hannes3120

I think when if it would have been evacuated in time there would still be news coverage

People just love reading and therefore clicking stories that tell them that electric cars are bad and they should just continue buying gas powered vehicles instead of considering a change

Same as with that tanker that burned out on the coast of the Netherlands with some EVs on board

A lot of stories where covering it in a way that implied the fire was because of those EVs when in the end the level where they were stored was among the very few that was still intact - but that didn’t make the news…

I mean the effects of climate engineering as pretty much impossible to predict completely. I’m not sure you can even rule out for sure that it’d effect Africa if they did some climate engineering in Alaska.

Even if you have most of the factors - with those kinds of things there’s always an off-chance that it interrupt bird migration and that fucks up something else and then suddenly it has an impact on air temperatures and a lot of stuff changes.

Relying on climate engineering instead of trying to prevent the catastrophe that’s coming is just stupid…

The problem is that if a country treats money as unlimited and without a cost then inflation will mirror that and people in that country will lose their savings, their job will not pay for their bills anymore and so on

It’s not as simple as “just spend more”…

The problem is that “both” isn’t a valid option unless a country has unlimited finances.

Otherwise you have to decide on what’s the most feasible option and then renewables win big time

I sometimes feel as if the current push for atomic is from the fossil-lobby as they are aware that it either works and they get 10-20 more years to sell oil until the reactors are built - and even if it doesn’t work out it still will slow down rollout of renewables

If you have 100 billion to spend on energy producing you have to choose if you want to go all-in with one source or split it up which would move the end of fossil fuels Back further

Not to mention having to buy the radioactive materials from dictatorships and having problems to cool down the reactors with rising temperatures and rivers running dry

I just don’t see how atomic isn’t a huge gamble that can backfire hard (and I’m not even talking about catastrophic events like Fukushima)

And still some see the US constitution as this pinnacle of democracy when it’s vastly outdated by now

Even the founding fathers anticipated a lot of reforms and for the whole thing to become obsolete quite soon but yet here we are with people worshipping them as this infallible being and weighting their words on a scale as if it’s impossible for them to be wrong

What would swapping servers achieve?

Cheaper in the long run perhaps - but how expensive is it to build?

Atomic energy is only “cheap” since the cost for the power plants is heavily paid for by tax money. For the cost of one power station you could cover a huge amount of land with solar panels.