Putting Trump in charge doesn’t hold Democrats accountable. It would move them further to the right, which is the exact opposite of you want. They don’t care about disinterested non-voters, they only care about courting those that do show up to vote.
Change needs to come from within. Organize within the DNC. Primary their candidates. That’s how you get people like AOC elected. Once the primaries are over, there’s no shot at moving them further left.
You’re in a 2 party FPTP system, it doesn’t give you reasonable representation by design.
You get someone you dislike and someone you dislike even more. Voting 3rd party is literally voting against your interests. That’s not an ideological choice, or a political choice, it’s a deeply saddening mathematical reality.
The only way you get your position heard is by fighting candidates for your least-disliked party during the primaries. Get someone you like as the congressional or senatorial candidate. Help them get elected. Even a small number of senators or congressmen can make the difference (see Synema and Manchin for example, or hell even Boebert and MTG who all wield(ed) significant political power well beyond what their voteshare should give them).
By fighting the fight you can’t win (e.g. the vote for president), you only weaken your least-disliked choice. So whoever you really don’t want ends up getting elected. Why? Because the US election system sucks balls.
Voting for the Green party makes it less likely that climate change legislation goes through. That is the sad, paradoxical reality. Being an ideological crusador in this matter doesn’t help anyone and is due to the reality of the shit voting system, despite the best intentions, immoral.
Your data source is outdated. You’re looking at data up to 2022, whilst his data shows 2023-2024, which is more recent.
2022 also saw problems like the Ukraine war frustrating gas supply, forcing the use of more coal. And there was covid throwing a wrench into things as well.
Nuclear powerplants in Germany were beyond their lifespan and fixing and modernizing them was not economically feasible. Just too expensive compared to other forms of energy.
Germany certainly hasn’t been “replacing nuclear with coal”.
The nuclear plants in Germany were too old and too expensive to maintain. At some point a reactor is just end-of-life. They get operational issues causing semi-frequent shutdowns. The reliability issues become a problem that skyrockets the costs further.
Closing a nuclear plant like that puts enough money back in the budget to afford a faster transition to renewables, which ultimately closes down the coal plants faster too. It’s about the big picture, it’s not as simple as simply saying “we’ll do less coal” or “we’ll do less nuclear”.
Merkel and Schroeder gambled on Russian gas imports as a holdover to transition from the aging nuclear plants and coal plants towards renewables. They did so because according to Merkel “it made sense at the time” and she did not really see the larger geopolitical picture. When Russian gas suddenly dried up due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, they had to delay the closure of several coal plants to keep the power on.
So they’re trying to replace nuclear and coal with gas.
It’s rather the opposite. Big oil pushes nuclear because nuclear directly competes with renewables, and because nuclear is a centralised power generation solution that they can fully own, in contrast with stuff like rooftop solar or onshore wind. Shell has a share in General Atomics, BP is eyeing investments into nuclear energy.
Nuclear fusion might truly be an answer, but there is nothing that nuclear does that renewables can also do, but cheaper and faster.
If you Google “is a nuclear baseload required” you’ll find plenty of articles clearly demonstrating why this isn’t true. Renewables + storage solutions can provide the base load just fine. The biggest issues have been worked out already, it just needs to be built (which is expensive, but so would nuclear be).
Money spent building nuclear is money not spent on renewables. I didn’t say you said to stop building solar, but deciding to build nuclear does mean building less solar, simple allocation of resources.
Solar energy particularly has been becoming increasingly efficient and cheap. In fact, it’s ahead of even the most optimistic expectations price-wise.
There’s been plenty of studies showing that nuclear is not theoretically required to achieve 100% fossil-fuel free energy generation. And we’ve known this since 2009: frontiergroup.org/…/do-we-really-need-nuclear-pow….
Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and energy storage solutions are perfectly capable of providing the full energy demand whenever we require it. The only issue is building sufficient amounts of it.
In fact, nuclear is particularly bad at providing base power. The reason is that renewables are so cheap (and becoming cheaper), that one of the main issues has turned into having too much power on the grid. Nuclear unfortunately doesn’t turn off and on very quickly. Many old reactors take a couple hours to do so, and even if it’s technically possible it’s financially impossible because the reactor would be running at too large a loss. When dealing with fluctuating power (mostly caused by the day/night cycle of solar, other effects mostly even out if the grid is large enough), you need a backup system that can also easily turn on and off. Energy storage and hydrogen can do this, nuclear can’t.
Then there’s the energy security argument. 40% of uranium imports come from Russia. Kazakhstan is an alternative, but even that is largely controlled by Rosatom.
Literal fucking oil shill.
Please stay civil. I’m happy to debate you but you can keep the insults to yourself. I’m very much against the oil industry. I’m not even necessarily against nuclear as a technology (I think it’s safe and don’t think the waste will be too big of an issue, also fusion is really cool science), but I have to conclude that it doesn’t make financial sense to go for nuclear, there’s practical problems integrating it with a renewable grid and we just have better alternatives.
Nobody is pushing nuclear? Strange, I wonder why in my country numerous parties have been pushing for nuclear then (mostly right-wing pro-corporation parties with fossil fuel donors).
There’s plenty of parties pushing nuclear. The fact that it’s hard to actually build doesn’t mean that there’s no lobbying effort being made. And even then, a lobbying effort now will only really result in a net nuclear gain in 10-20 years time when the reactors actually finish.
And for the record, “big oil” , does invest in nuclear. Chevron, Duke Energy, Eni, Shell and BP all investments in some nuclear research or nuclear company. The reason they don’t really invest much more is simple: it’s barely profitable, if at all. And renewables threaten the financial picture even more.
Conservative undertones? I’m curious why you think that. Could you elaborate?
There’s strong tones of anti-corporatism and a clear favour towards communal living. And the obvious “care-for-the-Earth” stuff. But I don’t think those are necessarily conservative. I could see the argument for Christian undertones, but more in the traditional “love thy neighbour” and “custodianship” sense.
House Always Wins (lemmy.world)
GOP introduces bill that would send anyone convicted of unlawful activity on a campus since Oct. 7th, 2023 to Gaza. (www.thedailybeast.com)
cross-posted from: lemmy.world/post/15286301...
What Trump promised oil CEOs as he asked them to steer $1 billion to his campaign: Donald Trump has pledged to scrap President Biden’s policies on electric vehicles and wind energy & more (wapo.st)
The corruption is really open at this point....
Soup (mander.xyz)
The Bitcoiners were wrong: a blog post about privacy and bitcoin, and how they failed to design a cash alternative (unfathom.ing)
xkcd #2929: Good and Bad Ideas (imgs.xkcd.com)
xkcd.com/2929...
May 13, 1985 (lemmy.world)
cross-posted from: lemmy.world/post/15035901...
GOP official argues in favor of child marriage: Girls are ‘ripe’ and ‘fertile’ (www.nj.com)
rollin' coal (yiffit.net)
Helldivers 2 now delisted in 177 countries (steamdb.info)
Looks like Arrowhead might be moving forward with PSN despite “internal discussions”.
deleted_by_moderator
How RCS on iPhone Will Make Texting Better for Everyone (www.cnet.com)
nuclear fear-mongering is a ploy by Big oil
https://yiffit.net/pictrs/image/f15ac65f-a409-4e54-827c-91b1525ffcd4.jpeg
Shouldn't most religious people in theory be excited to die because then they get to experience the afterlife?
esp if you’re one of the devout ones who think they’ve been really good
Transphobes are doxxing Stardew Valley fans after they asked the game developer for pronouns
thepinknews.com/…/stardew-valley-transphobes-doxx…