much lower grade ores, and so would be much more expensive and disruptive. This is why breeding would be needed, so the cost of the uranium would not make nuclear even more unaffordable than it already is.
The argument about affordability is quite ridiculous in a world that is becoming uninhabitable as a direct cause of the "affordable" alternatives.
We could easily afford to use nuclear, and we wouldn't have to rely on it entirely - we have many alternatives such as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal etc. I'm also quite confident that economy of scale would improve the fuel cost, and the higher investment would make breeding and other nuclear technology advancements much quicker than they are and have been. Not to mention fuel cost is quite insignificant in nuclear energy.
We can however not afford the consequences of fossil fuels. We are already severely impacted by global warming and it will get much worse very quickly. I think this chart conveys the severity of our situation very well: https://www.dpg-physik.de/veroeffentlichungen/publikationen/...
Affordability most definitely figures into which avenue forward should be taken. It cannot be used to justify fossil fuels over nuclear, but it can be used to justify renewables instead of nuclear.
Nuclear doesn't have a "get out of economics free" card just because fossil fuels are to be eliminated. I understand the desire of nuclear fans to pretend otherwise.
I'm not a "nuclear fan", I'm a "don't destroy the planet fan". I'm not saying we should build nuclear instead of renewables, I'm saying we should build it instead of fossil fueled generation. It seems you agree with this, so I'm not sure why you seem to be arguing against it.
Until the day that we stop burning fossil fuels entirely, we should be building nuclear to replace it. If it's more expensive that's fine, I don't think it would be, at least not significantly, but I can't prove it and I don't care either way, it doesn't matter. What matters is replacing fossil fuels as fast as possible. It's probably already too late, and the powers that be don't give a shit anyway so none of this will actually happen but this is what we should do.
In vast parts of America, the "local PC shop" doesn't exist. It's BestBuy's GeekSquad (of dubious quality) or Apple's Genius Bar. There might be a repair shop somewhere, but most of the time, they just repair cracked screens.
Full agreement. I'm double-taxed in Germany and the US. I don't have a residency in the US (so I cannot vote but still get taxed, nice!) so I'm completely unable to buy VFIAX or any other fund from the US. I cannot but them over an EU brokerage, either, because US ETF and its ilk violate European transparency laws. I can buy EU-domiciled funds, but those are treated as PFIC in the US with prohibitive taxation. I relegated myself to an old-school dividend growth investment scheme and it's financially working out much better than I anticipated but still, I'd like to have a core of a stupid ACWI tracker.
> I relegated myself to an old-school dividend growth investment scheme and it's financially working out much better than I anticipated but still, I'd like to have a core of a stupid ACWI tracker.
roughly same approach in Canada, for the same reasons.
if you look up most of the dividend aristocrat funds they'll give a breakdown of holdings... so duplicate those in roughly the same ratio (to the best you can) and call it a day
You're not being pragmatic, you're being myopic. Our current energy systems are the result of deliberate complex work. It seems shortsighted to think it's somehow the only system that can ever be built just because other systems have new challenges to overcome.
I get what you are saying. I'm coming from a Sony Xperia 10 IV with a width of 68 mm and it was perfect, albeit a bit tall (21:9 format). Now I use a Motorola Edge 60 Neo with a width of nearly 71 mm with the "traditional" 16:9 format. It is almost as tall and just slightly out of reach of one-handed use for me. The Minimal 2 is wider at 72 mm, the Clicks is even wider. I'm going to look at the Razr, it's frustrating.
Vanity is not a trait exclusive to people born in an ill-defined interval of time. You internet using people need to come up with a better term for people you want to blame for everything bad in the world. Jobs, Wozniak, Berners-Lee, or that Ethernet dude, Metcalfe, are not responsible for the end of the world.
EDIT: did a quick search. I played Pirates on the C64 and never heard of the rather recent "Gold" edition for PC. I know where I'm going to spend the next weekend! Thanks for bringing it to my attention <3
Spent the week playing it. The dancing can be turned down once you find a governor's daughter you want to focus on.
The gold edition doesn't have the eras selection and the treasure fleet doesn't exist the same way. Sailing is easier but I became promoted quickly with all countries and could never attack a town. Promotions are easier. Not a edition.
Can't speak for the OP, but I, for one, don't wear a watch while sleeping. I use a Junghans alarm clock from 1989.
I use my watch for time, step counting, and ringing/vibrating. Having my phone on silent and not missing calls (not messages, messenger are not allowed to send notifications to my watch) is such a step up for me :)
Nuclear power is not a renewable power source in the technical correct meaning of the word. Fission material is "only" abundant, in that we can win nuclear fission material from many sources, including recycling spent nuclear material, but it is not available and spent without human intervention (otherwise we could argue fossil fuels are renewables, too).
As an aside, nuclear fission power differs from renewable power in many other ways, too. It is not clean, it is not easy to harvest, it is not safe, it is not cheap, it is not a mass job engine, it is not low-maintenance, it has less utility, and it has less flexibility.
reply