𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

  • 0 Posts
  • 126 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 16th, 2023

help-circle













  • Money spent building nuclear is money not spent on renewables. I didn’t say you said to stop building solar, but deciding to build nuclear does mean building less solar, simple allocation of resources.

    Solar energy particularly has been becoming increasingly efficient and cheap. In fact, it’s ahead of even the most optimistic expectations price-wise.

    There’s been plenty of studies showing that nuclear is not theoretically required to achieve 100% fossil-fuel free energy generation. And we’ve known this since 2009: https://frontiergroup.org/articles/do-we-really-need-nuclear-power-baseload-electricity/#:~:text=Nuclear power proponents argue that,baseload power other than nuclear.

    Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and energy storage solutions are perfectly capable of providing the full energy demand whenever we require it. The only issue is building sufficient amounts of it.

    In fact, nuclear is particularly bad at providing base power. The reason is that renewables are so cheap (and becoming cheaper), that one of the main issues has turned into having too much power on the grid. Nuclear unfortunately doesn’t turn off and on very quickly. Many old reactors take a couple hours to do so, and even if it’s technically possible it’s financially impossible because the reactor would be running at too large a loss. When dealing with fluctuating power (mostly caused by the day/night cycle of solar, other effects mostly even out if the grid is large enough), you need a backup system that can also easily turn on and off. Energy storage and hydrogen can do this, nuclear can’t.

    Then there’s the energy security argument. 40% of uranium imports come from Russia. Kazakhstan is an alternative, but even that is largely controlled by Rosatom.

    Literal fucking oil shill.

    Please stay civil. I’m happy to debate you but you can keep the insults to yourself. I’m very much against the oil industry. I’m not even necessarily against nuclear as a technology (I think it’s safe and don’t think the waste will be too big of an issue, also fusion is really cool science), but I have to conclude that it doesn’t make financial sense to go for nuclear, there’s practical problems integrating it with a renewable grid and we just have better alternatives.





  • Music locker services are frequenly targeted and taken down, as GlitterInfection mentioned. There’s multiple cases on the Wikipedia page.

    There is a jump between hosting and sharing, but that jump is very small. Share it with 1 other person, and you have made unauthorised copies of the licensed material, and are therefore acting against the law. That’s not FUD, that’s been reality for the past few decades.

    Whether or not the illegal sharing of licensed material is done via a generic website, a federated service of even carrier pidgeon doesn’t matter, an unlicensed copy is an illegal copy. Rightsholders have pleny of avenues to force a takedown against specific instances. And if they can successfully argue that the primary purpose of this software is piracy, they may even have enough legal arguments to force a takedown of the sourcecode.

    Of course, the main question is whether rightsholders will bother with this as long as it remains small-scale. Legal costs would likely outweigh the missed income. But that doesn’t actually shield you from legal liability.