|
KoRMaK posted:i'm beleivin this This is actually the only idea dumber than putting solar panels in Seattle.
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
KoRMaK posted:drat It's expensive, there's still power loss, and if it actually melts snow in the winter it's just going to refreeze and you have a bigger safety hazard than before. Among other things.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
KoRMaK posted:So it doesn't last for 1000 years or some nearly eternal bullshit amount of time? Longer half lives actually mean that they're less radioactive. Think of it this way: if the same amount of energy is released, do you want the substance that releases it all in 2 days, or the one that takes 2000 years?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:Nuclear fission in it's current form is: Literally nothing is renewable if nuclear isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:"Uranium-235 is a finite non-renewable resource." Uranium-235 is not the only potential nuclear material.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Economically, it makes more sense to use an energy source that doesn't create dangerous waste that needs to be securely housed for thousands of years. Not if it's cheaper to store the waste compared to some other factor with the alternatives (for example, overbuilding capacity for solar and building large storage facilities with dangerous levels of energy for that excess capacity). And that's ignoring any and all possibilities for reusing said waste too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:Things that are cheaper rarely end up being better. What do you think "economically" means?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
Wheeee posted:Which is why it's basically dead in Well, it's pursued in China because the party bosses live in Beijing and don't want to live in Beijing's air.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 14:42
|
|
and being pursued in places like 
.