God Hates THE WORLD (Natural Disaster Thread)

[dzajic]

Ouch, took a look at our "public but only for qualified professionals, so not really public" document on projected climate change economic damages. I guess most people heard about that famous Nobel laureate who is prognosticating something like 2.5% cumulative GDP loss by end of century and all governments are taking that as gospel? While I'm certain our people are still sugarcoating things, but they are saying 25% total cumulative economic loss over next fifteen years.

25% loss to your country’s economy or the global economy? If it’s for your country, maybe it’s because it over-relies on tourism or other sectors that are more sensitive to climate change.

Global. Though I was off by 4 years, its not next 15 years, its up to 2040. I just messed in my head and though 2040 is 15ish years away. Cumulative loss of the global economic output of around 25%. And getting more significant past 2040. If everyone keeps siting on their butts and doing nothing but talk.

I checked and its actually available on internet publicly, they even dropped the "not for plebs" disclaimer. But if I linked you you would know exactly where I work I wish to pretend to have still some anonymity left on the internet.

[Hel OWeen]

Guess who was bankrolling the antinuclear tree hugging hippies...

Anyone sensible? Seriously dont talk shit about something you know very little about. Nuclear is the ultimate example of wasteful corrupt crony capitalism. It's everything you hate.

But what do I know, I've just literally negotiated major legal documents involving Hinkley Point C and played with its financial model.

Let me state for the record: online armchair nerds bumming nuclear is incredibly irritating to anyone with sufficient expertise in energy projects to properly analyse the rationale for nuclear.

The biggest issue with nuclear is cost of financing which in current environment of perpetually negative interest rates and gigadollars thrown around for every fart dick and joe is ridiculous.

It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

Then on top of all that, its ALSO the most expensive

And on top of that, it's putting all your eggs in one basket such that a single fuck up by a single welder during construction might delay the project 5 years and double its cost (as it has done in Flamanville)

The need is completely clear. Electricity need keeps climbing and will continue to climb for a long long while. A reliable base load is needed (and will always be needed). There is no need to put eggs in one basket thats why people are actually proposing nuclear. Renewables simply arent enough. They don't provide base load. They arent reliable. Id rather go the way of France than Germany.

Saying anything else simply means you're kidding yourself or have a different agenda.

Talking about kidding yourself ... or, you know, you could just acknowledge that this "renewables can't handle base load" is just a myth.

[Keckers]

It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

Nuclear plants are massively over engineered. Just drop the waste in the ocean.

[dzajic]

It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

Nuclear plants are massively over engineered. Just drop the waste in the ocean.

In case you were not sarcastic.

If you drop it on the continental shelf you are going to poison the fisheries and ruin ecosystems. Putting it in durable storage in the deep ocean subduction zones would maybe cost as much as surface deep underground storage.

[Keckers]

What's the cost of storing all this carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

[Zeekar]

Guess who was bankrolling the antinuclear tree hugging hippies...

Anyone sensible? Seriously dont talk shit about something you know very little about. Nuclear is the ultimate example of wasteful corrupt crony capitalism. It's everything you hate.

But what do I know, I've just literally negotiated major legal documents involving Hinkley Point C and played with its financial model.

Let me state for the record: online armchair nerds bumming nuclear is incredibly irritating to anyone with sufficient expertise in energy projects to properly analyse the rationale for nuclear.

The biggest issue with nuclear is cost of financing which in current environment of perpetually negative interest rates and gigadollars thrown around for every fart dick and joe is ridiculous.

It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

Then on top of all that, its ALSO the most expensive

And on top of that, it's putting all your eggs in one basket such that a single fuck up by a single welder during construction might delay the project 5 years and double its cost (as it has done in Flamanville)

The need is completely clear. Electricity need keeps climbing and will continue to climb for a long long while. A reliable base load is needed (and will always be needed). There is no need to put eggs in one basket thats why people are actually proposing nuclear. Renewables simply arent enough. They don't provide base load. They arent reliable. Id rather go the way of France than Germany.

Saying anything else simply means you're kidding yourself or have a different agenda.

Talking about kidding yourself ... or, you know, you could just acknowledge that this "renewables can't handle base load" is just a myth.

Ill believe it when I see it.

[Overspark]

Renewables simply arent enough. They don't provide base load. They arent reliable.

This simply isn't true. Wind generators at sea provide reliable power for the same amount of days per year as a nuclear power plant. Both have periods where they won't produce power (although you can usually predict nuclear maintenance much earlier of course), so in both cases you need something else that can fill in the gaps during those times. Filling in gaps is the only reason we can't switch to 100% renewable without fall-backs right now, and as Lallante attests chances are high that problem will be solved long before a nuclear plant is written off.

[Liare]

Guess who was bankrolling the antinuclear tree hugging hippies...

