Today it works, tomorrow it's outdated and bit rotten. Next week it'll cost $2000 to replace it because automotive parts have crazy mark-ups (the replacement will also be bit-roten because the manufacturer lost interest).
So get a second phone/infotainment unit and keep it mounted in the car and connected by USB. Replacing that will be a lot cheaper than replacing current built in infotainment units.
Yes it does.
I'm not going to listen to someone who doesn't understand the concept of opportunity cost in investments try to tell me what is financially viable and what isn't.
It just goes on and on and on. You just keep saying things that everyone knows are not true. Everything with you is just, to paraphrase: "No, it's actually the opposite", but you never provide anything remotely resembling evidence, you just say whatever you fell like to promote nuclear power. Because you're a fanatic who, highly ironically, uses the term algebra in their username, even though you clearly have issues with basic mathematical reasoning.
Or maybe he is a scientist. To date there are zero examples of a country deep decarbonizing with solar and wind. Scientists rely on these pesky things called "facts" which antinuclear people tend to forget.
Those renewables have only been financially viable due to technological and industrial advances for a little over a decade. Wh inat examples are you going to present for a country "deep decarbonizing" with nuclear power? I am guessing you are going to hold up France as an example. The problem is, if you include the requirement that it be financially viable, France no longer works as an example. Their nuclear push was done with significant military and energy independence goals that led to the real costs being ignored and obscured.
Nothing has changed about the tech. Solar never works at night. Wind still needs wind. Both are intermittent. Grid level storage is still prohibitive.
The cost of battery storage dropping precipitously is, in fact, something that has changed about the tech. Also, while it doesn't work at night, obviously, solar has become more efficient per unit cost and wind power has also become more cost-efficient by finding a better sweet spot for size/cost/spacing of towers.
Maybe provide a better answer other than he is old.
The answer was better than simply because he is old. The point is that his opinions on this were formed in the past and it is unlikely that they will change at this point, despite the fact that the foundations he built his opinions on have changed.
The fact that you had to go to Chernobyl is because you don't have an example of cask storage for used fuel failing.
I literally said that was tongue in cheek, which you chose to ignore, which I think says more about you than it does about my argument. The simple fact is, I have no reason to need to have an example of cask storage failing. I have been quite clear that, as far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter very much. The real issues are the cost/speed/inflexibility of nuclear power.
Yet it is better than solar and wind all three topics. Just look at the 500 billion Germany and 15 years they spent on their energy transition only to fail. If they spent it on new nuclear they would have succeeded.
All three huh? So you can build 1/3rd of a nuclear power reactor and operate it pretty much right from the start, getting power out of it relative roughly to the percentage of the plant you've already built? Amazing. Please point me towards one of these amazing nuclear reactors. The reality is that it takes a decade or two to build a nuclear plant and get it running and it produces absolutely no power the entire time. With solar and wind farms, you can technically generate power from the very first unit you install, which can happen literally thousands of times faster than building a nuclear plant. You can also break up solar and wind farms and put bits of them all over the place. Nuclear power plants need to be monolithic, and also have to have a tradeoff between being sited where they have access to lots of water, or costing a lot more to air cool. Siting near large water supplies means riverside locations or coastal areas, which are in limited supply and are almost invariably some of the most sensitive areas ecologically (not to mention often being prime real estate and also much more likely to be near large human settlements).
As for Germany, with renewables providing about 60% of their electrical power, it seems disingenuous to say they have failed. Looking at it in terms of their population what they have spent works out to something like 25 Euros per person per month. If they were at 100%, that would be about 42 Euros per person per month. Bearing in mind that appears to be based on expenditures so far this century. Since prices have come down significantly over that time, it should cost less for that remaining 40% or so. I think it's really on you to demonstrate how they have failed. As for the notion that they would have "succeeded" (which I get the feeling, in your mind, is a condition that can not be achieved simply by providing all needed power, but requires that the power in question comes from nuclear reactors) if they built nuclear power... What makes you think the nuclear power plants would even be built yet if they had tried?
Also solar and wind is way more inflexible than nuclear. If they were flexible they could run during when the sun wasn't shinning and the wind wasn't blowing.
