Because everyone knows there’s literally only fossil fuels and nuclear energy, nothing else.

Sure, and the next catastrophe will have some good reason too, yet it will happen due to human error and greed.

Hate to break it to you, but with a limited amount of money you can only increase your generation so much. Choosing a power source that’s less efficient from a monetary perspective means you can displace less fossil fuel.

Read a book on mathematics if you don’t believe me.

Is the economic sense really a good argument? That implies that a privatized group needs to make profit, all external effects paid for, and still be able to give you a good price.

No, it’s not about privatized groups. Even the government has limited money (they can print more, but that leads to inflation). This means the money should be spent efficiently, so we get the most out of it. Nuclear is - by far - the most expensive form of energy we have. We can build more renewables + storage with the same money.

Is the economic sense really a good argument? That implies that a privatized group needs to make profit, all external effects paid for, and still be able to give you a good price.

The only way to make an expensive energy source cheap is by subsidizing it. We’ll get more out of the same amount of money if we build cheap energy sources.

Ah yes, that’s why we should invest money into an expensive form of energy instead of a cheap one, that will help us displace fossil fuels!

So we made a mistake, and to make up for it, we should make another one?

No, renewables have to be replaced by nuclear. Nuclear is incredibly expensive (the most expensive form of energy we have). If you don’t run it at capacity 100% of the time, it’s even more expensive.

All that money can either produce a small amount of energy if we go with nuclear, or a larger amount of energy if we go with renewables.

Grid-level storage is getting more and more efficient - a couple of years ago, the combined cost of renewables + storage got smaller than the cost of nuclear. Nuclear is still getting more expensive, whereas renewables + storage is getting cheaper and cheaper.

Chernobyl shouldn’t have happened due to safety measures, yet it did. Fukushima shouldn’t have happened, yet it did. The common denominator is human error, but guess who’ll be running any other nuclear power plants? Not beavers.

Yeah but this is for areas that don’t get enough sun or wind to meet their energy needs.

Which is almost nowhere. There can be intermittent issues, but those can be overcome with a larger network and grid-level storage.

The make small scale nuclear reactors as well.

Which are less efficient, so even more expensive.

And cities themselves, being supplied by nuclear plants, are juicy military targets too. If a bomb lands anywhere near a city including the plant, it’s bad

Not sure what your argument here is, because no matter what kind of energy production you’re using, bombing a city is always bad. But it’s much easier to cause great harm with nuclear than renewable generators.

The sky color is part of the training data. How did the LLMs include the training data before it existed?

Not fined, just banned.

Eh, things have gotten better, and there are tools that make these tools respect them.

I have good news and bad news:

A specification already exists. https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/latest/