I strongly prefer GOG to the point where I often don’t buy games that are not on GOG.

That being said, one reason to buy from Steam is steam workshop. So if I want a lot of mods, I may buy from Steam even when available on GOG.

Almost, yes. It should be close enough as an estimate.

If you want to be precise, one thing you want to be careful about is that not every fuel releases the same amount of energy per kg of CO2. So you should be comparing to the CO2 released by whatever is being replaced by the biofuel (most likely fossil fuel), not the biofuel itself.

Another consideration is how much CO2 is released by the production of the biofuel compared to what it is replacing. Since farming equipment, transportation etc. all could produce CO2.

A very good question.

It is a very common misconception that trees and plants just always absorb CO2. The Carbon © in CO2 does not just disappear when plants produce Oxygen (O2). Plants use it as material to grow themselves and their fruits. Once they are fully grown, they don’t really absorb any more. So if you burn a tree in a fireplace and grow a new tree in its place, the new tree will eventually re-capture all the CO2 burning the wood released as it grows. This works even better with fast growing plants used for biofuel. The CO2 released by burning biofuel is re-captured when you grow more plants to make more biofuel.

So chopping down a forest to create fields is bad in the short term since it releases and does not recapture the CO2 from the trees, but is sustainable in the long term since you “recycle” the same Carbon.

Please be trolling or bot. How could a sentient being write something this nonsensical…

I agree, but on the other hand 12 years? This sounds more like a 12 days crime…

Then you factor in Germany and Japan going fully back to nuclear and rising demand for energy and realize you’re off by a factor of 20. Let’s be very conservative and say it’s a factor of 10. Since you either didn’t get that or tried to bury it in BS again:

What in the flying fuck are you talking about now. I was criticizing Germany taking offline already existing reactors, not saying to replace renewables with nuclear.

Your argument fell apart, can’t be always right. Move on. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Straw man again, really?

Right, comparing safety to the other source that is currently available is straw man, just like bringing up how many lives seatbelts save when discussing seatbelt safety. Cope much.

Sure because that one just ripped an iceberg-shaped hole into your HMS Nuclear Titanic. But keep on shilling.

Now who is strawmaning. Sure, 230 years is such a short time, that nuclear can’t even be a transitional source. Also, it is absolutely impossible that nuclear fusion, fuel reprocessing or thorium reactors would be developed to a usable state in such a short time.

Since you seem to have run out of actual safety related arguments other than calling research papers low quality while every source you provided was a wikipedia article, I am done here.

Go an be a fossil fuel shill without even realizing it.

Or do you realize it? Were you speaking from experience before? Have happy fossil fuel bosses of your own?

Published by team working for Bangladeshi Nuclear energy providers and reads a bit like a promotion piece. It is cited nowhere but I’m sure their employer/customer was happy.

Ok, never mind that the people with most expertise and practical experience will inevitably work in the nuclear sector. Lets give this one to you, since I really have no way of knowing if it is honest.

Way better than your 1st article but still drives on assumed probabilities.

Ok sure, its not perfect, but it is pretty good evidence without trying it in practice.

Please explain the relevance pertaining to this discussion.

Since I expected you would scoff at the theoretical papers, here is a practical one. The reactors left behind waste that was buried since before humans existed, yet there are no signs of leakage or discernible signs of health issues caused by it. Now again, sure. We did not exactly have Geiger counters around it to know there were no issues, but it is good evidence there are no catastrophic ones.

Given both theoretical and practical evidence, I would asses the dangers of sealed underground storage to be low.

If you’ll look at the corresponding Wikipedia page you’ll find these are mostly in developed countries or where they can be detected by developed countries. Surely this is just coincidence and not the tip of the proverbial iceberg…

Excellent, you brought articles with causality numbers yourself. Never mind that not many developing countries operate nuclear powerplant, maybe some countries dump their fuel there. Go ahead and multiply the casualties 5 times over. Add to it the low risk that underground disposal will not be perfectly safe and a relatively small area of land may become uninhabitable in the future.

Now compare that to the yearly deaths cause by air pollution that the coal and gas plants Germany had to reactivate to replace nuclear produce. Then add to it the certain future damage from climate change and tell me that was a reasonable trade-off.

At current (nuclear energy) consumption level the global stockpile of fissionable material is estimated to provide energy for another 230 years.

I never claimed nuclear should be a permanent solution and I really don’t want to start another long discussion.

PS: Oh right, almost forgot.

This article is by psychologists. Relevance?

This one might interest you if you intellectually understand nuclear is safer than fossil fuels yet you still feel afraid of it.

Oh no, a professor of astrophysics disagrees. Oh the humanity.

If YouTube is too peasant for you, you can read peer reviewed articles:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.02865

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/segweb/economicgeology/article-abstract/84/8/2286/20752/Natural-fission-reactors-of-Oklo

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/20/7804

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.254.5038.1603

FYI: There are generally five types of toxicities: chemical, biological, physical, radioactive and behavioural.

Toxicity at least in scientific literature only refers to chemical toxicity. What even would be “physical toxicity”?!

To be fair radioactive toxicity stands a bit out because it is (in your wording) much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much more toxic than anything else possibly including ‘forever chemicals’.

If you went to eat unenriched uranium, you would die sooner (as in from smaller dose) from chemical poisoning than radiation damage (uranium is also chemically toxic). People not educated about the actual dangers of radiation tend to greatly over exaggerate its dangers.

Follow up: How long does it need to be safely stored? Please note the number of years.

For how long do you need to store toxic (by your weird definition I guess chemically toxic?) substances like lead?

Since they don’t have a half-life, until the heat death of the universe. So why does storage time only suddenly matter for nuclear waste?

Nuclear energy is not cheaper nor safer, you’re just kicking a toxic, radioactive can down the road.

Nuclear energy killed fewer people per kilowatt generated than hydro, wind, gas, and coal. Its just people like you spreading misinformation.

Here is a good video why nuclear waste is not the issue people like you make it out to be: https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k

Toxicity I believe is about equal. Storage requirements are a bit stricter for nuclear in terms of storage container requirements, but much much much less in terms of storage space. Overall, it is much cheaper to safely dispose of the nuclear waste then waste from solar power.

Note: radiation is not toxicity.

Ok, technically you are right although since Fidelity is publicly traded, it is a somewhat special case IMO. That is what I meant by it not being fully private. If it was owned ultimately by an individual, there would be no reason for such disclosure.

More importantly, this does not change my argument about it being a self reported value.

deleted by creator

First of all, the article clearly states Fidelity owns shares, hence it is not fully private. Second of all, you are talking about the assessment of the company that holds the shares. Are you suggesting an honor system where everyone estimates their own wealth?

Here is a conspiracy theory for you. This bullshit is pushed by the people not wanting meaningful reform. Just like oil companies try to distract with Carbon capture.

“We need this simple reform.” "No, we need Communist revolution! Eat the rich!”

So what I am hearing: buy shit in a different country than the one you are running, where you can’t tax it. No investment and jobs for your economy.

Also, how do you determine the value of an ltd? Not all companies have shares and share price.

That’s like someone boasting he rode the Tour de France and then claiming it is not important he rode it on a motorbike. There is a big difference between another nation reaching the moon and a foreigner hitching a ride with the Americans.

PS: No matter how much you try to move the goal post, I said “implies” from the start and you said it doesn’t. I ain’t falling for “it does not state it”.

That is like me saying there is one pope and your takeaway is there is at least one. Yes, the sentence does not explicitly state there is only one, but it strongly implies it, just like the title.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator