Natanox

What's the third anime's name?

What the hell is a "Liberty University"? Do I even want to know?

We can also solve the risk of Kessler syndrome. Send catgirls / -boys to space, they'll push every object out of orbit.

To be clear, nuclear isn't inherently bad. Indeed it will most likely be very important to massively reduce CO² emissions quickly and cover bigger chunks of the base-load of our energy infrastructures. However to argue that nuclear could be cheaper or even a replacement for renewables is just completely and utterly wrong. Neither can it be less expensive in any universe, nor is it able to replace renewables since nuclear reactors are very slow regulators (indeed the slowest - they're best at delivering a lot of power constantly). Meanwhile solar can literally be simply switched off, and "rotating" renewables be turned into or out of wind / water flow / whatever else.

To quote some studies, this one from the Deutsche Bank has the following to say:

For nuclear power plants, different statements on the LCOE can be found in the existing literature. The U.S. investment bank Lazard estimates it at about 14 to 21 US cents per kWh for new nuclear power plants (in the US; for comparison, onshore wind power: 2.4 to 7.5 US cents per kWh). The cost of treating radioactive waste is explicitly not included here. In its latest Word Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency (IEA) put the LCOE for nuclear power plants in 2030 at 10 US cents per kWh in the US, 12 US cents per kWh in the EU, and 6.5 US cents per kWh in China. Wind and solar power are cheaper in all three countries/regions. For the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant that is under construction in the UK, the operator has agreed a guaranteed power purchase price of 10.7 pence per kWh. The LCOE of investments in extending the operating lives of existing nuclear power plants is significantly lower than that for new nuclear power plants. According to an IEA study from 2020, they ranged from less than 3 to less than 5 US cents per kWh.

Meanwhile the World Nuclear Report focuses on the LCOE which might be better suited for comparison (and even that says nuclear is 2 to 3 times more expensive) and points out massive delays and problems with nuclear reactor projects.

All of this doesn't include the dependency problems (only very few countries can produce refined uranium rods), and even specifically excludes the long-term costs. And "It's cheaper if you remove lots of the regulation on the most powerful and dangerous technology humanity ever developed" is probably the worst take one can have. Just as a reminder, the very reason for the almost total blackout on the Iberian Peninsula (Spain & Portugal) recently was due to miscommunication and a lack of proper regulation. It wasn't the renewables (the power stations that started the cascade were mostly fossils, and the energy companies didn't care enough to keep sufficient reserves that day), no matter how much right-wing media wants you to believe that. Enormous, continental grids would become unstable if we build it upon badly regulated nuclear reactors.

Still far away from commercial viability though, nothing we can count on right now.

Personally I see this rift in the trans community rather often (although not as much right now anymore, there isn't much room for controversial arguments when being threatened from 'outside'). On one hand the absolute majority will tell you that they "wished to be born in the right body". On the other hand many dislike or even reject science into how being trans happens (like this study) out of the very reasonable fear that it will be used to, again, pathologize our existence or outright eradicate us. I've heard similar hard questions and controversial discussions from other communities over the years as well. They usually somewhat reach academic circles at best but are never really discussed in public.

In the end it boils down to what the ulterior motive behind the science or technology is; care for- or eradication of humans (or their natural expression). And of course where we out the line between the definition of diversity and illness, something society has a really bad track record for.

Hate to break it to you, but nuclear power isn't cheap, that crown goes to the renewables (unfortunately even fossils are cheaper than nuclear). Arguably rather reliable and 'acceptably' clean though (if used in good locations with sufficient cold water and with modern technology & proper recycling concept).

Edit: After looking up the most current studies regarding nuclear power I found out that by now fossils are indeed more expensive than nuclear (although nuclear usually gets calculated without the costs of permanent waste storage, so… who knows). So disregard what I said about that. 🙃

Unless you have conducted all the experiments leading to that theory yourself, which i doubt, because you don't have particle accelerators readily available, you will have a basis of "scriptures" and "scholars" whose judgement you trust and follow.

That's nonsense. The difference is that you can conduct all those experiments on your own, and every further experiment is based upon earlier discoveries creating a chain of rationality. Also, if something is proven to be wrong or phenomenally unlikely we adapt our worldview to those facts, not the other way around. What's trusted is the scientific method, not individuals and what they wrote. Some scientists simply become more trustworthy as their track record for applying the scientific method is immaculate, both by making discoveries as well as happily accepting when their assumptions were wrong. A well educated and critical mind is absolutely capable to read most studies and get a general understanding of its quality (of course those about particle physics require more knowledge than those about homeopathy). Meanwhile with religious texts it's inherently impossible to come to any sensible conclusion that isn't derived from yourself and your own opinions and emotions.

tl;dr Science and Religion are inherently incomparable as one derives truth from systemic processes and measurable facts, while the other derives "truth" from everyone's worldview and emotional state of individuals. There's no inherent reason to believe the latter (some random thing about some god).

Your argumentation doesn't make much sense; indeed your last sentence even reinforces my argument that, hopefully, the process is as clean as possible. Also don't you think you're a little bit quick in assessing my priorities based on a single comment? 😉

I think 3D printing, as many things, is a net positive if used responsibly. It's so easy to repair or upycle stuff with it. I'm also really interested in that pure PHA filament (which is actually compostable, unlike PLA), haven't gotten around to trying it. Of course also using PETG; got two huge bins for PLA and PETG to collect and send it to Recyclingfabrik (getting cheaper rPLA & rPETG in their shop in return). It's awesome how easy it is with 3D printing to have a full recyling circle. I think awareness for both environmental impact as well as basic safety concerns are really falling short in the community though. The amount of people sanding their prints without any particle extraction system, printing ABS and stuff without air filtration or even work with resin without proper respirator is concerning. And so many people just clean their sanded pieces under water, unaware of the consequences (it's impossible for huge filtration plants to fully filter them out). On the other side it isn't too hard for any 3D printing hobbyist to run their dirtwater through something like a coffee filter.

So yeah, I like 3D printing and the environment and am optimistic we can have a cake and eat it too. 🥧

[…] Polymaker’s HT-PLA-GF, a glass fiber high temp PLA that can be annealed in boiling water without deformation to withstand temps like 150º.

That sounds like a microplastic water risk. I hope Polymaker did at least give a little shit about the environmental aspect and made sure the material doesn't leak into the water during the process. Probably still advisable to pour the waste water through a filter afterwards, just like after sanding & cleaning.

More rare than an i5-8600 and probably becomes rather rare as time moves on.

If it was this easy we wouldn't have so many problems. Or, you know, discussions about assisted suicide in cases of untreatable and unavoidable suffering in order to respect human dignity.

Sometimes the pain is here to stay. We all get old, health is a precious privilege and the power doctor's are wielding is unfortunately limited.