Cuz they want it to be true. They want their “opponents” to be vile creatures so they can claim the moral highground.

Makes it easier to dismiss their arguments.

Removed by mod

This is done regardless of the source of the glass. IE fresh or reused glass gets the same cleaning treatment.

And the massive amount of nuclear tests have had no impact at all? It’s all because of Chernobyl. Uhu.

Yeah no. Your choice has global impact. Sadly enough.

An EV will double your electricity usage. Look into the requirements for EV cargo transport. Swapping out all the diesel trucks, just the heavy transport will come close to doubling the national electricity needs. Add to that small vans and buses.

I urge you to actually do the math. You’ll get a much much better understanding of the issue. Just pasting links to articles that look like they support your arguments adds to the dream.

The aim is to drop fossil fuels. Your goal should’ve been to embrace nuclear while increasing renewables. Atm you seem fine with just burning fossil fuels, killing the planet, cuz the alternative isn’t renewable. GG.

Take a look at Germany, Belgium, etc. ditching nuclear because the green parties fought so hard for it. What are they doing now? Back to healthy healthy coal and gas. Thanks for helping kill the planet even faster in your zeal for exclusively renewable energy.

Idealists and reality. Natural opposites.

Renewables are unreliable. That’s a fact. Yes you have moments, days even weeks where they can deliver what is currently required. In total output. Not yet in delivers when you actually need it output.

Sure you can have 100% renewable generation for a 24hr period, but if your generation is during the day and your usage is spread into the night, you’re not really covering your needs, no matter how good it looks on paper.

It is also your current usage. Now do the math and replace all fossil fuel usage with electric alternatives. Cars, buses, trucks, heating, cooking, etc. Now calculate just how much more renewables you need to cover all that in ideal circumstances.

Now do the same for windless winter days.

If we’re going to step away from fossil fuels entirely, you’re going to have to accept nuclear as an option. Thinking we’ll manage only with renewables is a dream. While you dream, we’re burning fossil fuels non-stop. Cuz that’s reality.

You can have renewables with nuclear, or renewables with fossil fuels. You’re actively choosing renewables with fossil fuels.

Oh noes, facts. The bane of all renewables evangelicals…

Just wait till you have to tell them they’re looking at irrelevant data. Not only are they using specific usecases that are not applicable to a large majority of countries, but they’re also using data that doesn’t support the long term fossil fuel goals.

Just wait till you tell them how much the electricity requirements will skyrocket once we’re transitioning to EV, dropping fossil fuel heating, cooking, cargo trucks switch to EV, etc etc.

Solar plants, windmills or nuclear plant? You gotta be more specific.

As I said, lets talk once you’ve managed a full winter. 😉

In the summer. In ideal conditions. Lets talk again once you’ve tried 12 continuous months in the heavily populated northern hemisphere. 😉

So THE worst case scenario for nuclear only puts it at 6× the cost of renewables? That’s not really the argument you think it is…

Aaaw, someone doesn’t like the tone used? Well that’s unfortunate. How about you start with leaving dem bad faith arguments?

Renewables will not cover your usage. Period. You will need something to cover what renewables won’t be able to deliver. Your options are limited. Nuclear is the only sustainable option for many places. Sure you got hydro (ecological disasters) or geothermal in some places, but most do not have those options.

It’s not an XOR problem.

Good luck in the winter. 😉

Huh. So those of us that have always advocated for a nuclear baseline with wind/solar topping off until we have adequate storage solutions are climate change deniers? That’s new.

deleted by creator

So we’re gonna gamble? See who turns out ok and who doesn’t? Or not even that? We’re not gonna do anything and hope they all turn out great like your few examples? Sure, go for it.

Education has its limits. The kid needs to want to learn, to change.

Our MO is talking, education, conversation, non-restrictive and non-retributive. On my desk today I have:

15 yo that hasn’t been to school in 3 years. No amount of talking has had any effect.

16 yo that spread pics of his then gf among his classmates. And recently of his current gf as well, after he’s done the talking and education and supposedly gained the insight that it was wrong.

A 16 yo with boundary issues. Oh wait, no not this one. He’s been incarcerated. For stabbing a girl.

A 15 yo that loves the german army. The '38-'45 era more specifically. Today we’re gonna talk about him cheering during the holocaust museum visit.

A 16 yo that has been beating up his mom. We had to cut our talks with abuse survivor counselors short, as he was taunting them.

A 15 yo that was pushed by his friends and made a mistake. He shouldn’t be here, but it won’t hurt talking to him.

In my experience, which spans 2 decades, the softhand approach as we call it, doesn’t work as well as people like you want it to work. Sure, the other extreme doesn’t work any better and we don’t use it. But sometimes it is necessary in combination with re-education. There needs to be solid consequences, else they’ll just shrug it off.

And yet you push for more acceptance of nudity. Regardless of the wishes of the people involved.

Funny you focus on the map part, not the actual argument. 😉

Punishment should be a deterrent. Not an even trade. Your line of thinking is what gets us free rape passes for sports jocks “cuz they have so much potential”.

Maturity of the brain is irrelevant here.