Nobody wants energy stored for months. Whatever storage is used needs to get through temporary decreases in efficiency. In places that use solar, that means from one afternoon to the next morning. In places that use wind, it means until the wind picks up. We’re talking storage on the order of tens of hours at the most.

Not could, will. These days it’s considered unethical not to debrief explaining any deceptive elements of the study. It can also be valuable because the people conducting the study can use it as a chance to find out if the participants knew about the deception, in case that knowledge might have affected the results.

Does this actually work?

The fantastic thing about renewables is how much they lend themselves to a less centralised model. Solar collector? Sure, why not‽ Rooftop solar on people’s houses? You bet! Geothermal? If local conditions are favourable to it, absolutely!

Instead of a small number of massive power plants that only governments or really large corporations can operate individuals can generate the power for themselves, or companies can offset their costs by generating a little power, or cities can operate a smaller plant to power what operations in their city aren’t handled by other means. It’s not a one-size-fits-all approach.

This contrasts with nuclear. SMRs could theoretically do the same thing, but haven’t yet proven viable. And traditional plants just put out way too much power. They’re one-size-fits-all by definition, and only have the ability to operate alongside other modes with the other modes filling in a small amount around the edges.

fwiw I recommend stopping watching this once he starts talking about the hostile comments. It’s just pointless drama. But the first 13 minutes are good.

tetrapods are fish

I like this particularly because it allows you to tell people that whales are fish, which is generally going to get a much stronger response than if you said “people are fish”. Because in the latter, they know you’re up to something weird, but in the former they’re not sure if you might just be wrong.

Yikes, bitten by a wild animal? Did you see a doctor?

Nuclear doesn’t mean anti-renewable, both can exist.

Not easily, for the reasons explained in my reply to @Frokke@lemmings.world.

The people who I talk to who are pro nuclear seem very well informed

I doubt it, because the science itself is against nuclear. Evidence says it would be too expensive and take too long to deliver compared to renewables.

You can’t cut the red tape. The red tape is why we’re able to say nuclear is safe.

the weird part is most people do think nuclear fusion plants are a good thing and can solve stuff. But they have almost all of the downsides nuclear fission plants have in terms of red tape, complexity and cost

Huh? Nuclear fusion doesn’t have any downsides or upsides. Because it doesn’t exist. We’ve never been able to generate net power with fusion. (No, not even that story from a couple of years ago, which only counted as ‘input’ a small fraction of the total energy used overall. It was a good development, but just one small step on the long journey to it being practical.)

Being anti-nuclear was a poor stance to have 20, 30 years ago. At that time, renewables weren’t cost effective enough to be a big portion of our energy generation mix, and we should have been building alternatives to fossil fuels since back then if not earlier. But today, all the analysis tells us that renewables are far cheaper and more effective than nuclear. Today, being pro-nuclear is the wrong stance to take. It’s the anti-science stance, which is why it has seen a recent rise among right-wing political parties and media organisations.

First, no, that’s not what I said. If you’re only going to be arguing in bad faith like that this will be the last time I engage with you.

Second, baseload power is in fact a myth. And it becomes even worse when you consider the fact that nuclear doesn’t scale up and down in response to demand very well. In places with large amounts of rooftop solar and other distributed renewables, nuclear is especially bad, because you can’t just tell everyone who has their own generation to stop doing that, but you also don’t want to be generating more than is used.

Third, even if you did consider it necessary to have baseload “until we have adequate storage”, the extremely long timelines it takes to get from today to using renewables in places that don’t already have it, spending money designing and building nuclear would just delay the building of that storage, and it would still end up coming online too late.

I used to be a fan of nuclear. In 2010 I’d have said yeah, we should do it. But every time I’ve looked into it over the last 10 years especially, I’ve had to reckon with the simple fact that all the data tells us we shouldn’t be building nuclear; it’s just an inferior option to renewables.

Do you think Goodwin could treat the burns himself?

Safe, sure. Efficient? Not even close.

It’s far, far more expensive than renewable energy. It also takes far, far longer to build a plant. Too long to meet 2030 targets even if you started building today. And in most western democracies you wouldn’t even be able to get anything done by 2040 if you also add in political processes, consultation, and design of the plant.

There’s a reason the current biggest proponents of nuclear energy are people and parties who previously were open climate change deniers. Deciding to go to nuclear will give fossil fuel companies maximum time to keep doing their thing. Companies which made their existence on the back of fossil fuels, like mining companies and plant operators also love it, because it doesn’t require much of a change from their current business model.

By jove you’ve got it! I must make haste and alert the Director of this ingenuous new strategum at once!

Personally I don’t have as much of an issue with when they’re poking fun at him per se, but when they denegrate or damage things he has clearly worked hard on and put a lot of passion into, that’s crossing a line for me. It becomes incredibly mean-spirited.

There are two examples in this compilation video. One at the linked time, and another at 6:33. Especially with how happy he is to see Leslie in the second clip until she destroys his art. It’s honestly heart-breaking. The pie to the face that came a little bit before that was also hard to watch and really felt mean. Dunno if that’s because of how cold and calculated it was (vs the more usual off-the-cuff comments), or because it was a physical act rather than verbal, or something else. But I didn’t like it.

it wasn’t like they were debunking flat earth or something

Though you could do that. And with equipment and a type of experiment that would make sense on their show. The experiment conducted at the very end of the documentary Behind the Curve is perfect. Great big lasers, a simple and easy-to-visualise pass condition. If they had wanted to, they absolutely could have done it.

Which is insane as it’s not that difficult to understand

I found it hard to understand because neither they nor any of the other sources I’ve seen explaining this even attempted to answer what I thought was an incredibly obvious question: at what point does this become true? A stationary aeroplane on a treadmill will obviously move with the treadmill. I assume an aeroplane moving at like 1 km/h still gets pulled backward by the treadmill. At what point does the transition occur, and what does that transition process look like? Why can’t a treadmill prevent the plane from taking off by pulling it backwards by never letting it start getting forward motion? Where does the lift come from?

I can understand how a treadmill doesn’t stop a plane that’s already moving, but how does it get lift if it is prevented from accelerating from 0 to 1 km/h of ground speed (relative to the real ground—relative to the ground it experiences, it is moving forward at the same speed as the treadmill is moving backward), since until it starts getting lift, airspeed and ground speed are surely effectively equal (wind being too small of a factor)?

Flutter and Dart have also seen significant hits, and frankly I think they’re unlikely to see significant continued improvement.

I don’t even know that she works at a preschool

Probably not. The source for that was the same hoax Facebook post that announced she had been fired.

Maybe, except I’m not convinced there’s any desire with the LNP especially to actually hit those boundaries. They’d rather hit a couple of singles to get people off their back, and leave it at that.

Yeah completely agree. There are a wide range of policies that can help out with our current housing crisis. Many of which will have varying impacts depending not just on how they themselves are implemented, but on which other policies are enacted alongside them, with some policies helping to reinforce each other as more than the sum of their parts.

This one I think is worth doing, because it will help. But it’s also likely to be one of the smaller impacts of the various things I can think of. The article says that they are aware of just 400 places right now. Doubtless it will end up being more than that, but that still gives you the sense of just how small it’ll really be.