federalreverse

Now we're talking.

She's a ginger. Just saying, not insinuating anything. /s

New reactors are expensive. New reactors are late. New reactors can basically only be built by nation states but not privately. Nuclear is not insurable. Nuclear produces waste with excessive half-life. Nuclear steals resources and mindshare from other options. Nuclear energy output can't be moderated well (basically for economic reasons, it runs full steam all the time and for safety reasons, you can only moderate output a little), so it does not effectively augment wind and solar, rather leading to wind/solar having to be turned off.

Wind and solar meanwhile can be built cheaply, quickly, privately, locally, site sizes easily scale between kW or GW of output and they only produce a little regular waste at the end of their life. (Okay, granted, Neodymium mining does produce some nuclear waste too — but definitely nowhere what uranium mining produces.)

Wind+solar+hydro+better national/continental grids+batteries+flexible demand is a much better combination.

Thanks, teamevil!

I hate Twitter so much. Unless you're logged in, you can't even read threads anymore (unless you happen to know each individual tweet URL).

What I meant to say: Is there another source?

[Edit: the HN comments have a link to a working Nitter instance. https://nitter.poast.org/matthew_d_green/status/1789687898863792453 ]

I didn't realize the Microsoft font was named after the painter rather than just being named "beer town" (which seemed rather ill-fitting anyway).

I mean just looking at the amount of concrete in that picture, I get pessimistic. When will this particular site have dug itself out of the carbon "hole" created by its construction?

As for trees: That is really, really hard to measure and even harder to know in advance. Some factors appear to be:

• different tree species store different amounts of carbon
• tree plantation or actual forest?
• prior use of the site (e.g. meadows do store carbon too)
• development over time (most trees need to grow a couple years before they start storing significant amounts of carbon)
• failure of sites due to being planted in a bad way (e.g. a lot of Chinese Green Wall sites and quick-buck billion tree projects seem to be affected by this)

The article doesn't really do a great job of answering the titular question. So ... Is the answer "mostly because of policy failure"? Because that is what opening two coal plants in 2024 sounds like to me.

I'm also a little confused how they managed to jump from "renewables are making power cheaper in Japan" in one paragraph to "this is hampered by G7 liking fossil gas" in the next paragraph. (I do share their worry about G7 nations investing in fossil gas too much. My home country Germany has just introduced a gas peaker plant strategy and appears to be over-investing in LNG terminals.)

Why bother with bribes if he'd do it for free anyway?

to avoid any further misunderstandings

Ah yes. The misunderstanding they are talking about is that content posted on internet platforms still belongs to the author in any way, I guess.

Granted, SO has always used wiki comments and CC licenses. They were upfront about it, mostly.

The contrast, the flowing scarf, the photorealism! Amazing.

So you've got basically all the figures to plot exponential growth but you assume linearity?