Kinda sorta? The carbon still goes into the atmosphere and there’s such demand for used cooking oil to run vehicles that there have been cases of new cooking oil being mixed into used because it was more valuable for vehicles than cooking, but if it was definitely going to get burned in a waste incinerator than better than nothing.

Climate wise, electrification (either for bikes, cars, buses, or trains) remains the only option and is something everyone is going to have to do eventually, but economic wise the higher upfront costs limits access.

Chernobyl and the Exxon Valdez are pretty comparable in scale and scope the environment, though Chernobyl certainly had a lot more human casualties.

That being said I’m not sure public opinion actually has had that much of an impact. If they wanted to, the same companies who keep building new oil pipelines no matter how many protesters need to be beaten into submission by cops could absolutely have pushed through adding on some more reactors to existing plants. The problem is that while profitable, nuclear is not as profitable as heavily government subsidized oil and gas much less solar, and so no one but some of the public really wants to put a lot of money into it.

Nuclear was the correct answer, when climate change entered the scientific community in the 50s, it was the correct answer when it allowed France to nearly hit net zero for energy in the 70s, and it was the correct answer when the UN agreed we were all going to die unless we stopped burning all fossil fuels in the 90s.

The problem is that ever since the 2010s it’s been outpaced by improvements in wind and especially solar. Not coincidentally this is about the time that oil and gas companies stoped campaigning against Nuclear and suddenly started insisting that it was the only possible alternative.

It makes sense to keep what we have running and do some refurbishments, but in a world where the primary limit on the amount of solar and wind we can build is funding its high cost alone means going nuclear means far less clean energy, to say nothing of the decades more CO2 output from the coal and gas plants running in the years it would take to build such plants compared to the months it takes for a new solar or wind farm.

Radar transmitters and receivers don’t have to be one in the same, and indeed often aren’t in a military context. Your stealth plane is not sending out radar pulses except when it’s on its own in an extreme emergency, but rather is listening to the radar echos from your AWACS and ground air defense trucks. By contrast if the enemy has a stealth plane, those active radars have to get much, much closer to the front lines and often will be in easy range of anti-radar missiles before their accompanying SAM batteries can even see the enemy, much less shoot it down to protect their air-search radar.

These are all part of the reason why when the F-22 first started coming to joint exercises it was considered seal clubbing for them to use it, and why subsequently everyone with the resources to do so,(and some like Russia who didn’t), began pooring absurd amounts of money into trying to produce their own stealth fighters.

I also question your assertion that they won’t have many air defense systems, as in practice unless you are the USAF fighting a much, much weaker country they have proven pretty survivable and easy to replace. There is also the fact they can be in neighboring allied but not at war countries, which makes them basically invulnerable.

It’s also worth noting that while the Gripen is indeed very good flying out of very short mountain roads and very rough fields, basically any fighter jet is capable of flying off roads and dirt tracks, they just need longer and flatter ones while suffering a bit more maintenance cost while doing so.

Stealth aircraft arn’t invisible, but if you need to get within 50km to even know there is an enemy aircraft there while they can can shoot at you from 500km away you are not going to achieve much beyond slightly depleting the enemy missile supply.

It also means that the enemy now needs advanced radars to be deployed every 100km to even know you’re there, as compared to deploying 1/10 the radars at every 1000km for the same effect. If you want the coverage to know where the enemy is above your country and not just they entered it, that goes up by the square root.

As for cost, the main driving factor is that there are ~160 Gripens flying for 6 countries, and 1100 F-35s flying for 10 countries, plus another thousand or so on order by the US itself. When it comes to extremely intricate and complex development and tooling heavy devices like aircraft, economies of scale matter a lot.

Getting the Gripen E down to ~121m CAD was a remarkable achievement in economic efficiency, no seriously this was incrediblely impressive, that involved significant compromises for cost, nevertheless it doesn’t change that Lockheed Martin can sell a more capible fighter at ~117m CAD just by being able to have an actual assembly line and tons of spare parts.

Ya, if you’re worried about a war with the US, you need French nukes, and fast. A handful of jets really isn’t going to make any difference.

I believe the main reasons Gripen was rejected by the 2022 report was lack of any Stealth capability, rarer among allies, and higher cost. Practically, while the Gripen is a pretty good 4th gen aircraft, non-stealth aircraft really arn’t capible of combating any airforce with stealth aircraft, and so Canada would be pretty much limited to only fighting Russia or smaller regional powers, and no small part of Canada’s NATO focus is on deterrence in Asia, where Gripen can’t really do much.

It’s possible some of them also remember the decades long process of entering the multinational program, spending billions, pulling out because it was to expensive, then spending billions more re-entering when the Canadian air force could not find any aircraft near as capable as the F35 and even those less capable aircraft coat significantly more than the F35.

