Fwiw, I’m pretty convinced that the anti-seed oil crowd is approximately as grounded in science as the anti-vaccine crowd - that is to say, not at all.

Vibes-based QA only

To be clear, no streaming company is paying royalties on a per-stream basis, it’s basically always ((total revenue-platform cut)/share of total amount of streams).

So the artists are not really getting more money because you’re streaming on one platform or the other, they are all getting roughly the same amount out of what you’re paying on a monthly basis.

Feel free to put money into it if you believe in it. Given nuclear’s track record with regards to actually making money is not particularly strong though, so I wouldn’t advise doing this if you actually want to make a return on your investment.

It’s also cheaper than solar in many cases. While the upfront investment in reactors is large, the cost per energy produced and ongoing costs are quite low. Lower in many cases than fossil fuels like gas. Plus reactors last longer than solar panels and wind turbines.

Solar + storage is currently at less than half the cost of nuclear, while wind + storage is at a third of the cost: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1475611/global-levelized-cost-of-energy-components-by-technology/

I’m going to work on the assumption that you’re working off old data, because the claims you made are very far from where we’re actually at.

What happened to the idea that renewables didn’t need public funding anymore? If it’s really so cheap as you say that wouldn’t be necessary.

In many cases, public funding is no longer necessary for renewables. That’s why Texas of all places is becoming a wind powerhouse. Energy storage technologies are less mature and still warrant public investment.

Both renewables and storage technologies have something very important in common - they are absolutely plummeting in costs year-over-year, meaning that while nuclear is not competitive on price today, it’s just going to get worse from here on out.

I like to look at Sweden as an example, where the current government is pushing investment in nuclear. Their proposed plan is to:

• Have the public guarantee loans for nuclear construction
• Have the public guarantee a minimum kWh-price for these facilities

Aside from being incredibly expensive for the public, displacing other potential investment whether they be in energy production, other climate initiatives or just investment into the welfare of the population, it also makes private investment into renewables less lucrative and as such less likely to happen. On top of that, it’s being used as an excuse to not grant permits for construction of renewables by aforementioned government.

Agreed, if you’re going to be taking home 120k you’re not going to get out ahead in SF.

That’s a lie.

Not really, no.

Renewables produce more CO2 than Nuclear reactors per unit energy produces.

From what I gather, wind is on par with nuclear. Other renewables have slightly more than either wind or nuclear, but compared to the other nonrenewable alternatives either option is far better.

They can also be significantly more dangerous (higher number of deaths per unit energy) in the case of hydro power or biomass.

You left out that solar and wind are largely on par or safer than nuclear per unit of energy. All of these options are again far safer than other nonrenewables.

Solar and batteries require various rare materials and produce significant pollution when manufactured and must be replaced every 20 or 30 years.

As opposed to the ever so clean extraction and storage of nuclear fuel? Come on.

And all of this leaves out the most important aspect - nuclear is incredibly expensive compared to renewables, and is trending more expensive each year, while renewables are trending in the opposite direction. This means that for the same amount of resources, we will be able to displace more nonrenewables, leading to a net reduction in deaths/emissions pursuing this route as opposed to nuclear.

Of course, I have nothing against fully privately funded nuclear. If private actors can make the economics work under safe conditions, then nuclear construction is an obvious net positive. When they displace public investment in renewables, however, then they are a net negative.

It’s getting more expensive year over year, while renewables are plummeting in price.

It was a bad call to stop, but now it’s an equally or worse call to start again.

Renewables win on essentially every measure and get better every day while nuclear gets worse every day.

Damn, you beat me to it.

In Sweden, it’s forbidden by law to be a criminal.

Nah, they happen. Just at way, way lower rates than in the U.S.

If you get FAANG-tier money in SF, you don’t lose it all to CoL. You definitely make it out ahead.

Drive-by e-scooter shootings have been a thing here in Sweden, which I firmly place in the same cyberpunk bucket.

Dude had his claim to keep on living denied

What part don’t you get? If you can be more specific, people might be able to help you out with some largely spoiler-free hints.

For example, do you not get ‘what the goal is’ (this is a legitimate concern, and someone might be able to give you a direction to pursue for example)

Steel, aluminium and battery production can also make good use of lots of cheap renewable energy.

Fwiw, the picture doesn’t show someone setting themselves on fire, it shows someone having lit a Molotov cocktail.

Muscles hurt when they don’t get used. Strength exercise fixes this, although you will replace it with some level of soreness instead.

Still, it’s worth it

There’s a huge difference between fire codes and R1 zoning with massive setbacks/minimum lot size/maximum lot coverage/mandatory parking minimums/etc.