I'm cheap. So I am using a ~$35 interface, plus a spare one and free open-source software. (I intend to contribute to the new branches). It does the job for small shows. And I can set up a Mackie-compliant interface and a Novation Launchpad to give me physical buttons.

The 'hurricane people' - climate scientists - look at all of them. USA Meterologists - those people fronting USA news broadcasts in the USA - concentrate on the ones hitting the USA because they are in the USA and people in the USA are most interested in that. But in no way are those that make landfall in the USA the totality of hurricanes studied. To suggest that only USA landfall ones are studied is absolute nonsense.

There's a strike price to encourage build out. This is the operation of the mechanisms employed to get around effective market price signals. Given that we haven't had blackouts due to lack of power in the UK, everything is working as designed. Absent the strike price we may have had reduced generation capacity and blackouts at other times which would be more costly to the economy than this form of subsidy. And it's one that would also apply to nuclear, although you'd need to make a choice as to which generation to do without and as the strike price for nuclear is higher, then disconnecting excess generation from renewables would still be used to protect both the grid and spot price.

Nuclear requires a high strike price (that is subsidy) to be economic, so more isn't an obvious response to higher costs. In other words, you have cause and effect backwards: higher cost will make nuclear more attractive. As I've noted before this is, to a significant degree, a market pricing failure as always-on power doesn't have a price signal outside subsidy. You could use spot pricing as a signal but poor old people sitting in the dark won't play well politically.

Legal processes are relatively cheap in comparison to burying cable and increased maintenance. That is why it is rarely buried.

The outage in Spain was unrelated to renewables. Nice try, though.

As I have two interfaces I might be able to find a way to monitor the far end of a chain but I don't have time to rewrite drivers to get it to do something else, so it will depend on finding someone else who has done it. Although if I do discover that my theory is correct it would take $150 to get an interface to run multiple universes which is not top of my spending priorities. I've found ways of working around it. What software do you use? I find QLC+ very useful and it allows me to add audio and video, but it would be nice to be able to mock things up in 3D. Software that does allow that is pretty basic in terms of visual quality, though.

Remove nuclear from the conversation? It's been discussed massively in the last twenty years.

What does nuclear cost versus renewables is the more relevant question. Most Western governments have favourable policies towards nuclear. Where the reliance on building is on private entities then the issue is either the economics of nuclear and/or subsidy. We need to be honest about the fact that nuclear seems to require subsidy. In that case, we need to look at what subsidy for a variety of generation technologies and potentially other techniques such as demand management get us to the best position. Given cost and the availability of sufficiently high grade uranium ores, nuclear maximalism is unlikely to be the best option. I suspect that were probably looking at 20% nuclear, or in other words broadly maintaining its market share, although for some countries (Iceland, Norway) renewables are more cost effective than nuclear. A reserve of always-on (bar maintenance, cooling issues, etc) power has an economic value that free market mechanisms for pricing doesn't address very well, so subsidies are valid. However, going all nuclear would be very expensive, as it was for France (or nearly all nuclear) which did it for national security and hides the retail cost through subsidies paid for through taxation.

Because the USA is the whole world, right?

Fish are a major predator, but jellyfish compete for food with fish and predate larval fish. Jellyfish blooms are a big problem

Anoxic oceans. It will take 6C of warming to get to that, so we should be safe from a 90% extinction event

Gore at least studied climate change at university. But yes, he's not a scientist. Read the IPCC reports (the main body) which is written by scientists - they can be quite sobering.

New? I guess you missed the previous 30 years of warnings. That's on you, not the scientists.

No, I didn't miss it. I don't understand why you think not agreeing with you somehow suggests people didn't read what you wrote.

And given that decision, then cooling is limited. That you think that they should have made a different decision doesn't change the facts on the ground.

Sure, whatever. If you want to make an issue out of waste heat from a nuclear power plant then you need to do better. We know how to cool nuclear power plants without killing fish

My issue here was that you made statements about the UK climate that were incorrect, not cooling.

And it could also be used with wind and solar. TCO is the key. Is nuclear plus batteries really viable?

Again, you confuse an objection to your panglossian view to a wider criticism of nuclear or government. By presenting your overly optimistic view, sweeping so much under the carpet, you actually damage the case for nuclear. You can only assess it with all the information.

That doesn't seem likely to be cost-effective.

That's a concern too. But you don't effectively promote nuclear as an option by ignoring its issues.

That's too expensive for nuclear when nuclear is expensive in the first place.