|
Jose posted:Didn't the coal plant being taken out cause far more environment damage? in total yes but people can get accustomed to an awful lot of bullshit if it's structural and not spike if you replaced every fossil fuel power station in the USA with an equivalent breeder reactor the amount of land spoiled by buried radioactive waste would equate to....the amount of surface land spoiled by radioactive waste from one coal plant, lol u shouldn't do that because there's not that many proven deposits of uranium tho, and unlike fossil fuels it's not practically guaranteed that lots more is around because life existed. but it's dumb af to not have more nuclear in the mix Badger of Basra posted:look at this guy who thinks electricity generation should be for-profit Trumps Baby Hands posted:I don't understand why people are so sure that now, in 2017, we have everything "right" and have unearthed all the hidden dangers in our technologies. In the 1950's it was considered fine to hose down children with DDT. The I loving Love Science people would have been sneering at any "backwards" person who asked if the potential drawbacks of DDT outweighed the benefits. the alternative to ddt was a cocktail of poo poo that was so ineffective that we still lost entire fields of corn and cotton to burrowing parasites, and ddt's deployment also coincided with a serious retreat in malaria as mosquitoes got their poo poo wrecked bigly it's very bad for bird populations and it's good that it's not in wide use anymore but particularly at the time the alternative was way worse for the poorest among us, who suffered most from disease-ridden mosquitoes and higher food and clothing prices caused by crop failures
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
we are never cracking that nut but we should do it anyway yeah
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
even in water impact fossil fuel plants require the same general order of magnitude of water as nuclear plants to function. it depends on the specific fossil fuel and the specific nuclear reaction involved but yeah to run a coal power plant you need tons of water to clean out all the lovely effluent, a nuclear plant needs tons of water but all it does is make the water hot lmao many inland nuke plants have 'cooling reservoirs' where hot-rear end water is kept in a couple iterative lined ponds to cool off before it's released back into the local water table, sterile as fuk but otherwise fine
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Corky Romanovsky posted:Depends on their reasoning. If they just say "atoms are scary", that isn't really science. those renewables are themselves disruptive environmental changes because they require lots of land even at 100% solar efficiency you're going to need hundreds of times the area of a gas or coal plant to catch sufficient photons to match outputs. that difference is taken away from wild habitat. a perfect renewable power station that arrived tomorrow would still be an ecological disaster to use on a large scale.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:Does that include the area taken up by open-cut coal mines used to feed the plant? Or tailings dams and other associated coal-mining related area? How about the energy used trucking/training gas/coal from where it was mined to the plant? You're kinda forgetting the insane scale ecological disaster happening right now which to be honest is probably too far gone for people to have much impact on anyway, I'd take a large scale renewable plant causing habitat loss over the current planetary deep-dicking. Yes, this includes all mining grounds and support infrastructure. Renewables still require two orders of magnitude more land. One of the primary benefits to both nuclear and fossil fuels is power density. One strip mine in South Dakota or one disassembled coal mountain in Appalachia can easily generate enough coal to power the entire United States for over a decade. The reason we don't do that is because it costs more than gas, which is even less land hungry. To do this same thing with a solar/wind/hydro mix we would need to devote more land to power generation than we currently do to farming. Entire forests have not been felled and entire habitats are still there because we use fossil fuels and not renewables to keep our lights on. Climate change is a serious problem, but let's not pretend like renewables are universally green. They're not.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:Yeah this doesn't look too bad for the renewables. financially racist posted:i mean, you are not wrong but it still sucks. even meltdown-proof pebble bed reactors won't catch on cause people will just hear the word 'nuclear' and freak out. i've heard a lot of proponents of nuclear say that we really need to come up with a new word with regard to the pebble beds because they're as different in terms of both construction and output to a traditional fission plant as a model t is from a lambo. instead of proposing a 'pebble bed nuclear power station' or whatever you call it a thermal reactor or something to emphasize that it's doing much more work by virtue of its temperature vs its neutron activity. makes sense to me, anyone's guess how well that marketing would take though
