Chapo0114

Hydroelectricity

Destroys aquaculture. TVA has absolutely killed those rivers, and there is no way to sugar coat that.

Geothermal can't be used in most places (but should absolutely be used where it can be)

Biomass is just burning shit all over again (thought that was the point of not burning coal).

I'm also skeptical of the pivot from using renewables as a decentralized solution and then touting a massive grid which requires lots of infrastructure. Unless your problem with centralization is targetability by bombing.

I've not heard much about compressed air as an energy storage medium, or thermal storage besides from using solar arrays to reflect light and melt a metal core (like Gemasolar which is another centralized solution), but I've heard nothing good about hydrogen except from breathless techbro types.

Meanwhile Nuclear is a mature technology now, absolutely a less dangerous solution than coal (even without looking a climate change knock-on effects, just looking at the effects coal dust has on populations near coal-fired plants), and can be used to meet the base-load of a local grid with various renewable solutions used to meet peak load demands.

How do we deal with balancing the uneven load renewables produce in places where pumped hydro isn't an option for power storage? I.e. lowland areas. Here in the southeastern US, night almost always means no wind as well as the obvious no sun. Chemical batteries, afaik, aren't a sustainable solution ATM.

Most Americans have less than $1000 in savings. Unless you live day trip distance from something most people won't ever see it.

Agreed.

Wait, they took their ball and went home and you're defending that as a show of legitimacy?

Omg this is the most redditor argument I've seen off reddit. No one likes a pedant.

Also, they do state they would pay off their mortgage, so not only are you a pedant but also a wrong one at that.

If you started with $100M, you definitely could buy yourself a house and car before donating the rest. Hell, you could buy it out of the $2M and still be better off than most folks.

Or less for less. I know a woman who is a manager of a dialysis clinic, as soon as she was making over 100k she started getting pushback from higher ups, having more oversight, and having her funds for extra services to patients / staff cut. It's clear they want her out even though she has the lowest mortality in the region, because they don't need more than beds filled (Medicaid pays) and legally required minimums to be met.

My partner worked in non-profits for years. Her advice is find local organizations (homeless shelters, local LGBT orgs, neighborhood revitalization orgs, ect.) that DO NOT have a national (central) office. Get to know their staff, their mission, and then make pledges to pay $X per month for the next X years. This is how they can best do the work they are passionate about to help people in need. Don't put strings on the money and you are moving closer to mutual aid than tyranny.

Also, 66k with no rent or car payments.

This plan only costs you your humanity. You probably weren't using it anyway.

Ah, thanks for the info. That's actually what I suspect is happening with the new fractional shares thing, but the brokerage is the one retaining control.