Iceblade02

Seems the headline of the article is mistaken, can't find the terror threat mentioned anywhere in the text?

Oh no but you might use a stick to draw a copyrighted work in the sand!

I don't know, I didn't read the entire 174 page privacy statement. In this case, I just assume that they exist and that I do not want their app installed on my phone, especially considering the permissions it wants.

How is deleting FREE apps from your phone and declining to allow websites to track you not a good start and how would this handicap your day-to-day life?

Okay, for an exact example. I have a work email via microsoft 365. Because I choose to not have the outlook app installed on any of my devices I do not get notified when I have unread mail.

Thus, I need to go through the abysmal web app login several times per day (because it automatically logs me out), and click through nagging pop ups imploring me to install the app in order to confirm whether I have any pending mail.

To start with, an ISP. Most of them collect user data. Many services, such as banking, are unavailable or restricted over VPN (assuming you find one that doesn't also collect your data).

Next, a smartphone. You're limited to iOS or android, unless you have the option to root your device (which is a hassle), and both are basically loaded with spyware.

Your debit/credit card. Many providers will collect and monetize data regarding your purchases.

Your car (if newer than about 2010) or your public transit provider.

Need I go on? Try living without just one of these things.

You act as if it is actually feasible or reasonable to choose not to uae these services, when it, in fact, would be a severe handicap in day-to-day life

Swedish student (Median full-time wage here is 35’790 USD equivalents before an avg ~30% payroll tax), not taking loans, working part time teaching (and occasionally nursing) to make ends meet, so yeah, pretty cash strapped atm.

Also, note that I already do have access to all the music in the world for free via youtube if I want something specific, or spotify for “radio style” infinite listening. 1440SEK/132USD is for added conveniences. No real need to pirate anything.

Swedish student (Median wage here is 35'790 USD equivalents), not taking loans, working part time teaching (and occasionally nursing) to make ends meet, so yeah, pretty cash strapped atm.

As for my car, not a cardboard box, but apparently there are 25 packs that cost as much as I bought it for five years ago. Just the mandatory traffic insurance, but it ends up at almost exactly same price.

Also, note that I already do have access to all the music in the world for free via youtube if I want something specific, or spotify for "radio style" infinite listening. 1440SEK/132USD is for added conveniences.

11$/month is 132$/yr. That's a significant amount of money - about the same as my car insurance, broadband or phone bill. Putting a bunch of good music in a playlist and letting it roll is nice enough, especially with a 3rd party app to mute ads automatically. Besides, I don't feel sorry for Spotify. The reason they're hemorrhaging money isn't a lack of profitability, but due to the massive royalties going to record companies.

E: spelling

Firefox, been using it on my PC as long as I've had one. Been forced to use Chrome, I.E & Edge on work computers and don't fancy them particularly.

The article is called “German Chancellor Scholz speaks out against new nuclear power“, not “ German Chancellor Scholz speaks out against keeping old nuclear plants running”, so no, this is just shifting the goalposts.

It is not, the past and current failures of German energy policy is a very good basis for criticism, especially when they seem to have a continued reliance on fossil fuel power. But, as I said, we seem to have starkly different opinions on German electricity policy, and you seem to have a specific idea of the existence of "goal posts" in that particular discussion, and what they are, which many of us disagree with. Let us put that discussion to rest. It is clear to me that it will go nowhere.

--

Now, on the topic of new power, I fully understand where you're coming from with your frustration, because I've been there, many many times, discussing with folks who refuse to give any background to their claims. So, I've called upon a reddit comment from past me (ca. 2021) for some reliable sources and updated the meat of the text a little to be more suitable to you. Hence, below follows the wall'o'text you have been so sorely missing out on, because I was a lazy boy posting from me phone yesterday, properly addressing each of the arguments in your original comment and backing up my previous statements.

So, where to start? Perhaps the costs of 100% renewable systems in practice, as the portion of electricity sourced from variable renewable energy (henceforth VRE) approaches 100%. I'll start by addressing your wikipedia source, all of the examples of "near 100% renewable" there rely almost entirely on hydropower (which is highly geography dependent) or are very small grids (thousands or tens of thousands of people). This makes their significance for this discussion debatable, as our scope is rather in the size of millions or tens of millions of people.

