|
True story: you absorb more radiation living next to a coal plant for a day than you do straight up swimming in the reactor cooling pool of a nuclear plant.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
Neat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
A HORNY SWEARENGEN posted:True story: you absorb more radiation living next to a coal plant for a day than you do straight up swimming in the reactor cooling pool of a nuclear plant. Coal ash is a hell of a drug
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
Also water is really good at stopping radiation as it turns out
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Coal may be bad but at least you don't have to keep all those blue and red tablets in balance
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
A HORNY SWEARENGEN posted:True story: you absorb more radiation living next to a coal plant for a day than you do straight up swimming in the reactor cooling pool of a nuclear plant. depends on how deep in the water you swim
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
I just want you to know that I both get and appreciate this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
We should just upgrade to burning fat, a renewable resource! Someone do a cost study on liposuction as a mining replacement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
Capacitors of those values would do a much better job filtering out high frequencies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:02
|
|
|
Azhais posted:We should just upgrade to burning fat, a renewable resource! Chuck Palahniuk did the study Didn’t turn out great
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
I have heard the difference isnt anywhere near as significant when you factor in the enormous carbon cost of building the plant itself. Apparently cement production is very co2 heavy. Could all be internet bullshit tho!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
Elfface posted:Who are these ladies, and why do they want to kill Solid Snake?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
officer, you're asking a lot of questions already answered by my trash can
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
One More Fat Nerd posted:I have heard the difference isnt anywhere near as significant when you factor in the enormous carbon cost of building the plant itself. Apparently cement production is very co2 heavy. Could all be internet bullshit tho! Nah it's actually more or less the same as wind energy. Problem is more that there's a lot of co2 emissions front loaded, it takes between 10 and 20 years for them to become carbon neutral. Adding that to the 10 year average build time, the earliest that nuclear is beneficial for the environment is 20 years. Just build more renewables and use batteries/hydrogen/gravitational batteries whatever. Nuclear would have been great 30 years ago, not now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:29
|
|
|
One More Fat Nerd posted:I have heard the difference isnt anywhere near as significant when you factor in the enormous carbon cost of building the plant itself. Apparently cement production is very co2 heavy. Could all be internet bullshit tho! Coal power produces about 1,000kg CO2 per mWh, a ton of concrete produces about 180kg of CO2 (I believe that includes energy for production) so assuming a small nuclear power plant with a production rate of 200mWe, and assume it takes 1 million tons of concrete to build the plant, (and that building the coal plant is somehow 0 emission) it would take about 900 hours of operation to offset the initial CO2 cost, or less than a year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
So the best option is to convert coal/gas to nuclear, while new build are green energy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
Nuclear is green energy. Literally, glowing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Nuclear is green energy. Literally, glowing. Cherenkov radiation glows blue, not green. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
Despite the benefits of nuclear I am still somehow a fan of numetal. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:depends on how deep in the water you swim *furiously scribbling "don't deep dick the nuclear pool"*
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
any pool is deadly if you dive deep enough
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
        
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
Samuringa posted:any pool is deadly if you dive deep enough Water you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:depends on how deep in the water you swim We already had this discussion and just getting near that gets you a fatal dose of bullets
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 00:13
|
|
|
BaldDwarfOnPCP posted:We already had this discussion and just getting near that gets you a fatal dose of bullets Sure but what constitutes a non-fatal dose of bullets?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 00:36
|
|
|
Slippery posted:Sure but what constitutes a non-fatal dose of bullets? Ask anyone who’s been shot If they can answer you you get a rough idea
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
Slippery posted:Sure but what constitutes a non-fatal dose of bullets? I think the official Bodycount numbers are talk poo poo, get shot
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
Slippery posted:Sure but what constitutes a non-fatal dose of bullets? Depends. 50 Cent was able to take 9 bullets without dying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
Slippery posted:Sure but what constitutes a non-fatal dose of bullets? I could probably swallow about a dozen of small calibre bullets (like .22) and easily pass them. Possibly even more, but I'm not a big guy, so maybe in a couple of sittings. Now, obviously, even one .50 would be lethal no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 01:13
|
|
|
Slippery posted:Sure but what constitutes a non-fatal dose of bullets? One in each bum cheek.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 01:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 01:53
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 03:01
|
|
|
Needs some form of spooky Karen reflected in the glasses
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 03:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 03:14
|
|
|
This legit owns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
I grow tired of these people and their mondays.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2020 03:30
|
|
