|
Nice meltdown op
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 04:28 |
|
|
Fidel Castronaut posted:I thought Fukushima was the end of nuclear power for most people because natural disasters happen.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
Solar power has made some real big headway but the fundamental technology hasn't really changed, it's mostly about economies of scale kicking in re:China grid level energy storage is not economically viable, so it's either renewables + gas or renewables + nuclear eventually something's gonna give and nukes are going to get built come hell or high water, by which I mean global warming + rising tides
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
Your return on energy investment for nukes is basically only beaten by hydro, and all major rivers that could be dammed, have been dammed. Wind and solar are intermittent weak sauce and cannot provide a total energy solution with the technology we have, but nukes can
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
You have to get more energy out than you put in, and the greater the ratio of energy out:in, the less total productive capacity you have to spend building and maintaining energy infrastructure, so you can spend it on other things, like weed
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
There's also a certain level of return on investment you can't really go below, because there's an implicit cost associated with the level of specialization and industrial capacity necessary to even make sonething like a pv cell in the first place. Another point: Silicon is actual pretty extensive to make energy wise, because you need it to be a pure crystal, which means you have to melt it. But the energy you get from the cell from solar radiation isn't that much, so it had to sit there in the sun for like a couple of years, before you actually start paying that back. That delay in surplus means that economic growth under a pure solar economy has a hard limit imposed on it, by the fundamental energy accounting process. Any expansion of the energy supply is going to take decades to actually afford, ergo economic activity & growth will be bottle necked by the supply of energy. rudatron has issued a correction as of 06:17 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Everything has a downside, nothing is free. Good policy is balancing the good against the bad, for a given context. Radiation is a hazard to human health, but so is social instability and economic uncertainty/ stagnation. Healthcare, education, security, everything costs money, every product and service has embedded in it the productive capacity necessary to make and support it. Lacking that capacity, because you're having to spend more of it on maintaining and expanding your energy infrastructure, means a real world drop in standard of living, along with the knock-on social effects. Is that something you're prepared to accept?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
please don't bring negative energy here, you're disturbing my chakras
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
The only reason they're uncompetitive is because of social opposition, and regulation basically designed to make building them as expensive and long as possible. There's nothing inherent to nuke plants that mean they should take long to build, they like large sale deployment of renewables require high up front capital costs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
You're also missing the key issue if you're just interpreting 'expensive energy' as meaning 'more money spent by poors'. Energy isn't like an iphone or whatever, it has a low price elasticity. Shortages of energy mean that the price must increase until demand decreases to the new availability, and energy's low elasticity means that even minor shortages could lead to price doubling or tripling. But even that didn't quite get to the heart of it, because you're fetishizing money as representing value, rather than being a medium of exchange. You nees to take a system view: total industrial output is proportional to energy consumption. Less total energy necessitates less total output, and no taxation or subsidy scheme is going to change that fundamental mathematics. Less total output means a drop of QoL across the board.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Human beings and their livestock represent about 98% of the biomass of terrestrial vertebrates - there is no nature to go back to, and even if there were, it would not have a carrying capacity in the billions. The Haber-Bosch process, fractional distillation, smelting and polymerization - these kinds of processes are now as necessary for humans as breathing. Humans have become industrial animals, not simply exercising their will through technology, but totally dependent the existence of technology and its reproduction, for its own existence. The fluctuations in economic activity - recession, gdp, dollar value - have replaced what were the primal forces of nature - rain, erosion, migrations of animals - as the dominating factor for people's lives. It is therefore not a simple thing to hand wave away the economic effects of the cost of energy as totally irrelevant, or merely a symptom of capitalism. That's just not the case. The issue is of the forces of production and their effects, not modes of production. An economy with a jeb!/low-energy consumption has a real world cost on the lives of real human beings, and that cost is high. It is not simply the loss of luxury products, which one could presumably overcome through a more austere lifestyle. It represents more serious malaise. Econonic uncertainity, job losses and unemployment, economic dysfunction, and the myriad of social ills that flow from those causes, both minor and major: crime, violence, instability, etc. There is therefore no other option but to gently caress with atoms, and more generally act with audacity. The state of edenic hedonism you desire has never existed before in human history, and the only possibility for its real world manifestation lies through further economic and technological development and exploitation, not by the rejection of that stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
Nah
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
I got triggered by 'electrocuck'
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
CANDU reactors showed that its nothing to do with the tech itself, it's political bullshit that in the long run only helped the fossil fuel industry, read: coal. A large scale rollout can be done affordably, quickly and safely, if you commit to maybe a couple of highly standardized, prefabricated designs, that you mass produce in a factory then transport throughout the rest of the country. The limiting factor on the speed of that is building the factory and collecting the capital for it to happen, which as projects like the three gorges dam shows, can occur quickly if you have the political will. That lets you amortize design costs like safety testing and such, and further brings down your per reactor costs, which is your largest cost in nuke $/MWh
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
That's a really, really dumb way of thinking about it, and I think I speak for everyone, when I say we are all dumber for having read it. edit: To be a little less flippant and a lot less disrespectful: your 'black = slave' literary device is pretty insensitive, and the supposition that prosperity is necessarily built on enslavement ignores that labor (and slavery) are social relations, while the consumption of coal or whatever is not. Slavery is dehumanizing precisely because it's treating human beings as instruments, to extend that over into actual instruments, even as a bit of rhetorical flourish, is putting the cart before the horse. rudatron has issued a correction as of 09:07 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
woah woah, slow down there einstein, just tell me how any of this can help me get laid, and if not, why i should care
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Not gonna name names, but it sounds like someone has electrophobia, and by someone I of course mean crazy cloud
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Show me on the doll where the atoms touched you
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Kaczynski was a reactionary nutter who killed people because he failed at life.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Chernobyl was a flawed reactor design (that the designers knew about but which the plant technicians were never informed of) and fukushima wasn't nearly as bad aa the reaction to it would have you believe - the evacuation occurred as a precaution but its not as if the entire site was irradiated, it was mostly leakage into the ocean. In terms of death per kilowatt hr, nuclear kills less people than coal, biofuels or even solar (mostly people dying when they fall off roofs). Importantly, nuclear is the only feasible non-carbon baseload that's not limited by geography (hydro is better but there's a maximum capacity to that that we've already practically reached).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
More reactions, in a different but more complex kind of reactor.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 04:28 |
|
|
If people's fleshy meatsacks were less vulnerable to cancer caused by ionizing radiation, we'd probably have nuke cars and space colonies and poo poo by now. Naked mole rats are pretty good at dna repair, I think, so just count your blessings that we got intelligence faster than they did, or space would be full of them. rudatron has issued a correction as of 07:39 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 05:55
|
|