|
Holy poo poo I never expected a real life Lucille Bluth meme How much could a car possibly cost... a million dollars?
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:I needed to visit a Vomitorium after listening to RFK Jr. As difficult as it is to believe, I assure you that RFK Jr is not a myth
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 06:05
|
|
|
Pander posted:I'm a little confused by the $373/MWHr figure, since later in the article they site research that says $120? That $120/MWh value is the updated projection for Nuscale specifically The $373/MWh figure is a mystery. Their own source (BloombergNEF) says that the average cost of nuclear power is between $33.50 and $50 per MWh depending on who you ask. The article even has a section talking about newer construction (which has cost considerably more than plants built in the 70s) and their worst example is still only $134/MWh
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2023 08:30
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Naval reactors run on HEU so using those designs commercially would present a serious proliferation risk. The united states already has nuclear weapons fyi
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2023 23:41
|
|
|
I don't think it's worth getting lost in the weeds examining the differences between navy vessel reactors and commercial power reactors, when someone starts talking about the navy it's meant more to illustrate how silly it is to argue that we can't build nuclear power plants. We can build them, we just don't want to apparently If we really cared about combating climate change we'd declare it a threat to national security and start doling out commercial nuclear power contracts to the MIC. We've done the first part several dozen times at least but for some reason we just aren't doing anything about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2023 06:39
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:More of literally everything else that can help and is not politically, socially and financially unacceptable right now. From more mass renewables to small/big hydro to EGS to grid to storage to capture to keeping and mildly expanding the nuclear you have to...everything else. And how does making GBS threads on nuclear power promote the construction of more renewables and grid-scale storage? Did you really just suggest carbon capture as a reason to not build nuclear power? The gently caress? 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2023 15:31
|
|
|
I don't know of any nuclear supporters who are anti-renewables but I do know a lot of renewable supporters who are anti-nuclear. That's a problem. And it's why you see articles like this Fortune one, which don't really seem to understand nuclear power. Take for instance that the article creates an implication that replacing a decommissioned reactor costs as much as a whole new facility, and the stated assumption that nuclear power somehow robs investment from electrical transmission upgrades (no really, what the gently caress?)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2023 20:32
|
|
|
in a well actually posted:Worth remembering whenever this thread talks about China’s amazing investments in nuclear, for example, from three days ago: Yeah their energy growth is insane and they're pretty much maxed out on how much nuclear power they can build at once. I see these two stories and think "I am glad they are able to build 30% fewer coal plants than they would need to otherwise." I wish the US was able to build fewer fossil fuel plants.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
Smiling Demon posted:Am I missing something here? The graph was posted in response to this: GlassEye-Boy posted:This stupid point is brought up every time, yes they are permitting new coal, but at the same time they are shutting down the same amount if not more, replacing older smaller and dirtier plants with larger cleaner ones. The graph actually confirms what this post is saying: they are building shitloads of new coal plants, but their total coal power generation hasn't grown since around 2010. The positive interpretation is that their energy growth is in other energy sectors, and not coal
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2023 01:43
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:Very excited for physics-defying limitless energy though. The last couple of times the science people invented it it must have gotten hung up on red tape or something. It was kept down by THE MAN Disclaimer: I am the man, I review journal articles and abstracts
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2023 16:53
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:No one cares anymore. I was always a strong proponent of nuclear energy. But the fact that those things got turned off is a political decision which is straight up irreversible. We live in the world we have and have to deal with the situations as they are and not as they should be. I'm not saying that any of this is smart, but this is just what's happening and we have to accept it by now. Crying about those obvious implications feels like Pro-Brexiters who complain about import tariffs some years after their vote. In this analogy you've created the people who are pro-nuclear also voted for the nuclear power plants to close (???)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2023 02:33
|
|
|
TheMuffinMan posted:i don't understand it well yet but with bricks you can raise them during the day and let them fall when attached by rope or whatever to a magnet that can spin? There have been prototypes of this kind of thing built and iirc the storage efficiency was so awful that you'd be better off just buying a bunch of car batteries
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2023 04:36
|
|
|
Maybe the party that ultimately decided to shut down all of the nuclear power plants isn't really as pro-nuclear power as you may have been thinking. Just sayin'
