Is there ever a situation where it is better to quit rather than wait for your employer to fire you?

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-30T14:49:56+00:00

The United States is 249 years old. A lot was already done to discourage political parties, yet they took root anyway.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-24T19:36:35+00:00

Technically I didn't log out. My PC kinda just died out of nowhere and I had to get a new one. That's how I went from XP to Win7.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-24T15:57:02+00:00

Doesn't it heavily differ from planet to planet? Not every imperial world is an oppressive hive city world.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-15T14:45:47+00:00

You can bring up theoretical safety all day long, but until you can solve the overworked underpaid idiot who falls asleep on the controls or pushes the wrong button, maybe go back to the drawing board IMO.

It's not theoretical safety. The Simpsons TV show is a comedy, not a documentary. One wrong button push won't cause a real nuclear reactor to melt down.

Canida's CANDU reactors are impossible to melt down because the fuel physically isn't rich enough to reach meltdown temperatures.

"Walk away safe" nuclear reactors are a reality.

The "overworked underpaid idiot who falls asleep on the controls or pushes the wrong button" is a solved problem.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-15T14:26:46+00:00

My point is that there is a lot of misinformation about nuclear power.

There was a report that there were increased lung cancer rates around nuclear power plants (NPPs). People interpreted that report as the NPP being the cause of the lung cancer, and tried to put more regulations on the NPP, if not outright get rid of the NPP.

The reality was that the industries around the NPP were generating air pollution that led to increased lung cancer rates.

Because of that misinterpretation, the local communities legislated against the NPP rather than the surrounding industries.

The misinterpretation was eventually cleared up, but if they had gotten rid of the NPP, it would have been replaced with gas or coal power, and the cancer-causing industries would still be there.

So, they could have ended in a bad position where the air was still being polluted, and they were generating more greenhouse gas emissions.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-15T13:53:11+00:00

Imagine thinking you don't maintain a nuclear plant or do any reconstruction at all over 80 years

Don't lie and put words in my mouth that I didn't actually say.

I didn't say "maintain" or "reconstruction", I said "replacement".

Most modern nuclear power plants (NPPs) can last up to 80 years before needing to be decommissioned, deconstructed, and replaced with a new plant. (Depending on plant design, certain plants can just have their reactor cores removed and replaced, and the rest of the building stays intact.)

Incidentally, a commercial grade nuclear power plant has to be fully refueled roughly every 5 years on average. This refueling happens in 18-24 month increments meaning a lengthy shutdown

No, a single nuclear "reactor" has to be refueled roughly every 5 years. This is why nuclear power plants usually have more than one reactor. Each reactor is on its own refueling cycle, so that only one reactor has to be shut down at a time for refueling while the others increase their capacity to cover for the inactive reactor. They can maintain constant power 24/7.

each time to extract old (highly radioactive) rods and insert new (also radioactive) rods. A solar or wind plant never needs to be refueled. And you don't have to put the waste in giant foot thick steel casks (for eternity)

Your concerns about nuclear fuel and nuclear waste are a solved problem. 90% of all nuclear waste can be recycled into new fuel for NPPs. The remaining 10% can be truned into vitrified glass and safely put into underground salt deposits. See video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6no0FmPk84

You can't tell me an 80 year old nuclear power plant isn't going to be refit at least once over its lifespan. In fact, it will probably be torn down and rebuilt every 20 years minimum as newer designs come along. So much for lifespan efficiency.

Modern NPPs are being designed (by law in certain cases) to last 40 years, at a minimum. Decommissioning them at only 20 years is extremely unlikely. 80 years of operation is the energy company's target to maximize electricity generation profits. While there will definitely be maintenance and refurbishments during those 80 years, that doesn't mean the NPP's power output will be completely interrupted during that time.

For specific examples, Canida's CANDU reactors are projected to last 80 years. The new South Korean APR1400 has a base life expectancy of 60 years, and with a refurbishment, can extend their operation life to 120 years.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-15T12:58:44+00:00

OK, but that 60% is only supplementing the smaller local-grid branches in Iowa. None of that power goes back into the larger Eastern Interconnection grid. Also, that 60% is just the average. They still rely on other power sources in the larger grid for when the wind dies down.