The end result of this is that Canada has so far spent enough to upgrade nearly the entire military, but not actually gotten anything at all out of it.

Now personally I lean towards joining the Japanese 6th gen project (they’ve also been burned by the Americans) and just accepting that Canada won’t have a combat effective military for another 15 years or so, but I can understand why many Canadians might not want to accept a temporarily (or permanently if it commits to 5th gen) weaker and more expensive RCAF just to spite Putin’s bitch in D.C.

If you want an actually serious answer as to the who, how and why of the assassination and have three hours to spare, I would recommend Sean Munnger (A leftist university professor of modern political history) far to exhaustive series on the topic. For just the CIA, that starts at the 30min mark of Part 2, but builds a bit on previous debunkings.

Welcome to the club BYD.

Ya, zombies tend to be a really popular disaster to workshop a response to because planning a response to them can basically involve close collaboration between any group of agencies at all levels of government/healthcare.

Yup, and he also vaccinated his children as soon as they were old enough to qualify. He wants his voters dumb, trapped, and desperate, not his family.

It’s also worth expanding on this by noting that 35% of the debt is debt from one government agency to another. Another 34% is held by various financial institutions who use it as a protection against financial risk as even if the market crashes they’ll still have a basically guaranteed (and now very valuable) asset to cash out to keep their customers safe, while only 24% is held by people, institutions, and governments outside the United States.

Together we’ve just gone over 93% of the national debt.

Also, they way we paid off this debt last time was that 50% effective corporate tax rate and a 91% top income tax rate during the 40s, 50s, and 60s, which as we all know was a really terrible time for the American economy./s

Does Canada have any actual experience with the high enrichment necessitated by navel reactors? I thought half the point of the CANDU reactor was its very low enrichment. Otherwise the options would be either conventional or French.

Except NATO already has had nukes stationed closer to Moscow the any point in Ukraine for decades?

I can say that while I near exclusively use the subscriptions feed to start browsing, and will add interesting videos from it to the watch later list, once i’m nearing the end of a video I’ll often choose from the recommended videos on that video rather than going back to the subscriptions page.

A lot of game publishers have micro transaction gambling, most don’t have a mult-million dollar real money casino’s built on their infrastructure and a business model based on teenagers watching CSGO gambling streams.

Obligatory Coffeezilla video

Tax breaks for the farmers working the fields, or tax breaks for the international corporations and land speculators that own nearly all the fields?

Firstly, the standard lifespan for modern solar panels is typically 25 to 30 years, while nearly all grid scale batteries are rated for 5000 to 8000 0-100% cycles, which is 13 to 20 years of daily cycling. If you are not completely discharging the batteries every day that lifetime can be far longer.

Secondly, it’s worth remembering that said rated lifespan is not when the pannel or battery stops working, but rather the point at which it hits 80% of the capacity it had when installed. This means that when that happens if you just do nothing for another decade or two, you are still getting well more than half of a brand new power plant’s worth of output for free, as this output is often not calculated in the cost of the plant. This also means you only need to replace panels on the same timeline as nuclear plants need far more expensive complete refurbishments.

Thirdly, yes, solar outputs less than it does in some parts of the world, which means you need proportionally more space and funding to build it. Still far less than the cost of a nuclear plant of the same output, and as for land use, I was unaware that Canada was such a small dense country, completely devoid of parking lots much less vast grassland parries.

Finally, you realize that nuclear plants have far higher operational costs than wind and solar, with the Pickering plant for instance requiring over three thousand staff to keep operating, while most solar fields don’t even have a single full time employee?

Ultimately however, the largest demonstration that nuclear will not clean up Canada’s energy is that in the quarter century that Canada had known without doubt that it must replace its oil and gas plants, it has not tried to do so with nuclear despite building nuclear reactors only getting more and more expensive with each passing year. As such, of the government has so thoroughly demonstrated it is unwilling to replace oil and gas with a more expensive option, maybe we should focus our efforts on getting them replaced with less expensive options instead.

Fun fact, the US first developed a hypersonic interceptor in the 1960s with the nuclear armed Sprint missile.

Moreover, the US demonstrated the ability to successfully identify and shoot down incoming ICBMs launched from the other side of the ocean with the Aegis system in 2012, and said system is now installed on a number of our and our key allies ships and bases.

The problem is not that it’s impossible to shoot down an ICBM, far from it, the problem is that to provide a reasonable margin of safety in a full scale nuclear extange you would need an absurd number of said missiles, as an opponent an just choose to focus all their missiles at a few key targets, so you would need to have all your cities and bases to each protected by enough missiles to take out the entirety of your adversaries arsenal by themselves.

So if you actually wanted to actually improve the US’s missile defenses, you would just be ordering more RIM 161 SM 3’s from Raytheon and Mitsubishi, not throwing money at Musk’s cronies for their ‘invaluable insight’ into this new idea.