Check out the instances that have defederated with the radicalized ones? I hang out in 2 Lemmy instances, still working to finish migrating from here to the other.

Weird. I haven’t heard of that one yet.

I’m not sure I agree with how you’d be able to execute on that level or organized construction safely, but I think we’re also reaching the “impossible-to-be-sure hypothetical” territory, so I’ll concede the point for now.

I think my problems of cost and time still stand. It looks like adding rooftop solar with batteries to every building is still cheaper (on startup, and likely per MW) than nuclear plants. Regions that cannot support solar, onland wind, geo, or hydro can justify nuclear (at least unless shipping batteries or hydrogen conversion becomes cheap enough to compete), but I don’t think they amount to nearly 15% of the power needs in the world since they represent fairly distinctive regions with low energy demand.

I’m approaching that, but I have to admit I take my time and revisit towns a lot.

I’ve only gone to a dozen dungeons so far that were hand-crafted. There were literally hundreds of them in Skyrim. I’d love to get real numbers.

So far, I am enjoying the hell out of the game, if my lack of twitch reflexes is hurting that a lot. I keep having to juggle between ship upgrades (my Mantis keeps dying to small fleets more than 10 levels lower than me) and face-to-face. Usually by now in other Bethesda games, dying is rare. I’m too stubborn to drop the difficulty, though, so I suppose that’s on me.

There’s a pirate fleet in orbit around the planet I want to build my first output. Last 5 times I tried to go there, fleet keeps showing up and killing me. That’s somewhat annoying.

Agreed. It doesn’t end up saving a penny, but it definitely leads to greased wheels along the way and richer politicians.

Some folks say there’s only about 25 hours of handcrafted stuff. I’m not late enough in to know for sure.

I had agoraphobia growing up. I know exactly what it is. And I had moments of it exploring the planets. I found myself hugging to keep buildings in range and not wanting to stray out into the great wide open. For some odd reason, I got more of that in Starfield than in NMS.

I’m also still fairly early into the game, so perhaps I’ll spend more time indoors than I have so far.

EDIT, also, it kinda is the opposite of claustrophobia in some ways. There are some overlaps and nuances (both fears sometimes include fear of crowds). I had a grandparent with really bad claustrophobia who never used an elevator in her life. Ironically, we could relate on a lot. But they were still opposite issues.

While I agree, I’ve been saying that about NMS for years. Not that we want to be comparing Starfield to NMS, of course.

So far, Starfield is exactly like Skyrim in space to me. There’s as many carefully crafted cities, and quite a few carefully crafted locales. There’s just a lot more space in Starfield (estimated about 500x more. Skyrim is 15sq miles, and those 1000 planets are each a couple square miles ingame). Sounds like there may be less hand-crafted content in Starfield than Skyrim, but that’s hard to tell.

I’m definitely not finding Starfield to be claustrophic. On the contrary, a bit agoraphobic.

Of course. That happens. Luckily, we have countries like China with less red tape to use to measure. They’ve been building a lot of nuclear and solar. Their end-to-end solar looks like around $750M per GW (possibly including storage? Not sure. About $2.2B for a 3.3GW plant). Looks like they’re spending about $5B per GW of nuclear.

Sorry I don’t have the solar reference anymore. I was building a math equation for another comment and realized they weren’t talking price, so scrapped it without thinking.

Since those numbers seem to match US figures, I think people in the Western World forget that a lot of bid cost increases or “escalations” are due to the fact that companies try to low-bid to win the contract, knowing every little inconvenience will require a cost increase. It evens out more than people want to admit.

Just did a bunch of my own math before realizing those numbers were already out there. We would need to add 3960 nuclear plants to match current energy demand for the world (440 power 10% of the world).

That would require at least 5 years of construction per plant. It takes about 7000 workers to produce a nuclear plant. To produce them concurrently would require about 27.7 million construction workers dedicated to this project for at least 5 years. So on one hand, perhaps you’re right, since there are 100M construction workers in the world. I can’t, however, find numbers about how much heavy equipment exists to facilitate a product requiring 1/4 the world’s construction workers concurrently. You might be right that if all other construction were ground to a halt, we might be able to manage a 5-year plan of nuclear at the cost of about $20T (I had done the math before realizing this reply were about workers, not cost stupidity). I concede it seems “10x increase world construction capacity” was wrong, and the real number is somewhere around 1.5-2x, so long as we stay conservative with nuclear figures and ignore extra costs of building or transporting nuclear energy to countries incapable of building their own plants.

Interestingly, at those construction numbers, you could provide small-project rooftop solar to the world. I can’t find construction numbers for power farm solar, except that it’s dramatically more efficient than rooftop solar. Unlike nuclear, it appears we could easily squeeze full-world solar with our current world construction capacity.

I won’t bore you with the cost math, but since I calculated them I’m still going to summarize them. Going full nuclear would cost us about a $20T down payment. Going full solar (with storage) down payment is about $4T (only about $1T without storage costs factored). And while nuclear would be cheaper than solar per year after that $20T down, solar power and storage would STILL be cheaper in a 100 year outlook, but would also benefit from rolling efficiency increases as we add new solar plants/capacitors and tear down older ones…

Care to substantiate that the red tape amounts to more than 100 years worth of the same MWH of solar? Or is that just your gut feeling?

Also note, even if the construction cost were 30% inflated, nuclear is still losing handily to solar by the figures I cited.

Cheaper than $140, or cheaper than Solar? Someone just got back to me with claims of lower Nuclear numbers… and even in those claims, Nuclear simply could not get anywhere close to Solar.