Anyone sensible? Seriously dont talk shit about something you know very little about. Nuclear is the ultimate example of wasteful corrupt crony capitalism. It's everything you hate.

But what do I know, I've just literally negotiated major legal documents involving Hinkley Point C and played with its financial model.

Let me state for the record: online armchair nerds bumming nuclear is incredibly irritating to anyone with sufficient expertise in energy projects to properly analyse the rationale for nuclear.

The biggest issue with nuclear is cost of financing which in current environment of perpetually negative interest rates and gigadollars thrown around for every fart dick and joe is ridiculous.

It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

Then on top of all that, its ALSO the most expensive

And on top of that, it's putting all your eggs in one basket such that a single fuck up by a single welder during construction might delay the project 5 years and double its cost (as it has done in Flamanville)

The need is completely clear. Electricity need keeps climbing and will continue to climb for a long long while. A reliable base load is needed (and will always be needed). There is no need to put eggs in one basket thats why people are actually proposing nuclear. Renewables simply arent enough. They don't provide base load. They arent reliable. Id rather go the way of France than Germany.

Saying anything else simply means you're kidding yourself or have a different agenda.

Talking about kidding yourself ... or, you know, you could just acknowledge that this "renewables can't handle base load" is just a myth.

Ill believe it when I see it.

you know Denmark runs entirely on windpower for much of the year right ?

[Zeekar]

Guess who was bankrolling the antinuclear tree hugging hippies...

Anyone sensible? Seriously dont talk shit about something you know very little about. Nuclear is the ultimate example of wasteful corrupt crony capitalism. It's everything you hate.

But what do I know, I've just literally negotiated major legal documents involving Hinkley Point C and played with its financial model.

Let me state for the record: online armchair nerds bumming nuclear is incredibly irritating to anyone with sufficient expertise in energy projects to properly analyse the rationale for nuclear.

The biggest issue with nuclear is cost of financing which in current environment of perpetually negative interest rates and gigadollars thrown around for every fart dick and joe is ridiculous.

It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

Then on top of all that, its ALSO the most expensive

And on top of that, it's putting all your eggs in one basket such that a single fuck up by a single welder during construction might delay the project 5 years and double its cost (as it has done in Flamanville)

The need is completely clear. Electricity need keeps climbing and will continue to climb for a long long while. A reliable base load is needed (and will always be needed). There is no need to put eggs in one basket thats why people are actually proposing nuclear. Renewables simply arent enough. They don't provide base load. They arent reliable. Id rather go the way of France than Germany.

Saying anything else simply means you're kidding yourself or have a different agenda.

Talking about kidding yourself ... or, you know, you could just acknowledge that this "renewables can't handle base load" is just a myth.

Ill believe it when I see it.

you know Denmark runs entirely on windpower for much of the year right ?

How much backup do your neighbors provide. What's the cost of your electricity. Is it even feasible in other countries?

[Jack Coutu]

Guess who was bankrolling the antinuclear tree hugging hippies...

Anyone sensible? Seriously dont talk shit about something you know very little about. Nuclear is the ultimate example of wasteful corrupt crony capitalism. It's everything you hate.

But what do I know, I've just literally negotiated major legal documents involving Hinkley Point C and played with its financial model.

Let me state for the record: online armchair nerds bumming nuclear is incredibly irritating to anyone with sufficient expertise in energy projects to properly analyse the rationale for nuclear.

The biggest issue with nuclear is cost of financing which in current environment of perpetually negative interest rates and gigadollars thrown around for every fart dick and joe is ridiculous.

It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

Then on top of all that, its ALSO the most expensive

And on top of that, it's putting all your eggs in one basket such that a single fuck up by a single welder during construction might delay the project 5 years and double its cost (as it has done in Flamanville)

The need is completely clear. Electricity need keeps climbing and will continue to climb for a long long while. A reliable base load is needed (and will always be needed). There is no need to put eggs in one basket thats why people are actually proposing nuclear. Renewables simply arent enough. They don't provide base load. They arent reliable. Id rather go the way of France than Germany.

Saying anything else simply means you're kidding yourself or have a different agenda.

Talking about kidding yourself ... or, you know, you could just acknowledge that this "renewables can't handle base load" is just a myth.

Ill believe it when I see it.

you know Denmark runs entirely on windpower for much of the year right ?

How much backup do your neighbors provide. What's the cost of your electricity. Is it even feasible in other countries?

Lol this is some angry simping for fossil fuel

[teds :D]

Guess who was bankrolling the antinuclear tree hugging hippies...

Anyone sensible? Seriously dont talk shit about something you know very little about. Nuclear is the ultimate example of wasteful corrupt crony capitalism. It's everything you hate.

But what do I know, I've just literally negotiated major legal documents involving Hinkley Point C and played with its financial model.

