Scarlet_theorem [none/use name]
Good in theory, but with many cons:
- Very costly and construction can take ages. The shortest afaik is about 10 years in South Korea. Increasing demands to safety and aditional capabilities drive costs and complexity even more.
- Costs per kW/h is generally way higher.
- Renewables in comparison can be installed way faster and more flexible.
- Technology is generally extremely expensive and unattainable for poorer countries, giving advanced/rich nations another lead in development.
- Uranium is kinda like coal, in the sense that it is non-regenerative and can be controlled by capital way more easily than decentralized renewable sources.
- Nuclear waste is nasty stuff and disposal/storage is usually highly controversal. Almost no politician wants to deal with it.
My ideal scenario would be:
- Massive increase of renewables, storage and general energy efficiency.
- Massive decrease fossil fuel energy via stringent regulation and divestment.
- More ressources for fusion research as the next step of energy production for baseload power plants. (Keep some smaller renewable sources online though)
This was just so fucking predictable.
A dragon-donkey would be unironically dope.
There was a recent discussion on the ZeroBooks YT channel about the connection between Marxism and the Black (American) struggle. Gist of it was essentially that African Americans as the primary discriminated racial/social group are essentially the reserve army of capitalism. That exchange was way more insightful than this reductive approach to race relations as a mere caste system.
Didn’t Smith come up wit the labour theory of value?
I also suspect Trump in his remaining time to be absolutely dedicated to intentionally derail the situation even more, just to spite Biden for when he inevitably takes over the WH.
Such a tragedy. Guy could’ve become a really influential activist and leader for left politics in tech.