By the same ridiculous "logic" nuclear power is inflexible because it can't run when the reactor is offline. It's utter nonsense, but only because it's the same ridiculous argument you used for wind and solar.
That's not the point... I was about to add "and you know it", but maybe you actually don't. The point is that there is a big difference between those events and Russia's invasions. Russia invades and takes the land and people as its own. In the events you pointed to, the territory was not annexed and the people were not forced to change their nationality.
At least we can develop more vaccines. Oh wait, the right told me those are evil.
Remind me which of those countries were subsequently annexed by NATO countries?
And also because the Magna Carta has spelling mistakes (from a time before standardization) actually there's no basis to American law and actually the western world doesnt' exist it's just a big ruse and everyone is fooling themselves that they made all these technological discoveries.
I think a lot of that depends on whether the flags in the court have gold fringing or not... Or I might be mixing up Russian propaganda with plain old home grown US disinformation... Of course, there does seem to keep being more and more evidence that a lot of that actually is planted by Russia in the first place, so who knows.
As we have discovered, a lot of the world sees the United States, Europe and NATO as an imperialistic threat and our complaints about Russia's war in Ukraine hypocritical at best. Our expectation that Russia would be economically isolated and collapse didn't happen.
"Our", right... In any case, sure, the US is imperialistic and pushy and obnoxious on the international stage. Prominent European nations also have a lot to answer for in the history of imperialism. So what though? Two rights don't make a wrong. I can simultaneously think that Russia is wrong to do something while thinking the US was/is wrong to do other things. For example, US occupation of Guantanamo Bay? Completely illegal with no valid justification. National sovereignty is not some gift bestowed by the US on other nations.
So Russia overthrew the Ukrainian government in order to justify taking Crimea. It organized the uprising in Donbass and then it waited 8 years to recognize as independent countries the separatist Republics that resulted. Their army sat by while those separatist regions were being attacked first by the ultra-nationalist Ukrainian militia and then by the Ukrainian army. They waited 8 years while NATO trained and supplied the Ukrainian army to continue that war and two peace agreements that would have reunited the separatist republics with Ukraine were rejected by the Ukrainian government.
So, yeah Russia did overthrow the legitimate government in Crimea, and in Donetsk and Luhansk. As for the rest of that, pretty much all bull. There were no agreements that would have re-united the Russian occupied Donetsk and Luhansk with the rest of Ukraine. Not unless you mean surrender demands by Russia which would "re-unite" them by making them all Russian Oblasts.
Yes, that is Russian propaganda because it leaves out the Ukrainian side of the argument. But if you know the history, arguing "the whole thing is about Russian imperialist expansionism" is pure stupidity. Or, more accurately. deliberately deceiving propaganda.
No, it is actually entirely accurate. It leaves out the nuance that it is for Putin's own glorification, etc. but it is accurate.
But it actually has a measure of truth to it. The war is about ethnic Russian cultural and political influence in Ukraine where ethnic Russians made up almost 20% of the population. The government that they helped elect was overthrown by ultra-nationalists who resented that influence and immediately sought to stamp it out. The result was a civil war that eventually escalated into the current conflict.
More bull. I am sure you love the concept of the Russian Mir, but being an ethnic Russian or Russian speaker does not mean that Russia owns you. The overthrown politician in question was actually overthrown by parliamentary procedure. There are some excuses that it wasn't valid because of some constitution juggling that was going on beforehand (also one of the reasons for his overthrow), etc. Of course, while it was already well known how incredibly corrupt he was, the aftermath showed the sheer, disgusting scale of his corruption.
As the Minsk agreements demonstrated, resolving that conflict is almost impossible because it is driven by ethnic hostility, not national interests.As a famous United States diplomat once commented, demonizing the other side makes peaceful settlement impossible.You can negotiate interests, you can't negotiate with evil. The Ukrainian government is fighting evil and there is no basis for negotiations short of one side's surrender. Which is why Zelensky keeps saying the only way to peace is more pressure on Russia.
While it is, to some degree driven by Russian ethnic hostility towards non-Russian Slavs (what do they call Ukrainians again? Khokols?) the broader reason is Russian imperialistic expansionism.
The problem is that it appears the United States and NATO lack the capacity to defeat Russia militarily and Ukraine certainly lacks that capacity.