Strange. I must be mis-reading your numbers, because the chart I’m reading on your link shows an LCOS/LCOE between $88 and $98… The numbers I was quoting was probably conventional nuclear, and that’s a fair correction. I would really appreciate if you are able to address why my references disagreed with your reference, as I didn’t come out with my numbers off-the-cuff. Is it conventional vs advanced nuclear, or is it a different measurement entirely?

Note also, however, that Advanced Nuclear still loses to Solar handily in every single chart presented in that document. In addition, none of that addresses the front-loaded cost of nuclear vs solar, which amounts to an entire order of magnitude.

Seems an odd question. Since I’m not sure what you’re getting at, my answer might or might not be of value.

The only thing I know offhand about the breakdown is 60% of the total lifetime cost of electricity is in construction costs, a number that is disgustingly through the roof and why using nuclear power for the whole world is unfeasible. It’s that bad.

The rest is “day to day costs” which are far lower with nuclear than other forms of energy. Which would be great if it didn’t cost so much to build a nuclear plant.

I’m not sure you know what you’re arguing. You seemed to get really defensive when I said we should reduce the police. So I explained why it is smart to reduce the police.

It’s a knee-jerk reaction for people who have experienced criminal behavior to want more police and harsher sentencing. Often times it helps to shake them out of it to discuss efficacy. To ask “what if more police and harsher sentencing doesn’t work, or has the opposite effect?” Ultimately, you seem to want the same thing as me - less crime, less violent crime. So why not support things that are more likely to work over things that are less likely to work?

Even if you cut the budget in half you are going to have a really hard time funding and finding people like social workers that want to do that job at 3am.

You’re not going to have a hard time finding/training social workers, and they tend to make less than half of what police officers do in most states. They actually spiked really high unemployment rates a few times, and the low demand and low wages of social work is the only thing keeping people from pivoting to that field. You are right about one thing. Social workers are actually required to be properly trained, unlike police (who often don’t even know the law they’re supposedly enforcing). But I guarantee if the funding showed up, the workers would as well.

There is a part 2 to that of course. There are a lot of people who would more readily spend $1b in police than $1m in social work because “poor people don’t deserve anything for free”. But you talked like you care about violent crimes not happening, and you aren’t getting that by maintaining the current huge police spend.

I am getting crushed because I said not all cops are monsters I definitely think the system needs to change.

I don’t like the term “crushed”. I expanded upon you saying “Cool let’s not have cops” with pointing out the value of changing from a police-oriented society to a solution-oriented society. Your points were:

1. With fewer police, crime will go unsolved, to which I pointed out that only a tiny percent of police are tasked with solving crimes and pointing out that “solving crimes” means we failed to prevent those crimes from happening

2. That you’ve seen horrible things, therefore we need to support police. To which I tried to dismantle that and show you that the police did not, and do not, prevent those horrible things from happening, including referencing (without citation I’m afraid. I was tired/lazy) studies that showed reduction in police funding does not actually increase crime rates.

I’m sure other people are giving you more harsh replies, but I’m sticking to just the facts of the situation. In most (but not all) situations, the need for police represents failure by society to do something, something they could have done cheaper without the police. The #1 such failure is insufficient welfare and safety nets, that benefit far more per-dollar to reduce crime than police ever will.

A small “response” crew dealing with volitile situations like a domestic disturbance being escalated beyond the scope of a social worker, and a smaller “combat” crew dealing with things like hostage situations and ultra-high-risk situations… that’s mostly all the police need/do that could effectively protect us. Hell, you don’t even need a guy with a gun to handle most common infractions like DUIs.

You do understand that solving the world’s carbon energy crisis is not an individual person’s job, right? We’re not talking about me and you getting a solar lease in lieu of nuclear. We’re talking about spending about 10% of the cost of 100% nuclear to build 100% solar and wind. For startup costs, going 100% renewable is literally orders of magnitude cheaper than going nuclear. And most countries have the space of potential for it. Yes, as I mentioned elsewhere, building power in and around cities is more complicated, but that is where roof units can come in. It is estimated that any major city could be self-sufficient if every building in it had solar panels on the roof and storage batteries. Even at the higher cost of smaller scale builds, the price difference between solar and nuclear is so large that a municipal solar grid is downright cheap, even if it has to be built that way. And it’s pretty cool how effectively it would mitigate large-scale power outages as a free bonus.

Please understand, most people who oppose nuclear do so for more reasons than the nuclear waste. They hate that people keep focusing on this expensive technology that will take too long to solve the problem, when we have renewable energy that is just so much cheaper to build.

As others pointed out, to build that many nuclear power plants that quickly would require 10x-ing the world’s construction capacity.

My counterpoint is that if we had “just got on with it” for solar, wind, and battery, we would have the capacity by now and the cost per kwh of that capacity would be approximately half as much as the same in nuclear. And we would have amortized the costs.

Except that nuclear isn’t the only, or even the cheapest, alternative to fossil fuels.

That’s why there are lots of regulations for things impacting life safety

Regulations that a lot of pro-nuclear people try to get relaxed because they “artificially inflate the price to more than solar so that we’ll use solar”. I’m not saying all pro-nuclear folks are tin-foilers, but the only argument that puts nuclear cheaper than solar+battery anymore is an argument that uses deregulated facilities.

If solar+wind+battery is cheaper per MWH, faster to build, with less front-loaded costs, then it’s a no-brainer. It only stops being a no-brainer when you stop regulating the nuclear plant. Therein lies the paradox of the argument.