• 2 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: May 28th, 2024

help-circle












  • I wouldn’t call it worse than renewables. It’s a sidegrade from coal burning. Where I’m from, solar is non-viable 6 months of the year. Wind is theoretically viable year-round but in reality it’s less than that due to cold snaps and the intermittent nature of wind. And there’s no way that wind power alone could provide enough power even when running at 100%. There are no viable rivers here for hydro either. Geothermal is nigh impossible here as well. So without a reliable back-up power source, everyone here would be experiencing brown outs on a fully renewable system. Many wouldn’t receive power at all due to a significant rural population and the challenges inherent to it (and forcing people into cities is not a viable option). So the only options are fossil fuels and nuclear. Given that we’re killing everything with the former, I would much prefer we give the latter a go.



  • Look, friend: as much as I like nuclear energy and decentralization of the powder grid, per home reactors could never, ever work. For the simple reason that the majority of us filthy apes are complete idiots. Furthermore, nuclear works currently because it has oversight by educated, trained professionals in a setting where oversight can be effective. Even if you had some sort of travelling nuclear engineer that would check up on your garage reactor, if anything ever went wrong with it then the response time would be too long to adequately deal with the situation.

    The only way a distributed network of reactors could work is if it either had massive overhead or if literally everyone had training on the maintenance of a nuclear reactor. And this isn’t even mentioning the possibility of adverse weather events potentially damaging the reactor or how the waste would be dealt with.





  • That creates a weird power dynamic where the state could potentially withhold subsidies if it doesn’t like what is published. Furthermore, it would provide an easy source of revenue to news and media corporations that are already established and entrenched since they already have the funds to easily handle all the paperwork that would be involved. Additionally, Postmedia accounts for at least 33% of the market by revenue. This is owned by a primarily American corporation. Subsidizing Postmedia would effectively be giving Canadian money to foreign corporations.

    What I think needs to happen on a policy-level is that foreign ownership of news media needs to be curtailed and protections must be put in place to prevent larger companies from buying local newspapers. The current players in the news industry need to be broken up. But this isn’t something I can change, nor is it even likely, so there’s no sense talking about it. I’d much rather focus on something I can do myself to incentivize people to buy a publication.




  • Here’s my case for keeping housing prices high: the rich are largely insulated from fluctuations of the market. If housing prices drop then what’s left of the middle class will be destroyed. Then the rich will come in to pick its corpse. Property will be concentrated even more in the hands of the rich and given 20 years we’ll be in a worse position than before. I think what we need is to slowly increase housing supply while financially weakening the owner class. Eventually, housing prices will come down but the rich won’t be able to buy all of it. But shocking the system in the short term will prevent any average Canadian from owning property ever again. We’ll have to weather the storm for a while but things will get better. But I’m not a rocket economist, so feel free to refute this.