That is hilarious. The Russians are only maintaining their presence in Ukraine through the continuous mass sacrifice of their own people and whatever foreigners they can trick into dying for them. This war has made it entirely clear that NATO forces, or pretty much any of the major NATO countries individually, could roll through Moscow and St. Petersburg (Pretty much the only major parts of Russia that the Russians who matter live in) within a month in conventional warfare.
The world leading climate scientists James Hansen has repeatedly said "Nuclear energy paves the only viable path forward on climate change." I guess he is a fanatic as well!
It's not that James Hansen is a fanatic, it's that he he is in his mid eighties and formed many of these opinions earlier in his life. He was ten when the first power generating nuclear reactor came online and 12 when the "atoms for peace" initiative started. So, we have a budding young future scientist who grew up in what they were trying at the time to dub the "atomic age" which was when the US government most heavily propagandized nuclear power. That's bound to leave an impression. Likewise, his impression of things like solar cells would have been formed in his college years when they were just starting to become more widely available, but were tremendously inefficient compared to today. Back then is when they started throwing around notions that solar panels would never produce more energy in their life time than they took to make. It may have been pretty close to true at the time. Basically through most of his life, those renewables were not as advanced as today and were not yet ready to be viable as cost-effective, efficient power sources. At a certain point, older scientists do tend to get fixated on certain ideas without keeping up so well with the state of the art. Hansen was around 74 when he made the statement you attribute to him above.
It is worth noting that, despite being a prominent climate scientist, Hansen has many, many critics in the field on his pro-nuclear stance. While I am not a prominent climate scientist, I am one of those critics because the economics and logistics don't work out.
As for used fuel. It has always been a bullshit excuse for continuing to burn fossil fuels. Cask storage works. Otherwise you would be able to cite an example of it failing( hint - there isn't one).
Well, for citations of cask storage failing that all depends on whether you would consider a reactor containment building to be a cask. If you would, then one failed when used fuel exploded out of the top of the "cask" and ended up scattered all over Chornobyl (and large areas of Europe). Or the time it melted through the bottom of the immediate "casks" and ended up pooled at the bottom of the primary "cask" where it is only kept cold by continuous cooling water and has been there for a decade and a half and will probably be there for three or four more decades at least.
That is tongue in cheek of course. As I have said, I have no doubt that dry cask storage is no worse than all of the other inadequate schemes for storing more conventional long-term toxic waste out there. I actually agree that it is not really, but itself, any sort of reason to worry about nuclear power. I only mention it because you keep mentioning it. My objection to nuclear power for general electrical generation remains the same as always: It is too expensive, too slow, and too inflexible.
What about good old logical OR with regards to lies or incompetence where person X is either lying OR they are incompetent (it's a logical OR, so they can be both as well). Any possible option should disqualify them for whatever they are being considered for, but many people seem to work on the basis that, if they can't be sure they are lying, and they can't be sure they are incompetent, then person X must be neither.
My fault. I usually make sure that I at least name the subject once in reply posts rather than just using pronouns, but I failed to do that. Especially bad when I was replying to a quote of a line that mentioned both Jobs and Woz and pretty much left it to context from prior posts to determine which I was selecting as the subject. Sorry about that.
Of course nothing will convince you otherwise. You have made it perfectly clear that you are a fanatic.
You mean everyone in your propaganda bubble knows it. People who actually know the history of the Ukraine conflict understand its a lot more complicated than that.
People like myself have a very good idea of the history of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and understand it quite well. From an understanding of both sides of the issue, it is quite clear that Russia is in the wrong and the whole thing is about Russian imperialist expansionism.
Which is not so say that Russian imperialism isn't a factor. That almost 20% of Ukrainians were/are ethnic Russians was partially a result of Russian imperialism. And clearly the anti-Russian hostility of Ukrainian nationalists is a product of that imperialism.
Not even clear what you think you're trying to say here, but I'm just going to interpret this as saying that, yes indeed, most of Russia's close neighbors think that the Russians are a dangerous, imperialistic threat for good reason.
Was this reply meant for me? I think maybe you meant to reply to someone else.
RAM wasn't built in a day.