Let me state for the record: online armchair nerds bumming nuclear is incredibly irritating to anyone with sufficient expertise in energy projects to properly analyse the rationale for nuclear.

The biggest issue with nuclear is cost of financing which in current environment of perpetually negative interest rates and gigadollars thrown around for every fart dick and joe is ridiculous.

It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

Then on top of all that, its ALSO the most expensive

And on top of that, it's putting all your eggs in one basket such that a single fuck up by a single welder during construction might delay the project 5 years and double its cost (as it has done in Flamanville)

The need is completely clear. Electricity need keeps climbing and will continue to climb for a long long while. A reliable base load is needed (and will always be needed). There is no need to put eggs in one basket thats why people are actually proposing nuclear. Renewables simply arent enough. They don't provide base load. They arent reliable. Id rather go the way of France than Germany.

Saying anything else simply means you're kidding yourself or have a different agenda.

Talking about kidding yourself ... or, you know, you could just acknowledge that this "renewables can't handle base load" is just a myth.

Ill believe it when I see it.

you know Denmark runs entirely on windpower for much of the year right ?

How much backup do your neighbors provide. What's the cost of your electricity. Is it even feasible in other countries?

Lol this is some angry simping for fossil fuel

simping for fossil fuel by being pro nuclear? this is your brain on hot takes jack

[Maximillian]

A quick search shows that 17% of Denmark's electrity is imported, mostly from Sweden and Germany. Denmark also burns a lot of garbage and fossil fuels in their district heating systems that also generates a small amount of electrity as well.

Denmark is also an oil and gas producer thanks to the North Sea fields but like most of the North Sea that gas and oil will become unviable by 2050.

[Lucas Quaan]

source: https://www.iea.org/countries/denmark

[Liare]

[Nordstern]

If McConnell could be removed from the picture, I'm sure some Republicans would be willing to back the measure.

[Liare]

reminder that the measure in question is like taking a piss in the ocean and expecting the tides to rise.

[dzajic]

If McConnell could be removed from the picture, I'm sure some Republicans would be willing to back the measure.

Manchin and Sinema are best examples of "moderate Republicans" one can find, and they are insistent of gutting anything meaningful from that bill, not just climate change related stuff, but child support and other communist crap like that.

[Hel OWeen]

Guess who was bankrolling the antinuclear tree hugging hippies...

Anyone sensible? Seriously dont talk shit about something you know very little about. Nuclear is the ultimate example of wasteful corrupt crony capitalism. It's everything you hate.

But what do I know, I've just literally negotiated major legal documents involving Hinkley Point C and played with its financial model.

Let me state for the record: online armchair nerds bumming nuclear is incredibly irritating to anyone with sufficient expertise in energy projects to properly analyse the rationale for nuclear.

The biggest issue with nuclear is cost of financing which in current environment of perpetually negative interest rates and gigadollars thrown around for every fart dick and joe is ridiculous.

It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

Then on top of all that, its ALSO the most expensive

And on top of that, it's putting all your eggs in one basket such that a single fuck up by a single welder during construction might delay the project 5 years and double its cost (as it has done in Flamanville)

Here's a German study which was just published, looking at nuclear power as a feasable means to combate climate change (hint: it's not). Scroll down for a longer English summary.
https://zenodo.org/record/5573719

[depili]

Nuclear power might be the only way to stop the planet dying, it just would need to be applied in really intense bursts.

[Zeekar]

Guess who was bankrolling the antinuclear tree hugging hippies...

Anyone sensible? Seriously dont talk shit about something you know very little about. Nuclear is the ultimate example of wasteful corrupt crony capitalism. It's everything you hate.

But what do I know, I've just literally negotiated major legal documents involving Hinkley Point C and played with its financial model.

Let me state for the record: online armchair nerds bumming nuclear is incredibly irritating to anyone with sufficient expertise in energy projects to properly analyse the rationale for nuclear.

The biggest issue with nuclear is cost of financing which in current environment of perpetually negative interest rates and gigadollars thrown around for every fart dick and joe is ridiculous.

It absolutely isnt. It's the fact that you are paying upfront for a 60 year piece of infrastructure the need for which isnt clear beyond a 15 year horizon and whose decommissioning costs are literally a wild guess (in an area where all previous wild guesses have been too low by several orders of magntitude) because no one actually knows how to do it.

Then on top of all that, its ALSO the most expensive

And on top of that, it's putting all your eggs in one basket such that a single fuck up by a single welder during construction might delay the project 5 years and double its cost (as it has done in Flamanville)

Here's a German study which was just published, looking at nuclear power as a feasable means to combate climate change (hint: it's not). Scroll down for a longer English summary.
https://zenodo.org/record/5573719

Germany is bringing online coal plants to fight global warming. It should pipe the fuck down.