VibeSurgeon

Be that as it may, businesses will generally move towards things that cost less dollars on balance

There’s likely a maintenance cost continuously being paid that Apple wants to get away from.

An infinite pool of money.

Video hosting is very costly, especially at scale

The idea, cruel as it may be, is that you keep hiring more people while chopping off the bottom, keeping the headcount at your desirable level.

Unregretted attrition is however one of the most potent poisons you can introduce into your company culture. Perhaps this is why Zuck opted against it this year - signs of cultural decay may have already set in.

That’s not how grids work and I think you know it

Since the 90’s almost every state has increased their fossil fuel based generation even as they have increased solar and wind deployment. Only Illinois kept their fossil fuel generation static while also increasing nuclear generation by 25Million MWhrs (in addition to an extra 30Million MWhrs of mostly wind) But even within their static fossil fuel generation, they still built A LOT of new fossil fuel plants in the form of natural gas plants. Imagine if they had replaced those coal fired-plants with nuclear while also continuing to build out their wind power? The states fossil fuel burn rate for electricity would be <15% as opposed to the 30% it is today and will be in the future. And of course if they had built like 10 new 4GW plants in the 90’s then all the surrounding states wouldn’t be building fossil fuel plants as they wouldn’t need them. They would be free to focus on just Wind/Solar while letting nuclear be their base load.

The 90’s are irrelevant when it comes to discussing renewables. The price has dropped by 99% since then. It’s literally not even in the same ballpark.

Yeah, we would probably have been in a better place if we built nuclear in the past. Hindsight and everything. Does that mean it’s wise to do public investment in nuclear today? Not even a little bit.

We do not live in a world where Solar/Wind can replace fossil fuels, only nuclear can actually do that.

Zero grounds for this being the case.

I’m not anti-nuclear, as is beyond clear from the post I wrote.

I even spelled out in my post that we should keep the ones that exist running.

Rushing regulatory for a construction project where failures are as severe as they can potentially be with nuclear is beyond deranged.

Getting to the timelines you’re mentioning would require a mature nuclear industry with standardized builds, something which would take more than a decade to develop, at a steep premium.

Again, I support any investor willing to go there to do so, but there’s a good reason none do - these things quite simply do not pencil out.

Allow existing nuclear to keep operating? Yes

Allow new nuclear to be built, assuming the constructors fully finance and assume the risk of the project themselves? Also yes

Subsidize nuclear over renewables? No

Allow nuclear to be used as a wedge for the fossil fuel propaganda machine to keep their emissions going, since building nuclear takes decades and costs far more than renewables, displacing potential investment in renewables? Not a chance in hell

I have nothing ideological against nuclear, but it is way overdue that nuclear boosters face the music and acknowledge what role the technology is having in the political landscape at the moment.