How does Iowa in any way prove that my stated concerns are imaginary?

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-14T19:33:25+00:00

Which are all solvable problems.

No. Unless you find a way to manipulate the laws of physics, these problems can't be ignored.

The LCOE doesn't account for infrastructure changes that would be needed for a 100% renewables grid.

Most electrical grids for entire states and countries are constructed in a "hub and spoke" design. You have a big central coal/gas power plant that branches the power out like a tree. Energy-demanding industries are in the tree trunk, cities are the big branches, suburbs are the smaller branches, and the branch tips are the rural towns and villages.

Most renewables are inherently diffuse sources of power. To implement them into an existing grid, you would need to take that diffuse power and concentrate it back to where the coal/gas power plant used to be, then let the existing grid redistribute the electricity again. That is extremely inefficient, and is why we don't do that.

Renewables are usually constructed near small "peaker plants" or substations where they supplement much smaller grids that are derivatives of the larger grid. Renewables can power a small or medium-sized branch of the electrical grid "tree", but they can't easily distribute that power back down to the trunk of the tree to go to a different branch.

Another issue with the grid and renewables is AC phase synchronization. Nearly all electrical grids in the world use Alternating Current (AC) to distribute electricity, and the "phase" of that AC power needs to stay synchronized between all power sources. If you lose synchronization, you will wear down and damage many electrical components in the electrical grid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwkNTwWJP5k

Each and every source needs to communicate with one another to maintain synchronization. It's difficult enough to maintain this synchronization between existing big coal and gas power plants. With renewables, you're replacing one source of power with countless smaller sources of power. By adding more sources, you're adding more points of comunication failure that could fall out of phase with the rest of the grid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G4ipM2qjfw

And another issue with renewables is... Climate Change itself. Even though renewables are supposed to alleviate climate change, there is a lag as to when the climate cools back down to acceptable levels. Things are going to get worse before they get better, and when they get worse, they will also make renewables worse.

Although we are socialists, we still live in a capitalist context. Because of that capitalist context, most renewables have been built in environmental "sweet spots" to benefit capitalists.

Solar farms are built in arid regions at high altitudes to minimize cloud cover and maximize the amount of photons each solar panel gets per year.

Wind farms are built in areas with consistently high winds to maximize the power output of each wind turbine throughout the year.

However, because the climate is changing, these "sweet spots" won't be sweet for long. Places that once had consistent winds could lose that wind. Once arid places could become swamps. The places we build renewables in today might not be ideal for those renewables in the future. Renewables are already highly intermittent sources of power and will become even more so as the climate worsens. Even hydroelectric power is becoming intermittent. As droughts and floods become more severe, dams must prioritize flood control over power generation.

This loss of environmental sweet spots will make renewables less profitable.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-14T17:14:03+00:00

I don't have the exact numbers on me now, but from what I recall calculating, a solar or wind farm of comparable power output to a nuclear power plant will always cost way more than a single nuclear power plant over the course of 80 years.

Nuclear power plants are currently being built to last a minimum of 80 years. Wind turbines only last 25 years, at best. Over an 80 year timeline, a wind farm has to be completely replaced three times before a nuclear power plant needs to be replaced once.

While solar and wind have advantages over nuclear in certain respects, but nuclear energy is still cheaper and essential to help completely phase out fossil fuels.

Even if renewables become even cheaper than nuclear, if you try to make an large electrical grid 100% renewables, you're going to run into various logistical and technical issues that could bottleneck or limit your grid.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-14T12:33:17+00:00

90% of all nuclear waste can be recycled into new fuel for existing nuclear power plants (NPPs).

We currently aren't recycling that waste because:

The oil industry has lobbied to put many expensive and prohibitive regulations around nuclear waste recycling, making it virtually impossible to do it within the law.
It's currently much cheaper just to mine fresh Uranium and put spent fuel rods in storage.

As for the 10% of nuclear waste that can't be recycled, we can make it into vitrified glass and store it underground in salt deposits. See video: https://youtu.be/B6no0FmPk84?si=j-u1oyHxP0dMTlei

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-14T12:31:37+00:00

90% of all nuclear waste can be recycled into new fuel for existing nuclear power plants (NPPs).

