![](/static/66c60d9/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/gWmVEUZ94Z.png)
Maybe a fair assumption for developing countries, but in countries where internet access approaches or exceeds 90% idk how you could justify that assumption
Maybe a fair assumption for developing countries, but in countries where internet access approaches or exceeds 90% idk how you could justify that assumption
America is ~5% of the global population alone. Europe is twice that. So by living in the west you’re in the top ~15% sure, but not necessarily the top 1%.
There’s no cancer link. It’s a discredited hypothesis.
Worth noting that solar panels are not without toxic waste. If left in landfills they risk leaching lead, cadmium and other toxic chemicals. The issue of recycling them at scale is not being seriously tackled.
Worth noting that the Fukushima disaster would have been prevented if they heeded warnings in a 2008 report that said their sea walls were too short, so again incompetence.
The vast majority of nuclear waste isn’t fuel, it’s cladding, equipment, etc. With that said, nuclear waste is literally a solved problem and the fact that people are still droning on about it shows how powerful fossil fuel propaganda is.
Covid was the #3 cause of death in 2020 in the US, behind only heart disease and cancer.
Apple is kinda a mixed bag in this regard. Sometimes the extra premium you paid is worth it because it lasts ten years, sometimes it breaks in six months because a single pin got bent in some critical internal connector. And sometimes they intentionally slow down old iPhones.
Honestly they probably could and the west would still have their back
The solution is not more fuel efficient or fuel alternative cars, it's the replacement of cars entirely (where reasonable). But you can't shock that, because it requires infrastructure which literally doesn't exist in much of North America, and is severely lacking in the rest of it.
Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland. This raises the question, "what is the difference between Great Britain and Britain?"
The distinction, when it is made, is that Great Britain is the entity encompassing the three nations on the island of Britain. Sometimes the distinction is not made, and in that case Great Britain is used for both.
And if you work at a company and the leadership becomes burdened with other life events? They delegate management to someone whose job it is to keep things running smoothly.
Co-ops can work that way too lol, there’s a co-op in Spain with 75,000 employees.
TL;DR people forget that like 90% of businesses fail, of fucking course co-ops are no different
The people who don’t have any money can’t vote for anybody who is good about this because that’s how it’s designed. It’s not our fucking fault.
I mean it is; that we haven’t taken power directly.
I mean, driving in two inches of unploughed snow isn’t a big deal where I’m from but that’s - as you mentioned - where everyone has winter driving experience, but also winter tires.
It’s not 10-20 years of construction AND 10-20 years at a loss, it’s 10-20 years of construction at a loss. Not great, but up to 40 years as you suggest sounds a lot worse because it’s a misrepresentation.
And you would be running 10-20 years of gas and coal power plants in addition to the renewables if you’re not in a suitable area for hydro because suitable grid scale energy storage solutions literally don’t exist. Maybe they will in 10-20 years, but would you bet on a maybe or go with nuclear which we know will work as a baseload?
Nuclear (with the exception of France because they’re special) is limited to being a base load as you alluded, but power demand varies throughout the day. Nuclear can’t vary on a 24 hour scale to follow the load so we need renewables and energy storage or hydroelectric to make up the difference. That’s what “nuclear OR renewables” misses
You cannot run the entire grid on entirely renewable. We physically don’t have enough lithium in the world to make the batteries for it, and even if you don’t use lithium there would be untold ecological destruction to extract the rare earths.
Renewable and hydroelectric is a solution but not viable everywhere and hydro also causes massive ecological destruction
Nuclear plants are immensely profitable, just not on time scales politicians are interested in. You’re deep in the red for 10-20 years and then after that it prints money
Rake in the lake