A key problem with examining these scenarios is that the number of data points where VRE exceed ~45% are incredibly few, and additionally these few systems still have significant portions of electricity generated by cheap, dispatchable fossil fuelled power plants. This means their statements regarding cost are a lot less relevant for a scenario where we want a clean energy grid and VRE portions start approaching higher levels. I'd really love to see if you can refer me some sources which examine such grids.

Following along this path, comparing the LCOE of VRE to other dispatchable plants is not particularly straightforward. Here is some critique towards a study made by Lazard, which highlights the fact that renewables can effectively outsource their system costs in grids with a high degree of dispatchable power generators (hence creating hidden costs for the systems). This method of using only LCOE without accounting for system costs is prevalent in many studies on the costs of new electricity production, and thus skews the available data. This skewing is not necessarily a problem when adding a small amount of VRE to a system, but becomes a severe issue when they start representing a plurality of electricity produced.

We can follow up by examining this study by the oecd which calculates estimations on grid level system costs comparing VRE and nuclear. It's very interesting, but also like... 200 pages, so I haven't read the entire thing, but below you'll find a few very short take-homes from what I did have time to read.

The integration of large shares of intermittent renewable electricity is a major challenge for the electricity systems of OECD countries and for dispatchable generators such as nuclear. Grid-level system costs for intermittent renewables are large ($8-$50/MWh) but depend on country, context and technology (onshore wind < offshore wind < solar PV). Nuclear related system costs are $1-3/MWh.

They make several very interesting observations regarding how improper implementation of VRE in a system leads to an economic environment that favors fossil fuel peaker plants to solve intermittency problems, due to their low capital costs and ability to ramp up and down with relative ease. Unlike green solutions such as pumped hydro storage, other energy storage solutions and nuclear power. The closer our goal approaches 0% fossil fuel energy production, the more nuclear power makes sense.

Now, based on the above and a few other sources, I will deconstruct the arguments you made in your original comment. I'll use hydropower as comparison for a lot of these points. It is often considered the holy grail of renewable energy.

Cheaper - See above. A system which uses some mix of nuclear power and renewables is often a cheaper system than one that demands 100% renewables.

Lower emissions - Nuclear emissions are comparable to hydropower, and entirely from infrastructure & supply chain emissions, something expected to disappear in a 0% fossil fuel economy.

Faster to provision - Individually, yes, but a construction time of 5-15 years is still reasonably fast for the huge amount of power that a single NPP adds to the grid (consider constructed MW/time). Additionally, construction times are expected to go down if the nuclear industry is revitalized.

Less environmentally damaging - Debatable, renewables in general have huge land usage, and affect the ecosystems in which they are built to a significant degree.

Not reliant on continuous consumption of fuel - Yeah, a benefit, but also not problem for nuclear. Known supplies of Uranium can supply the entire world for some 70 years, which is longer than known oil supplies will last us. That's not accounting for improvements in utilization, newly discovered resources or other nuclear fuels. Besides, renewables use lots of other resources such as copper. Our limited supplies of these are a far more pressing problem in our clean energy efforts.

Decentralised - I don't see how this is relevant. The benefits and costs of decentralized power are situational. It is useful in areas with spotty infrastructure (large parts of Africa and Asia), but creates system level costs in developed countries, where most of our electricity consumption is centralized.

Much, much safer - Not really. Casualties and damages from nuclear power are far lower than those from hydropower, and depending on your data source and opinions, even on par with wind power.

Much easier to maintain - I don't have any good sources of the top of my head here, but many of the nuclear power plants running today are pushing past their designed life spans due to the maintenance being worth it. Closures are more often related to political decisions than actual end-of-life status.

More reliable - not really

Much more responsive to changes in energy demands - not really

Hope this is more to your liking :)

P.S, apologies if there are any typos, didn't have time to proofread this time around.

The reason they were annoyed is that they were referring to keeping old nuclear plants running, and you are pointing to the costs of new nuclear.

-and the reason that nuclear is in the sentence is that access to the energy sources within it depends on geography. Filling up those last 30-60% of the energy mix with hydropower, geothermal and biomass is simply not possible in some areas, which is where nuclear comes in, regardless of whether we look at the most pessimistic cost estimates (which you are doing).