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:come on, now you're just being dumb. "drop solar cells over a few national parks." California's managed to figure out how to deploy a fuckload of solar without dropping it on Yosemite or King's Canyon. Much of Nevada and Utah are uninhabited wastelands. Wind has a high land use ratio, but I'm not sure how much those figures consider the mixed usage where you've got turbines plopped down in the middle of farms maybe taking up an acre each out of thousands of acres. turbines plopped into farmland is just as bad as wilderness because the farm will then be producing less food or clothing fiber to suit other basic needs. you will not be putting down a single wind turbine because that's pointless; the electrical equipment you need to hook it up to will cost more than the turbine itself and make it completely infeasible economically. the entire reason large scale wind farms are the preferred way of doing wind is because you can collectivize these needs and capture an economy of scale. as such, you will either displace a fair bit of farmland (and the farm will grow in other ways, still displacing wildlands) or reduce cereal and cotton outputs, which means more expensive food and clothing. which again, hurt the poor much, much more than anyone else. Coolguye has issued a correction as of 18:11 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:No, that is still dumb, and nobody is actually advocating for 100% solar. quote:I didn't say anything about a single wind turbine wind farm? I live in the midwest and we have plenty of these. The turbine footprint takes up a negligible amount of acreage when you're dealing with commercial sized farms. quote:Wind farms are huge in total acreage because of how far apart the turbines need to be spaced, but a "10,000 acre wind farm" is probably only really taking up 10 acres of actual farmland and the rest is perfectly farmable. If you're talking about out west, then it's just turbines on rocky hills that aren't be farmed anyway or can still easily be used for livestock grazing. quote:e: It's not like we have a farmland shortage so talking about how we'll be producing less food due to wind turbines is crazy. financially racist posted:iirc something similar happened off cape cod too
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:"the free market would never allow nuclear power to exist" I insist, as oil billionaires simultaneously poison my air and water and crush my testicles with a bucket excavator it does, however, still need to be affordable to the end consumer unless we're fine with telling the poor they can live without heating, cooling, and refrigeration. Not a Step posted:Why do we leave power generation and other utilities to the free market? Power and the infrastructure to support it is a good example of a public good that should be heavily managed by a government entity. power companies are already so beholden to the state that arguably state politicians have more control over their affairs than their own management boards. it's a little bit like the fannie mae poo poo. yeah, okay, sure, ostensibly fannie mae is private, but nobody REALLY believes that. even here in kansas, aka libertarilandia under brownback, sunflower energy had to promise to retire two busted-rear end coal-fired power plants before the state would okay a single modern coal plant because a couple state senators were sick and tired of the pollution and radiation complaints from their constituents. sunflower also routinely signs contracts to keep energy prices under a certain dollar amount because the government doesn't want to loving hear about 'supply and demand' if some cumdrinker decides to spike prices so they effectively force price fixing on the utility. again, this is KANSAS. Coolguye has issued a correction as of 18:54 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:if the state directly controls power generation and distribution they can charge whatever the hell they want for it, don't give me this "good energy is bad... for the poor!!!" talking point poo poo so what is your idea here, that taxes pay for energy generation? who is going to shoulder those taxes, because like every other tax it sure won't be the rich
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
the power grid itself is socialized in that taxes pay for power transmission, the only thing that's private are the generation stations and they literally cannot function unless every politician involved in the area is happy with them. i honestly don't see what nationalizing the generation stations would really do unless you think government dial-twiddlers are somehow inherently more competent or virtuous than corporate stooges, in which case that's a philosophical argument that could go both ways by bringing up the whole 'market incentive to innovate' thing and ugh i'm tired of that back and forthNot a Step posted:Well, the poor *already* pay for power generation, so this seems like an excuse to do nothing? e: i guess this is kinda the same thing as asking, if defense contractors are already beholden to the DoD, why doesn't the DoD just do all its research itself? answer because management is really hard and the government gets geometrically worse at it the more it has to do Coolguye has issued a correction as of 19:16 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
i mean sprawling bureaucracies are basically synonymous with decadent stasis and inefficiency and that was true before rand was even born so kinda? just look at the ming dynasty or the byzantine empire government being bad at certain things isn't new or controversial, there's no need to make this into a randian dystopia lol
