

Kretschmer ist nicht sonderlich gut, aber er pariert, deshalb: Sooo schlimm war es gar nicht. Jedenfalls die Podcastfassung.
Nora Seitz fand ich deutlich schlimmer.
Kretschmer ist nicht sonderlich gut, aber er pariert, deshalb: Sooo schlimm war es gar nicht. Jedenfalls die Podcastfassung.
Nora Seitz fand ich deutlich schlimmer.
Aber schau mal auf die Gegenüberstellung, hier hunderte harmonische Autos, Kinder und Senioren, dort gefährliche Kampfradlys.
Am weit über die Grenzen hinaus bekannten Ausflugslokal “Kugler Alm” parken an schönen Tagen Hunderte Autos, Kinder rennen über die Straße, Senioren tippeln in den Biergarten
“Autos, Kinder und Senioren.” Die Listung ist schon reichlich autoblöd.
Die Anzeigen sagen “Neumarkt (Opferbalz)” und “Altdorf (b Nürnberg)”, also ja, Nürnberg Hbf ist extrem wahrscheinlich.
feminist supremacism
Oh dear, did I miss the point where that part came in somehow?
Können wir nicht bitte wieder das Löwen-Wildschwein haben? :(( Das wurde wenigstens nicht inkompetent erschossen und auch nicht gegessen.
Kann ich mir nicht so richtig anschauen. Da ist nicht viel kritische Distanz beim Journalisten zu spüren.
Trump wurde ursprünglich als Witzfigur behandelt. Es war ja nicht so richtig vorstellbar, dass er tatsächlich die Primarys gewinnt und es war erst recht nicht vorstellbar, dass er gegen eine gestandene Establishment-Politikerin wie Hillary Clinton gewinnt.
It makes no sense at all to use this argument to reason in favor of building out energy generation that needs a decade+ to come online and which only ever works with massive corporate and state support.
Solar starts to work at the scale where a random dude in Pakistan screws a couple of panels on their roof without any permits. Nuclear starts to work at the scale where either a corporate behemoth (like GE or Siemens or Hitachi) or a multi-billionaire-financed startup sells a concept to a state-subsidized utility and then they collectively go through years of permits and construction.
Even if solar were a little more expensive per kWh at scale (which is mostly a matter of tuning the calculations the way you prefer), it’s just so! much! easier! to roll out.
And no, we don’t need an ever-increasing supply of power. What we actually need is for people to have a standard of life that they’re happy with. Which has some relation to use of energy but unlike what the article suggests, that correlation is nowhere near linear. People in the US don’t have proper healthcare, they live in sad places cut apart by vast car infrastructure, their cities are still suffering from the aftermath of redlining, etc. — their energy consumption is higher than in many parts of the EU, yet their standard of living is, on average, a lot lower.
Lemm.ee ist komplett untergegangen…?
Aber du hast Recht, die designierten Nachfolgegemeinschaften sind !casualeurope@piefed.social und hier.
People should stop trying to manifest new reactor types. Especially in the face of climate change which really doesn’t leave us much time before shit hits fans even harder. Usually, the lead time on new reactor designs is even longer than on other reactor designs and half the promised features don’t materialize, and you’ll likely learn that the private company building the plant has accidentally forgotten one crucial element on the spec-sheet.
I don’t agree with @grue’s at all, but I think we can still agree that Greifswald appears to be an outlier in that it was especially badly built and managed. This fuckup of a plant is probably not indicative of every other plant.
the most expensive renewable
Ftr, Uranium is not renewable.
I don’t buy the “unsafe” argument
The thing is that the well-known nuclear catastrophes, at a minimum all resulted in fairly large areas right in the middle of civilized land being lost to humanity for the foreseeable future. So, even if overall death rate is only somewhat higher than for e.g. wind energy — wind energy does not lead to such devastating local effects. The other thing is, nuclear needs skilled teams to manage plants at all times, even when they’re shut off. As soon as your country goes off its routine because military coup!, nuclear plants become a massive danger. Also, nuclear plants can make for devastating attack targets during a war (obviously the attacker would need to value mayhem and defeat above colonizability).
And finally, nuclear danger is (within human time frames:) eternal because you need to store some materials safely for a very long time; “nuclear semiotics” is an actual thing studied by scientists somehow — yet I’ve never heard of “oil semiotics” or “solar semiotics”.
I think all of us here agree that fossil energy sucks. Please instead compare against wind/solar/batteries, not fossil energy.
Das Ding ist, du bist ein Typ, ComfortableRaspberry offenbar nicht. Wenn das mit den Kindern wirklich gewünscht wäre, gäbe es da bei Frauen schon ein paar biologische Zwänge.
Meine Wohnung ist auch sowas wie ein Recyclinghof.
Wenn man CSU wählen kann, ist es Bayern. Es tut mir Leid, Brudi.
Nein, ist sie nicht. Die hat doch eine ganz andere Frisur.
@dumnezero@piefed.social Could you update the link to the original article at https://www.spiegel.de/a-0d1883d9-b7dd-4e5e-a6f4-a3069b13b4dd asap please?
English translation below
Spiegel article, DeepL translation