corban1

Don't developed countries tend to have low birthrates and high status of women? Are you saying that low birth rates cause misogynistic behaviour of kids?

I see sites like 4chan sharing deepfakes of their acquaintances daily and they don't seem to gain media reaction like this. I wonder the severity they feel is different in SK?

I wonder the carbon footprint difference for connecting this server to the power grid vs using battery and solar.

Economically accessible coal resources will deplete in 30 years. (1950)

Not a single one of the power source/price studies I've seen has normalized the price in regards to making the source constant or government incentives. Not one.

Energy sources have their caveats. Nuclear plants using rivers decrease output when rivers overheat. Solar panel efficiency falls 0.38% per degrees celcius under and over 25. We think failing nuclear and gas is a big deal because it's reliable most of the time. We do not think failing solar panels in night (because they can't produce energy) or hot and cold weather is not a big deal because it's designed to be that way. If that's the case, how is it viable to compare the prices?

So you are comparing two energy sources, one that provides constant power 99.999% of the time and one that provides volatile power ~35% (if best) of the time?

These price graphs hide the obvious fact. Normalize solar and power by adding the price to make the source constant(shitload of ESS maybe?) and removing government incentives.

Do cars pay for the possibility of crude oils spilled in the ocean? Was the Deepwater Horizon insured for the full amount of dealing with the disaster? Does coal energy plants pay for future diseases of people breathing air from their chimney? Does wind turbines pay for people that suffer from low frequency sounds and solar flickers?

All energy sources have uncertainties. We've been using much much more dangerous energy sources than nuclear. So the question is yours; why do you assume the worst only for nuclear when nuclear is the only source that is preparing for the worst?

Yes because we learned from Chernobyl and Fukushima. The reason nuclear is expensive is because they protect themselves from war or terrorist attacks by drills, policies, strengthened structure and alertness.

Actually, if you are in a war or you are a terrorist, there are much more high value targets than a structure with 1.3m thick re-enforced concrete plus 1cm thick steel dome.

The same applies for others like wind and solar. Do they really calculate all the costs? It was easy for nuclear to cook books in the past. I feel other energy sources are doing it nowadays.

I think in order to set things straight, they should apply the cost of uncertainty to wind and solar.

That's the point. Nuclear is getting over-regulated to be safe, not to make any mistakes. I don't disagree with the regulators. I disagree with overly cheap nuclear. Overall, no power generation method can replace nuclear's steady output with its level of cleanness and safeness.

Nuclear is clean, it is safe but it is not cheap. It's safe and clean because of it's moderately priced. I stand by nuclear because it's cleanness and safeness which can't be compared to anything else.

What will we generate electricity with in non-windy cloudy days? Coal? LNG? ESS? Note that all of those options are more dangerous, more expensive and more dirty than nuclear.

I'd happily pay the price for nuclear in exchange for it's cleanness.

I remember Van Jones saying American people's vote for Trump was a "whitelash". And Bezos is saying he tried to be a unifier in a divisive world. We live in a strange society.