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:let me tell you about the finely tuned bureaucracies that are California utilities companies a well oiled machine, they is financially racist posted:this implies that private companies are ever better at this poo poo than governments are and just lmao if you really think that is the case
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
honestly if a gas or coal plant killed eagles of any sort the company would end up in a class-action so fast their heads would spin so regardless of what the root reason was those turbine owners probably got off easy
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Another way to look at what rudatron is saying is if we want things beyond hand to mouth subsistence, we have to make something serve us. It's the definition of poverty to consume only that which you produce. Prosperity means consuming the labor of others. So we can enslave plants, enslave some animals, but it's fairly limited. After you get some cool stuff from them - some leather for shoes from a cow and something resembling a predictable cereal input from enslaved corn, you have to enslave more. You have to have something more working for you to have medicine, internet, and cell phones. At that point, you have two major choices: enslave atoms, and by proxy force black metals, black liquids, and black rocks to work for you, or enslave others, and force black people to work for you. There is no third option here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
rudatron posted: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. I'm not ignoring that at all. That's the entire point. The entire reason slavery is so unforgivable is because it reduces people to objects. Would it have been better if I'd left off the color adjectives and implicitly ignored the fact that one specific race of people was explicitly targeted to be dehumanized and exploited for centuries? If that honestly would have made it more acceptable then fine I can accept that but it strikes me as fairly insensitive to not point out the real results of cannibalizing labor from others. Coolguye has issued a correction as of 15:30 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
poo poo good poitn
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
powerful legacy tbh
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
when i hear half life i think about https://lparchive.org/Half-Life-2/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
rudatron posted: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 BIG BRAIN BIG BALLS BIG CUM BIG FUN
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
whomupclicklike: To give you an idea of the scale of waste we're talking about in terms of nuclear reactors incidentally, if you replaced EVERY coal fired power plant in the lower 48 states except one with a modern, ready-to-build-right-now nuke plant using plain jane uranium (which is arguably not even the best available fuel), you would be able to dispose of all of the waste generated by all of those reactors for the next 100 years with a single waste sarcophagus built over the site of the last coal fired power plant. The measurable environmental disturbance at the other sites would be some hydro-engineering to provide settling ponds for the water used to cool the reactors and the associated heat pollution in the immediate area. There would be no detectable radiation, no carbon emissions, no soot, no ash, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:There are some shut down commercial reactors that have gone back to green fields now. I've been to a few of them. You've got the relatively small storage area where they're storing the spent fuel and greater-than-class-C waste, but 90% of the old plant site is just an open field now. yeah it absolutely amazes me that all these years later we are still explaining to people that chernobyl was the single greatest instance of 'hold my beer' in human history, not some inevitable consequence of the powers we were playing with
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Of all the paper-thin bullshit that's made me roll my eyes about why we just can't open up Yucca Mountain or any other centralized storage site yet, the mewling complaints of "b-b-but what if tens of thousands of years from now a post-apocalyptic society which can't read English and has literally no knowledge of any human history that preceded it somehow finds the vault and gets into it!? We've gotta come up with an effective warning sign before we can even think of doing permanent nuclear waste storage!" has to be the worst. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
it requires almost five dozen extra certifications and permits to receive clearance that a nuclear power plant proposal is safe vs a gas or coal plant, which is required before the proposal can even be brought to politicians, who then must be convinced all over again and will frequently demand that the site be moved a couple of miles in one direction or another to make it more palatable to their constituents, which then triggers recertification procedures. not a huge deal for the moderately regulated fossil fuel plants (which might lose a couple ten or a hundred thousand dollars and be delayed a couple of months), a huge setback for nuclear projects (which can lose hundreds of thousands and be delayed up to a year). the question of economically viable is not, like wind or solar, a matter of mathematics and logistics. there's