Some critics argue that the prestige of the Prize in Economic Sciences derives in part from its association with the Nobel Prizes, an association that has often been a source of controversy. Among them is the Swedish human rights lawyer Peter Nobel, a great-grandnephew of Alfred Nobel.[40]

Nobel accuses the awarding institution of misusing his family’s name, and states that no member of the Nobel family has ever had the intention of establishing a prize in economics.[41] He explained that “Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society’s well-being”, saying that “There is nothing to indicate that he would have wanted such a prize”, and that the association with the Nobel prizes is “a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation”.[40]

Those data centers would soon be somewhere else due to… economics. And even if not, wouldn’t be significant.

Maybe if you start heating your homes by burning car tires in your gardens. But otherwise, no. You are already so far behind the curve that economics really don’t allow CO2 emission increases on a global significant level.

The world is not just the USA…

They don’t even say that. They say emissions will peak which is en par with other institutions.

I am talking about Austria. Its mostly reusable ones made of fabric, or really sturdy plastic/wofen plastic. If you need a oneway one it’s paper. We anyway had to pay for the shoppingbags as long as I can remember.

Thanks for the answer. I was really surprised how little people complained when the shop ones stopped existing. Seems like induced demand. Back then I kept a few, because they are so handy. Well, never used one.

Sorry, fixed it.

Are they talking about something like this

Or something like this

The first one has been forbitten in my country for ~10years and nobody seems to miss them. The second one is used, rarely, for takeout and mostly replaced with paper bags.

I don’t agree with you but either way that doesn’t change the fact that nuclear is just slow, expensive and a bad idea in 2024.

There are just better/faster options…

If this is ever deemed feasible the world will already run on renewables. There might have been a time for NPPs but 2024 ain’t it.

Put as much money into the research of SMRs as you would like to waste. Meanwhile we just build a cheaper, better and more reliable system based on renewables.

This will happen with or without the nukebro hypetrain.

Unfortunately capacity is the first step, but its a step. I’ll crack open a beer when it’s consumption or production…

I said it before and I’ll say it again, nuclear proliferation and corruption are the only real reasons to build NPPs. If you build for the climate you build renewable!

What a giant waste of resources.

Yes for Sulfur derivates and nitrous oxigens but no for CO2. The biggest contributord to CO2 emissions are electricity production and traffic.

I only accept data that supports my worldview is a nice argument. Have fun not learning stuff.

Sometimed I am astonished that people post in a forum without being able to comprehend text

We find that larger-scale national nuclear attachments do not tend to associate with significantly lower carbon emissions while renewables do.

I am sorry, but reality says otherwise. And SMRs are vaporware, if ever realized likely more expensive than already expensive NPPs.