douglasg14b

@douglasg14b@lemmy.world · Joined ⁨Jul⁩ ⁨2023⁩

Replying to an earlier post

Did you just strawman a fact with an anecdote and then completely get your second statement backwards?

Nuclear plants have to scale down their water output for ecological regulation reasons. Which means they have to restrict their inflow, which means they have to restrict their output capacity.

Oil industry wants you to think that nuclear there doesn’t work, not that it does. Oil and coal have been working against nuclear for an entire generation or more.

Replying to @⁨mcv@lemmy.zip⁩

Not sure if joking or just ignorance? Both?

  1. The nuclear capacity losses are because of environmental regulations, not because of inherent issues with nuclear.
    • Regulations restrict discharge of cooled water above 30°C into waterways, and they are responsible for the riverway temperature downstream of them. Since the waterways are warmer during a heat wave and the nuclear plant is responsible for the temperature of that waterway, they cannot discharge as much warm water into that waterway.
  2. Solar doesn’t work at night, and sufficiently scalable energy storage technology doesn’t yet exist.
  3. Solar loses considerable capacity as ambient temperature increases. At 40°C ambient, you’re talking about a 15% or higher reduction in efficiency. Which would be HIGHER than the ~12% reduction in nuclear capacity Europe hmis seeing

Replying to @⁨lemmyvore@feddit.nl⁩

Literally all knowledge and understanding requires memorization of some sort and the understanding of reality and prior information.

It is difficult to fathom the level of wrong in this comment.

Here’s the thing people who lack knowledge, critical thinking and understanding about the how the world works. Still form opinions and makes decisions as if they did have that knowledge and understanding. Which negatively affects everyone else.

Replying to @⁨wuffah@lemmy.world⁩

No, they’re throwing the book at him to make a statement.

Their argument, which is stated in the article, is that since he was not in the US (you are not considered in the U.S. until you go through border protection, even if physically here), US rights and protections don’t apply.

Similarly, this isn’t destruction of evidence they are charged for. It is destruction of property to prevent seizure. Which is a bit awkward because that’s a law in the US, but he isn’t in the US yet…?

Of course, it’s all bullshit. We all know this, but this is going to set a very dangerous precedent if it sticks.