|
Sagebrush posted:americans like british accents because in movies when you have a british accent you're either a cool gangster or a classy businessman or a brilliant scholar
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:i heat my house with free solar energy i would but i dont think its feasible at this latitude
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
also wouldnt work very well in winter aka when you need heat
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
VLADIMIR GLUTEN posted:i think it's expensive but I don't actually use it because I heat my house with 100% clean electricity from nuclear/hydro it's cheap to read your posts and they are bad, so
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
lol @ "clean nuclear energy"
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
A Pinball Wizard posted:lol @ "clean nuclear energy"
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:i remember reading something somewhere about reactors that might be able to run on waste from other reactors, can anyone confirm or deny?/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:i remember reading something somewhere about reactors that might be able to run on waste from other reactors, can anyone confirm or deny?/ thorium reactors, they're being developed but probably coming. Like fusion lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
A Pinball Wizard posted:lol @ "clean nuclear energy" a commercial nuclear fission reactor emits less radioactive waste per kilowatt-hour than a coal-burning power plant
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
meanwhile we have linguists and sociologists trying to figure out how to communicate to people 10,000 years in the future that the nuclear waste dumps we're building will kill them if they mess with them breeder reactors help but there will always be some waste remaining
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Those sites will Also store yr posts
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
A Pinball Wizard posted:meanwhile we have linguists and sociologists trying to figure out how to communicate to people 10,000 years in the future that the nuclear waste dumps we're building will kill them if they mess with them breeder reactors would get rid of 99% of the waste and the remaining amount would be barely detectable above background radiation
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
pram posted:Those sites will Also store yr posts
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
actually chiselling my posts onto an obelisk outside is currently the leading proposal to scare people off
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
A Pinball Wizard posted:actually chiselling my posts onto an obelisk outside is currently the leading proposal to scare people off
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
A Pinball Wizard posted:meanwhile we have linguists and sociologists trying to figure out how to communicate to people 10,000 years in the future that the nuclear waste dumps we're building will kill them if they mess with them which they determined was pointless because in 10,000 years everything will be very low level radioactive since it's still there in 10,000 years, and also it's all going under giant mountains.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
also 99% of the high-level radioactive waste (read: the dangerous poo poo) is from weapons development and places like argonne natl lab are researching how to decommission nuclear warheads and reuse them for power generation also also part of the reason there's as much waste as there is now is because of political limitations of how reactors can work (some designs, like breeder reactors, are too close to military nuclear enrichment programs for politicians to feel comfortable, despite many of the designs being nearly impossible to weaponize) the real issue with nuclear power is regulatory capture, since cutting corners can be extremely dangerous
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
A Pinball Wizard posted:meanwhile we have linguists and sociologists trying to figure out how to communicate to people 10,000 years in the future that the nuclear waste dumps we're building will kill them if they mess with them realistically if people 10,000 years in the future are at a technological level where they can't detect or comprehend radioactive emissions, they'll probably die of alien gorilla attacks or hyper-dysentery before radiogenic cancer could get them it was a neat project though. i liked the field of obsidian spikes
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:realistically if people 10,000 years in the future are at a technological level where they can't detect or comprehend radioactive emissions, they'll probably die of alien gorilla attacks or hyper-dysentery before radiogenic cancer could get them also they're still going to have a hell of a time getting into any of the planned storage sites. all of them are supposed to be hundreds of feet under a desert or hundreds of feet under a mountain in a desert that's already been nuclear bombed to poo poo and back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
we should build a mass driver and launch it all into the sun, imo, and by it i mean everyone and everything
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
i'm not entirely sure you could build something with enough power to shift the orbit of the earth enough for it to fall into the sun can one of your physics nerds figure that out please
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
just keep it around and next time a country does something wrong then you've got a pretty good bargaining chip.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Beast of Bourbon posted:i'm not entirely sure you could build something with enough power to shift the orbit of the earth enough for it to fall into the sun i'm pretty sure we could pull the earth out of orbit with some clever engineering on the moon
