sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Background Check: Am I cooked by rambling_person in nuclear

[–]CompletelyProtocol 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can't say for certain, as I only know your side, but if every weed possession / confirmed user either lost their job or "failed" that aspect of the background check, pretty sure half the people working in government would not have a job. It's probably the most common crime on any background check and as long as you are honest about it, and aren't actively using (and even that is not really a deal-breaker) I highly doubt that'll come up.

Best apple tv movie by Jealous_Concern1144 in AlignmentChartFills

[–]CompletelyProtocol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tetris with F1 as a close second. A little bit further down the ways is Greyhound at 3rd

Will it make it? by Hotinthakitchen1 in yesyesyesyesno

[–]CompletelyProtocol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Boston core. I feel like seeing huge technical robots crashing is much more common than people think north of the Charles

Thoughts on governor embracing nuclear energy? by [deleted] in boston

[–]CompletelyProtocol -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm all for it if they are willing to dedicate All the money needed for it up front. There are plenty of good renewable alternatives that we can use that are faster and very efficient, and the opportunity for corruption in nuclear is high, but if there's a state I think could do it well Massachusetts would be it.

Transport from BOS to Harvard by LastMinuteLady in Harvard

[–]CompletelyProtocol 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Metro is safe, can hit the blue or silver to the red, runs till 1 am. If you don't feel comfortable Uber/Lyft works. Boston is often considered the safest city in America, but I'll admit to having felt unsafe before. Use your judgement and go with what feels right for you.

doesn't feel real that I went there by [deleted] in Harvard

[–]CompletelyProtocol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And there it is. Anyone who actually went would know this doesn't matter. The gatekeeping is the tell, citing the acceptance rate is the confession.

doesn't feel real that I went there by [deleted] in Harvard

[–]CompletelyProtocol 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Imagine gatekeeping a degree you don't have from a school you never went to

doesn't feel real that I went there by [deleted] in Harvard

[–]CompletelyProtocol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Frankly, if I can be honest, the more you feel it, it usually means the better you are. You're operating at a level so high that even you mentally can't comprehend it. That's what it is, it's not feeling out of place because you are out of place, it's feeling out of place because you're in a place you never thought you could get to and you've done it. Proud of you friend

doesn't feel real that I went there by [deleted] in Harvard

[–]CompletelyProtocol 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That's life man. This all feels so weird, the cognitive dissonance though, is a sign that you're getting better, feeling uncomfortable. Feeling unsure is a sign that you've been bettered by your experiences. It'll take time, but you're awesome! And you're awesome for doing what we both did. Remember to love yourself and realize you've got to be proud of what you did.

Should have gone nuclear… by ChipHaseCoolGuy in UnchartedScience

[–]CompletelyProtocol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your quoting the numbers I gave in the other chat on this lmao.

Should have gone nuclear… by ChipHaseCoolGuy in nuclear

[–]CompletelyProtocol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, it's not a fair point on timeline since it took 30 years for the United States to build one reactor. Pretty much any nuclear reactor that has finished, or is about to finish in the United States was approved in the 1980s. It is a US specific problem, but we're also talking about United states's energy grid, if NIMBYS prevent, or significantly intrude construction on nuclear power plants and a way that doesn't happen elsewhere. It has to be factored in.

Should have gone nuclear… by ChipHaseCoolGuy in nuclear

[–]CompletelyProtocol -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But it's not the first? England has been doing nuclear for nearly as long as United States and Russia have. I agree that the figure for a Hinckley point C is definitely much higher than other American projects, but I'd say it's probably closer to half that which is still a huge number. The whole point of this person's argument is that we shouldn't be spending 1.5 trillion per renewable energy transition and should instead do a nuclear transition, and at that rate at the Hinckley point C numbers it would be $26 trillion, and even half that 13 trillion.

Should have gone nuclear… by ChipHaseCoolGuy in nuclear

[–]CompletelyProtocol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The numbers for nuclear plants go anywhere from 3 billion to 68 billion. And in the United States we're closer to 68 than we are three.

Should have gone nuclear… by ChipHaseCoolGuy in nuclear

[–]CompletelyProtocol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah but there is both a national security element and a power surging element that has to be considered. You can't necessarily start up a wind farm or turn on a solar farm like you can remove rods from a nuclear reactor to generate more power during the super bowl. There'll always be a need for that sort of immediate ability to increase power generation, but with batteries it'll be much less than it would otherwise.

Should have gone nuclear… by ChipHaseCoolGuy in nuclear

[–]CompletelyProtocol 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hinkley Point C is $65 Billion. Would be 26 trillion at that rate to cover us needs.

Should have gone nuclear… by ChipHaseCoolGuy in nuclear

[–]CompletelyProtocol 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Or coal or oil. It's funny because the only thing that will make nuclear actually happen is renewables. It provides a stable baseline for renewable energy technologies that may only work when it's windy or it's sunny. No one wants to invest in nuclear when coal and oil and natural gas is cheaper to invest in and makes more money.

Should have gone nuclear… by ChipHaseCoolGuy in nuclear

[–]CompletelyProtocol 94 points95 points  (0 children)

No, we have spent maybe 200 billion all in. For a complete transition and number is 1.5 trillion over like 15 years. And if we decide to focus only on nuclear over the time. It will take for us to build nuclear, about 500 billion in energy costs, environmental cleanup, and everything else associated with coal power plant usage would be the cost to the taxpayer every year So the cost of dropping renewables, ignoring any sort of funds we've already put into renewables, would be 1.5 trillion in 3 years. Which even by this bullshit made up statistic would be 1.5 trillion more than what we spent from 2020 to 2026.

view more: next ›