FormerPothead
No bio...
User ID: 2888
FormerPothead
7mo ago
That sounds interesting. Those anthrax attacks were very odd and in retrospect does seem like an intelligence op. Let’s see what you have.
FormerPothead
7mo ago
This is the same problem America had in the occupation of Afganistan. A true occupation and social change would need significant more support and time than what the American politics around. It would probably need a full generation to be educated as well as an extreme prejudice to crackdown on Islamic extremism for Afganistan to actually significantly change, maybe 40-60 years.
Isn’t this is exactly what China is trying to do with their Uyghur population? Well I guess you’re suggesting a more gradual process. China is trying to speed run it. But I imagine this would be the charitable interpretation of their policy. And it seems like it’s working.
FormerPothead
8mo ago
What an odd choice. I didn’t always agree with him but he was genuine and a different thinker.
FormerPothead
8mo ago
What happened to hlynka?
FormerPothead
8mo ago
I appreciate the reply and I don’t even dispute this (other than the statement that nuclear is good for keeping dollars onshore. Imported modules make up roughly 20-30% of total cost for a utility scale solar facility in 2024. The rest is onshore. Maybe some imported steel will get you closer to 50%. But it’s not overwhelming).
The rest of your post speaks to a theoretical world for Americans or a global nuclear industry. Citing Japan and Korea is unfortunate not relevant for the USA.
We tried 4 times in the last 20 years. Only two units were built and at great cost. Utilities and investors know the reality of the current market. We can talk about all of this theoretically. But until there is some major changes in policy and pricing, you will not see any new nuclear in the USA regardless of how good it looks on paper.
FormerPothead
8mo ago
I suppose this is rational, as long as your assumptions are accurate.
Is Russia exhausting itself? I’ve seen reports that their standing army right now is far large than pre war even accounting for casualties.
It seems that the Russian army was pretty rusty during the first year of the war. Logistics issues. Command issues. Not enough bodies. Etc. that seems to have been remedied. They in fact now have a great deal of experience fighting against NATO kit. And it seems like they’re doing well adapting to drones, electronic warfare, etc. I wonder how that compares to the US and NATO. We have a great deal of experience fighting the GWOT and insurgents.
All of that is to say, I wonder how Russia today compares to Russia 2021 in terms of how much of a threat they are to NATO.
And all of that says nothing about the ethics of egging on and prolonging a doomed conflict on the chance that it might weaken a geopolitical rival.
FormerPothead
8mo ago
Sure, but that’s kind of my point. Building solar panels and wind turbines is simple. Building nukes in hard. Part of this is the supply chain. There’s a well established wind and solar supply chain which keeps costs down.
Our nuclear contractors are horrible, they don’t have the experience or the volume to learn. And the manufacturing is nothing to sneeze at either. There are only so many companies in the world that can build vessels large enough for nuclear.
The contractor and site management costs are certainly relevant when deciding if a technology is viable. And I don’t see any near term or medium term way to fix this.
FormerPothead
8mo ago
I work opposite your BB banks who are financing energy infrastructure. They’re definitely experts in finance and the industry and have a very specific and well thought out view of the investments financials. I agree this is likely a niche area but the analysts I work with are very bright and doing good work. Though I will admit that they’re not 22-25 year olds generally.
You’re painting a picture of the banks as mainly salesmen and make-work. I have no doubt that’s a large part of it, maybe even a majority. But I think you’re overstating it.
FormerPothead
8mo ago
Given the complexity and cost, they must be necessary. This is the one that I have the hardest time actually evaluating. I'm personally skeptical of the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, but setting that aside, I am unclear on why I should prefer the complexity, ecological footprint, and cost of massive wind and solar installations to using the proven, small footprint nuclear power solution.
I work in energy project finance. The answer to that question is that small footprint nuclear reactors are not proven. There are zero pilot plants let alone commercial plants. It’s entirely unproven to be economically viable and a quick google shows the target price for a planned pilot plant is $90/MWh. Price as is the price they would need to get for electrons to I assume be profitable. Nearly double the wholesale rate in most of the country.
Standard nuclear I suppose is proven insofar as we actually have functioning nuclear plants right now. The problem is that we can not build them in the USA. Out of the last 4 units we tried, two of them ran up construction costs approaching $30 billion before they threw in the towel and got canceled. The other two at least got built, but again, with a cost of some $30 billion. It’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-5x as expensive as wind or solar.
We can’t talk about nuclear without acknowledging that the USA, as a country, can’t build nuclear anymore. Anyone who who even tries goes bankrupt. I don’t mean there is a lack of political will, though there is that. I mean we don’t have the manufacturers, contractors, designers, or financial sponsors that know how to do it. It’s really sad.
FormerPothead
10mo ago
I made a new account to post this - opsec and all.
When I was younger I was an everyday smoker. Stoned for years straight. Anyone who is an everyday smoker can function completely unimpaired. Physically and mentally. In fact people on MJ do tend to drive more cautiously perhaps for two reasons. 1) The effects of MJ don’t lend themselves to driving like an asshole. 2) Even today, I imagine people don’t want to be pulled over while stinking like pot. Most potheads will smoke while driving. Bake out a car. Hotbox. Music. It’s a whole part of the lifestyle.
I haven’t smoked in over 15 years. If I were to take one puff today and try to drive it would be extremely dangerous. Without a tolerance it can be severely impairing. I dislike Mj today and wouldn’t partake even if offered in a safe environment. I also think MJ is not safe and wouldn’t allow my family to use it casually.
It’s hard to disentangle how many permastoned drivers are out there today compared to 15 years or so. But if more people are casually smoking and driving. It could have an affect.
The whole defending democracy meme is both an incredibly potent and incredibly sad choice of strategy for Dems. In this age of partisanship, it was entirely predicable that if the Dems become the party of democracy, people on the other side will reflexively drift toward being explicitly against democracy. I find myself going that direction. If the current establishment is synonymous with our new definition of democracy, well, I’m not for that.
Democracy isn’t fundamental to the USA. “Western Liberal Democracy” is only 30 years old. The postwar system is only 70ish years old. And universal sufferage only 100 years old.
They couldn’t resist using it though. And as I said, it seems potent with a certain type of person. I agree with comments here that say that reelecting Biden despite any handicap is consistent with their definition of democracy. They’ve totally redefined the term to be consistent with rule by the “adults in the room”.
More options
Context Copy link