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:realistically if people 10,000 years in the future are at a technological level where they can't detect or comprehend radioactive emissions, they'll probably die of alien gorilla attacks or hyper-dysentery before radiogenic cancer could get them it sounded like a dungeon from an rpg
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
duTrieux. posted:we should build a mass driver and launch it all into the sun, imo, and by it i mean everyone and everything the problem with this is that if you gently caress it up just once (out of literally hundreds of launches a year for many years) then whoops you've just introduced a shitload of radioisotopes into the atmosphere
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
yea that's the one situation where the space elevator makes sense. just slowly crawl it up into space and worst case you drop one and it plummets into the ocean where it's pretty safe and easy to recover. you could put a parachute on even for extra safety. a better idea though is to figure out how to harness all the obvious energy being produced by the still-active wastes because hey it's right loving there
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:yea that's the one situation where the space elevator makes sense. just slowly crawl it up into space and worst case you drop one and it plummets into the ocean where it's pretty safe and easy to recover. you could put a parachute on even for extra safety. better idea: if something is that loving dangerous its because theres still energy you can get out of it and its only due to retarded political concerns that we're not extracting said energy edit: I swear the second paragraph wasn't there when I clicked reply hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Beast of Bourbon posted:i'm not entirely sure you could build something with enough power to shift the orbit of the earth enough for it to fall into the sun i think the important question of this age though is if we pooled our resources as mankind, could we grow and store enough weed to form a ball the size of the sun, then launch it into the sun, and get the whole galaxy high.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:better idea: if something is that loving dangerous its because theres still energy you can get out of it and its only due to retarded political concerns that we're not extracting said energy yes that's what i said  edit: your edit wasn't there when i clicked reply
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Sniep posted:i think the important question of this age though is if we pooled our resources as mankind, could we grow and store enough weed to form a ball the size of the sun, then launch it into the sun, and get the whole galaxy high. signs point to yes, as long as we colonize mars with weed first
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Wouldn't a ball of weed the size of the sun start fusing long before we could throw it into the sun? I mean, the sun is made mostly of hydrogen, the lightest element, and weed is made out stuff like carbon and oxygen and nitrogen and whatever else, and they're all heavier than hydrogen. So if we make a ball of weed the size of the sun, it'll mass more than the sun, and the sun is already massive enough for spontaneous fusion. This plan is suspect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
it's questionable whether you could even make a ball of solid weed the size of the sun because as you point out it's much denser than hydrogen so at some point before it reaches sun-size it will start burning the weed in the center just due to gravitational compression.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
what drug do you get when weed undergoes fusion
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
super weed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:it's questionable whether you could even make a ball of solid weed the size of the sun because as you point out it's much denser than hydrogen so at some point before it reaches sun-size it will start burning the weed in the center just due to gravitational compression. that's really dependent on whether this is a compressed weed like a brick of hash or if we're tolkien about a more loose tumbleweed-style ball of the devil's lettuce
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:the problem with this is that if you gently caress it up just once (out of literally hundreds of launches a year for many years) then whoops you've just introduced a shitload of radioisotopes into the atmosphere good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:that's really dependent on whether this is a compressed weed like a brick of hash or if we're tolkien about a more loose tumbleweed-style ball of the devil's lettuce at the scale involved i don't think it would matter. you'd basically get a late-stage star that's well on its way to fusing iron and dying
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
duTrieux. posted:at the scale involved i don't think it would matter. you'd basically get a late-stage star that's well on its way to fusing iron and dying while relative density is an important aspect this is a good point perhaps the answer would be to create several balls of dense hash of masses under the chandrasekhar limit and combine them together in order to create Wheadestar although the real question is whether cannabinoids are able to retain their structure as they are blown outward during the initial explosive events of star formation thus enabling the entire galaxy to get high for stellar timescales
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
there's the very sad possibility that Weedstar will cause life to specifically evolve to metabolize cannabinoids without getting high
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 04:30
|
|