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2023 16:53
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:They are because the majority opposed restarting the plants until recently, I wonder what happened in '22 Wasn't 2022 the year that Shinzo Abe was assassinated by video game designer Hideo Kojima
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2023 23:15
|
|
_1.jpg){kind=spacer}
|
SpeedFreek posted:Something more like this? I think the kettle is a lot cleaner as a symbol to represent boiling water than this huge diagram, I mean we could also point out that a lightning bolt isn't a good representation for alternating current but that's kind of missing the forest for the trees
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2023 22:42
|
|
|
The electron orbit representation of an atom isn't a great representation for fission, they should use these scans of formulae from a nuclear physics textbook:
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
It's kind of like missing the gluon-hadronic envelope for the nucleons
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2023 00:43
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:From what I gather, some (but by far not all) of the wind comes from the earths rotation. Wouldn't the generation of that energy take it from the earths rotation, thereby technicallly slowing it a minuscle amount? No, angular momentum is conserved. You're not slowing down the earth's rotation with wind power, not even by even a miniscule amount Wind is really just another version of solar energy; the sun adds heat to the air, hot air moves toward colder air. That's wind. Solar energy gets absorbed by the air, wind turbines convert some of that energy into electricity.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2023 00:55
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:After we have solved the climate crisis lmao
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2023 21:47
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Beep boop. Most people did take the vaccine, and you don't need unanimous consensus to build nuclear power
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2023 01:59
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So I dunno, I feel like that we can still get the global average temp going back down That ship sailed a long time ago, even if we brought our net carbon to zero we would still be experiencing increasing global temperature for a generation or more due to positive feedback effects. Our goal is now less of an increase
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2023 03:52
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:I like the person who clearly answered wrong deliberately but wasn't removed from the dataset outliers. Behold the power of the box and whisker plot
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2023 18:56
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:keep in mind the usual d&d goon answer of NUKULAR is much worse here because the idle-capital-cost of gas plants is like a full order of magnitude lower than than a fission plant.* * if we decide to say "gently caress it, climate change is fine"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2023 00:01
|
|
|
*half of a US state gets swallowed by the ocean* Well at least the shareholders were happy for awhile What's really hosed is that some island nations are literally going to disappear but they just don't get a say in the matter, when I'm dead in the ground the fossil fuel industry will be burning even more than they are now lol
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2023 06:17
|
|
|
Why would I sign up for an expensive electric plan with my local utility when I could just buy an extension cord that goes all the way to my neighbor's house?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2024 20:21
|
|
|
Ecofascism means wanting to round up and put all of the brown people into death camps because you think that will save the environment
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
*significantly reduces emissions by building out renewable energy* *offsets a big fraction of that reduction by shutting down all of the nuclear power* Look at the reduction in emissions!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2024 21:48
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Been said a dozen times in this thread, been refuted a dozen times in this thread, and continues to be false. Carbon emissions would be even lower if the nuclear power hadn't been turned off, that chart does not dispute this fact
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2024 10:50
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:No, not as much as you imply. Oh, word? How much did you imagine I implied?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2024 21:56
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Thanks for conceding the challenge. Yeah you're the biggest dipshit, happy to concede that challenge (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2024 09:21
|
|
|
Did you know power corrupts absolutely? This is why you should OPPOSE the new solar farm proposal!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
Watched this interesting video on vertical bifacial solar arrays, it's really interesting if you have any interest at all in solar panels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqizLQDi9BM For anyone not watching, vertical bifacial panels (PV panels that absorb photons from both sides and are mounted in an east-west orientation) may be a bit more efficient on sunny days than traditional panels mounted with a fixed southern-facing angle, they may be even more efficient on cloudy days, and they may have a longer operating lifetime. For flat roofs that are common on commercial buildings, it may be more effective to build vertical panels instead of adding a bunch of infrastructure for angled panels
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2024 23:17
|
|