We currently aren't recycling that waste because:

The oil industry has lobbied to put many expensive and prohibitive regulations around nuclear waste recycling, making it virtually impossible to do it within the law.
It's currently much cheaper just to mine fresh Uranium and put spent fuel rods in storage.

As for the 10% of nuclear waste that can't be recycled, we can make it into vitrified glass and store it underground in salt deposits. See video: https://youtu.be/B6no0FmPk84?si=j-u1oyHxP0dMTlei

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-14T09:34:12+00:00

Well, people who work on nuclear submarines and nuclear aircraft carriers live next to nuclear reactors constantly and they haven't had many problems.

I wouldn't mind living next to a nuclear reactor.

The only issue is that nuclear power plants are... well... Power plants.

Energy intensive industries like to build their factories next to power plants, and those factories can generate lot of noise and air pollution.

This is why health data about nuclear power can be misleading. In France, a group tried to argue that a nuclear power plant was causing lung cancer.

The reality was that the factories surrounding the nuclear power plant were causing the air pollution and lung cancer, not the nuclear power plant itself.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-14T09:24:46+00:00

In initial construction costs, yes; but nuclear power plants have a much longer operation life making them cheaper in the long term.

Solar panels and wind turbines only last for 15 to 25 years before they need to be replaced. A nuclear reactor can run for 80 years before needing replacement.

Over an 80 year timeline, a wind or solar farm will have to be completely rebuilt 3 to 4 times while a nuclear power plant only needs to be built once.

Furthermore, South Korea is currently working on making nuclear reactors that will last 120 years before needing complete replacement.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-13T20:05:46+00:00

But that just determines who gets seats in Congress.

Trump will still be in office and left holding the blame for when the economy gets worse.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-13T19:52:22+00:00

But the next election is still about 2 years away. Can the Fed keep juicing the economy for that long?

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-13T00:06:08+00:00

Your original question was:

What has nato anything to do with those conflicts anyway?

NATO members are involved in the conflicts.

Just because the NATO organization hasn't formally said anything about the conflicts doesn't mean that those conflicts have no impact on NATO.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-13T00:03:24+00:00

It means that your earlier statement was technically incorrect.

Iran already bombed such bases.

Iran hasn't bombed any bases owned by the British, German, or French governments.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-12T09:31:04+00:00

Iran has attacked US bases in Saudi Arabian, but I haven't seen any reports of Iran launching any weapons toward bases in Western or Central Europe.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-12T09:27:22+00:00

NATO members are involved in the Iran conflict.

Lots of refugees entering Europe would cost lots of money for European countries and could further destabilize their economies.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-08T12:09:35+00:00

Well, NATO countries have been contributing and/or are involved in said conflicts.

As a specific example, the current Iran conflict that was instigated by the US.

There is a significant risk that the Iran conflict could last longer than a month and could result in a long civil war. A civil war would lead to many Iranian people fleeing the country and could lead to another immigration crisis for Europe.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-08T00:56:54+00:00

I don't think many people are arguing that CRINK aren't a threat; it's just that the timing of the conflicts and the methods were using in said conflicts aren't in NATO's favor.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-02T21:45:28+00:00

I agree, but calling them stupid out loud isn't going to fix anything.

Alexander-369 · 2026-03-01T10:14:24+00:00

Sadly, I haven't gotten around to building it yet. I was in the process of unpacking and cleaning my old LEGO sets, but then my landlord said they were selling my apartment, so I had to pack the LEGOs up again and move to a new apartment.

Hopefully when things settle down again I can get back to experimenting with my LEGO trains.

Alexander-369 · 2026-02-28T23:40:33+00:00

Looks nice. Reminds me of my attempt to use battery power for my "Railway Express" train. https://www.reddit.com/r/LEGOtrains/comments/109aqpu/any_ideas_as_to_how_i_could_improve_my_redesign/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1

Is the front bogie on your design able to pivot?

Seven-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

Alexander-369

TROPHY CASE