nothing you can do to make a solar panel deliver a MW/hr as cheaply as a coal plant with current tech. a nuke plant delivers a MW/hr as cheaply as a coal plant in the majority of situations, right this minute. the difference is entirely regulation, which has been ratcheted upward since the cold war with paranoid statutes that do not increase the safety of a plant but definitely decrease its economic viability due to the literal years and millions of dollars spent on just getting inspectors out at the site to poke around. not to mention, when these processes take so long, you run the real risk of having new legislation passed to affect current building. it's really dishonest to call something a boondoggle when the rug's ripped out from under a project, which has happened at least a half-dozen times in the last 15 years in the USA. this is, like, not even remotely arguable as a market force, these are regulation forces. the USA at this juncture has regulated nuclear power out of viability. saying china's spending a lot of money on nuke power is misleading too because they're spending a lot of money on power period. up until 2015 huge areas of the country had zero access to electricity, and even now most rural areas have rolling blackouts because the capacity of their power infrastructure is flatly insufficient.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:it still has less potential than renewables for the same money we'd have to invest.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:the us has not "regulated nuclear out of viability." the policy of the last nearly 2 decades has been to actively encourage the building of new nuclear plants. the cost of regulation is the tiniest fraction of the overall cost. westinghouse's issues have been entirely technical - they have been unable to fabricate and build at the pace & cost they were meant to. and every single reactor being built has faced that exact problem. westinghouse is promising gen IV reactors for the projects you're mentioning which are subject to less regulation by not using a lot of the hot-topic fuels that trigger so many of the regulations, despite the fact that we have poured so much work into securing and handling gen III reactors that they have fewer deaths per kW/h, less environmental impact, and lower operating costs than equivalent fossil fuel stations. regulation is forcing people to spend profligately on technologies that are not ready for prime time and not ready to be out of the skunkworks, per attestations of dozens upon dozens of nuclear engineers paid lots and lots of money to make high end breeders and pebble beds a real thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:wind/solar are developing technologies that are still declining in cost, and in general are now competitive with coal (or at least wind is) while still lagging behind crazy cheap natural gas. their share in the energy mix has grown bigly over the past 8 years, and it's projected by most energy companies to continue to do so. investing in renewables makes sense. we should invest enough in nuclear to maintain its place in the energy mix (since so many reactors will soon be going offline) but a france-like future isn't going to happen. Renewables currently generate more value in subsidy than they do in actual electricity produced. Oklahoma is discontinuing its wind program this year for exactly this reason; the subsidy fund they were using to incentivize the program ended, and the state's GDP actually shrank from the operation because the wind farms displaced so many farms and ranches that were actually profitable. The idea was that renewables would have lower operating costs once put up, because they don't require a full time staff, but the reality of the situation is that power storage with batteries and such is still such an expensive problem that it costs at least as much to scale as a power station of any stripe. There's also the cost of the land that you must buy up en-masse to support renewables. It tends to be farmland, which is HELLA expensive. Again, people do not usually count these costs because tons of the land comes from subsidized purchases or land grants taken by eminent domain to make way for critical infrastructure. If you remove subsidy payments from the equation (nuclear receives almost none, while renewables are extremely heavily subsidized) then the economic viability flips. Nuclear makes sense. Renewables are extraordinarily expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:westinghouse's reactors are gen III+, not gen IV. it's a PWR so it's hardly skunk works. and talking about operating costs, if their operating costs were really that low, half of us nuclear reactors wouldn't be unprofitable. the operating costs are only low on paper, but in reality they significantly increase as the reactors age. and, of course, most of the cost is in building the things in the first place. the entire concept of Gen III+ is a colossal load of crap brought on by exactly the sort of stuff I mentioned in my post. A Gen III+ PWR is almost invariably trying to crowbar advanced fuel types into a design that wasn't put out to accept that fuel, which is like trying to convert an unleaded car into a diesel one. Sure, you can technically do it, but there's basically never any reason to. Again, this is to dodge regulation that makes building otherwise modern, battle-ready designs not viable. Also, operating costs go up for older nuclear reactors at a completely analogous rate to fossil fuel stations. The curve is almost identical, actually. If you want to say nuclear isn't profitable because the reactors that are ten years over their design lifespan are requiring more maintenance you can, but that's also why early generation coal, oil, and gas stations are being demolished and rebuilt on their own ashes. They just get to do it more easily because they don't have literal years of hoops to jump through.