toastmeister

joined 2 weeks ago
[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Well when the polling was that bad its generally a bad look to be the sole thing propping it up, hence how they lost official party status. They also somehow didnt see Trudeau raising capital gains taxes to turn boomers against him, blowing through the budget so Freeland could create fake drama blaming Trudeau, and setting things up so Carney could come in as a savior to keep the party in power.

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Its the business cycle. Smart companies are slowing production.

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

Their margins are being squeezed by AMD, so they already are.

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

It seems like a buggy mess to me.

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

I run my own anti-wef Bot. It alerts me of incoming digital currencies.

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Well I mentioned France, who are using nuclear as a backup to the rewables they implemented.

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You're also burning lignite coal now, which you take from Africa who is now having blackouts. But it went pretty poorly overall phasing out nuclear for renewables.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany

Key to Germany's energy policies and politics is the Energiewende, meaning "energy turnaround" or "energy transformation". The policy includes nuclear phaseout (completed in 2023) and progressive replacement of fossil fuels by renewables. However, contrary to plan, the nuclear electricity production lost in Germany's phase-out was primarily replaced with coal electricity production and electricity importing. One study found that the nuclear phase-out caused $12 billion in social costs per year, primarily due to increases in mortality due to exposure to pollution from fossil fuels.

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

This study disagrees after taking into account storage.

https://advisoranalyst.com/2023/05/11/bofa-the-nuclear-necessity.html/

Storage and production of renewables is also done by shipping in Chinese products created burning coal and ignoring environmental concerns. This all hinges on exporting emissions and labor to areas that don't care about pollution.

I'd also argue that nuclear tech can likely proceed faster than storage, given the dangerous nature of energy storage. Even something as basic as storing water can cause deaths given what happens when dams break, stored energy is volatile by nature.

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well we have a negative productivity growth as well at the moment. Hence the BoC ringing the alarm bells. That makes it harder to pay our growing debt load even with spreading it out to more people.

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Well wind farms won't help, if you need 100% reliability. Storage I figured was more expensive than nuclear after adding all the costs together, creating enough hydro for backup is extremely expensive as well.

You're essentially building a hydro power plant, water storage, pumps, and wind turbine at that point.

view more: ‹ prev next ›