Nope. I don’t talk about myself like that.

  • 1 Post
  • 67 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 8th, 2023

help-circle



  • Microsoft is demanding US taxpayer provide loans to bring this plant online. It has been sitting there for 50 years…

    … You understand so little.

    Here you go.

    https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/09/26/1104516/three-mile-island-microsoft/

    In March, the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan got a loan guarantee from the US Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office to the tune of over $1.5 billion to help restart.

    https://www.constellationenergy.com/newsroom/2024/Constellation-to-Launch-Crane-Clean-Energy-Center-Restoring-Jobs-and-Carbon-Free-Power-to-The-Grid.html

    Constellation signs its largest-ever power purchase agreement with Microsoft, a deal that will restore TMI Unit 1 to service and keep it online for decades; add approximately 835 megawatts of carbon-free energy to the grid; create 3,400 direct and indirect jobs and deliver more than $3 billion in state and federal taxes

    Nowhere is it Microsoft demanding anything. It’s the owners of the power plant itself that got the LOAN (loans get repayed btw… in case you’ve forgotten what the word means). And it’s easily identified that the workforce increase in skilled labor means more taxpayers paying more money to taxes. And look at that! the added state and federal revenue will 2x the loan amount YEARLY.

    So can you answer the fucking question now?

    Oh, and you continue to ignore my point as well, so I’ll ask it again… If there are more nuclear plants… thus more production for things used to create and maintain nuclear plants. Will the cost to produce MORE nuclear energy go down?

    Edit: to drill the point home though… let’s say government bad, lets spend little as possible (which I’m generally whole-heartedly for)… 1.5 billion to make 3,400 high paying jobs for 30+ years… That’s a fucking no brainer spend. You should WANT this spending. There’s lots of shit to complain about with the government. Providing a loan that will be paid back that will make THOUSANDS of highly skilled jobs… This ain’t it chief.


  • Yes, cost is going up because people expect mega corps to pay for their infrastructure investment lol

    So you think that companies don’t pay for electricity? That they’re not part of the “profits” the electrical company has on the books?

    Man… I wish I could just get free electricity for my company. Oh… and I pay higher rates at my commercial space for less usage than I do residentially.

    But right! That’s companies somehow getting some freebie from “the people”.

    Oh, and you continue to ignore my point as well, so I’ll ask it again… If there are more nuclear plants… thus more production for things used to create and maintain nuclear plants. Will the cost to produce MORE nuclear energy go down?


  • show me when was last time that price of electric went down for the end consumer?

    I didn’t say price of electricity would go down. I was talking about the price to produce and maintain nuclear plants would go down.

    Considering that electricity usage overall is on an upward trend, especially with things like electric cars becoming more and more mainstream. Also with things like inflation being a thing… It would be stupid to think that prices would ever straight up come down. However the cost to maintain more production could stifle/stunt how fast the prices increase.

    Also… At my last house. Our electrical company rebated a not insignificant amount of money to each house based on usage for the year due to costs coming down for some stuff. So… about a year and a half or maybe 2 years ago for me personally?

    Not sure why you’d expect prices to go down at all though when society/government is also pressuring the electrical companies to install “renewables” by the boatloads as well. There’s costs associated with all that. The money has to come from somewhere.

    I had this argument on nextdoor a few weeks back. Our local electric utility made some 500million in “profit”. But have a mandate to be 60% renewable by 2028, and something like 80% by 2030, which 100% some time after that. If you do the math on how much the coal/nat oil plants produce, and estimate a cost for a solar farm… You realize that while it’s a profit this year… it won’t be a profit over time, virtually all (the math came out to like 93% of it) needs to get earmarked and put towards solar to get to those renewable mandate numbers. So yes. costs are going to keep going up if people like you act like nuclear getting spun up is a sin.

    Edit: clarity

    Edit: what is with this trend on lemmy the past few months of picking one specific sentence and ignoring the context of the rest of the fucking post? I even talk about “at scale”. It’s not hard to look at my post and think of supply/demand economics. Demand being super low because we only have handful of nuclear plants mean that a lot of suppliers just aren’t around anymore. As demand goes up, in the short term market will demand price to go up. But eventually demand will continue to increase where there is a supply void and new production will come as long as other factors don’t kill it. And Production at larger scales is ALWAYS more economical. This is literally econ 101 type shit.


  • sure nuclear would be great… but this aint for us ;)

    Yes it is. Every plant that’s live, means that things can be done more and more at scale, which drives down the price overall. In this narrow specific case, Microsoft will drive down the price which will make the already appealing nuclear (aside from NIMBY folk who will never give in because of their ignorance) even MORE appealing for baseload handling. Every plant, private or public will increase engineer knowledge and production of parts (increasing scale) which is better overall for nuclear.

    And overall, these companies are going to increase their power load regardless. I’d rather new power production go to the better technology that won’t actively poison the environment. Driving down the % of power generated by coal/oil should be universally applauded. Even if it’s just new implementation of a large workload.




  • Well that’s just not true, but ignoring that…

    No. Let’s not ignore that. If you’re going to call someone a liar, own up to it. The comment that spawned this chain says verbatim

    It serves a need.

    It being “religion” and “a need” would imply another, different “need”. Otherwise it would have been simpler and more direct to say something like “Religion is a need”.

    I didn’t scream anything

    Coming back and repeating the same shit that I just addressed from the previous comment … Constant repetition is literally someone shoving fingers in their ears and scream “LALALALALALA”. You even did it again in this post by stating “no one needs religion” when I already addressed that and even agreed with that sentiment, but wanted to specifically caveat why religion would count for “It serves a need”.

    Nobody said that anyone “needs” religion. Quite the contrary. The statement is “religion fills needs” to put it another way. I even clarified and made it clear that if you can find something else that fills the needs for those people that you could likely replace religion. But for some reason you keep trucking forward with your comments acting like someone said something they didn’t.

    The only reason I could think of that you would want to argue against that position is if you believed it wasn’t true.

    What the fuck logic is this? So I must believe that Religion is a need then? I’m atheist. I stated that outright from the beginning in my first post on this thread. Fuck “God”, “Yahweh”, “Mohammed”, or any other god that you or anyone else believes in, they’re all fake. I clearly don’t believe that religion is a “need”.





  • and will just pop off fast solutions to things like the deep human need for connection like “use zoom, duh.”

    There are other needs as well. Like not being imprisoned. And thinking about why you fled from the country in the first place and searched for additional citizenship might have helped make such a decision to not find yourself in such a situation.

    I love that you glossed over the actual argument though! All while assuming that you were right. You don’t know why she was there… But assuming that telecommunication wouldn’t have been sufficient in order to maintain her freedom… That’s just silly.


  • Visiting family perhaps? Oh well then I guess she deserves it for having the audacious stupidity to visit her parents in a shitty country where shitty things happen?

    Honestly… Yes. You left the country. Obtained a second citizenship. And donated to the opposing side of an active war. If you have something in between your ears you stay out of the country. I’m not here to victim blame at all. If you need to see family, I get it… but Zoom exists. You can’t argue

    There are also family, professional opportunities, and cultural ties to consider.

    While in the very next sentence identifying that she did exactly that and moved anyway.