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:re: the bolded, does that include if you correctly price in the externalities of coal such as spewing heavy metals everywhere and pumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere? probably doesn't include those situations, nope! but since nobody can agree on how much a ton of CO2 should cost, nor things like heavy metal poisoning, you can't include them in any economic model without it being really, really shaky.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:As someone who actually is dealing first-hand with AP1000 projects, lol. could you provide a place to take a look at these AP1000 proposals? i'm fine with it if it's some agency or whatever that i have to write to and not an immediate gratification URL. i'm happy to be wrong on this matter, but the "GenIII+" proposals that got run around and murdered in committee in kansas and missouri were invariably trying to cram some flavor of thorium into a much older reactor type jury-rigged for the job, and had basically every nuclear engineer i hung out with reacting with horror.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:Yes, it is. My wife's family used to own some farmland in central Illinois that was part of one of the big wind farms down there. They got paid something like $7k/year per turbine to lease the land. I have no idea why Coolguye thinks windfarms displace a non-negligible amount of farmland. Maybe he's never flown over the many midwestern states littered with them that still grow immense amounts of food? i live in kansas city and routinely drive down to oklahoma. I've literally driven past these places and talked to the managers. dairy cows do, in fact, give a poo poo and the added stress of the surrounding turbines leads to a near halving in their milk output, horses die from fright looking at the loving things (not inherently remarkable, they die from looking at anything, but the mortality rate is a lot higher), and meat cows don't reproduce as readily due to the stress involved. these places already tend to operate at wire-thin margins, so when you have these things happen the entire farm isn't a viable site anymore. topsoil erosion, already an issue, becomes a huge problem when trying to integrate turbines into cereal crops as well since they provide yet another place for wind to make soil divots, which only grow as more wind is applied to them - big issue in places which are using wind for power. Concerned Citizen posted:yes, renewables still require subsidies. no type of energy can currently compete with natural gas on cost alone. but a state like iowa, for example, generates like 40% of its energy from wind alone. and texas is investing enormous amounts of money into renewables.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:every part of nuclear is subsidized, both new constructions and existing infrastucture. it's apples-to-apples because neither industry can survive without enormous government subsidies, and nuclear will require more over the lifetime of a plant until such time that we develop more economical reactors. okay, your sense of scale is absolutely insane here for a whole slew of reasons, not the least of which is you're effectively implying that they receive proportional subsidy, which isn't true - renewables receive tons more for a much more sustained time period, especially in the case of new construction. your comparisons over lifetime are also insane because nuke reactors are routinely exceeding their targeted design life span by a decade or more and that is not even remotely comparable to the windmills and solar farms that are already eating comparable amounts in constant battery replacements. i'm willing to drop all of that in an agree-to-disagree. what i'm more interested in is why precisely you think it's an apples-to-apples comparison when you say both of them require mammoth investment, mammoth research, mammoth subsidy, mammoth effort to make reasonable, but you have such wildly differing interpretations of how renewables are worth researching and pushing forward while nuke reactors are not. thanks! i'll read that this weekend.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:Maybe it's the suck rear end states you live in, there doesn't seem to be a problem in more northern Midwest states with wind? the most reputable thing i can offer is the economic impact assessments done by the oklahoma legislature when deciding to end the recent wind subsidies, but those aren't online because lol oklahoma. i read them thoroughly when i was in tulsa for a week alternately working on a contract and getting drunk on their microbrews. i'll see if i can request a copy of the report to be delivered since it was actually an interesting read, but no promises. e: to answer your edit, the fundamental answer is no more interesting than "i'm curious." the managers tend to be really passionate about their work, if disillusioned a bit about the implementations, and are so used to be ignored when they try to talk that they're generally pretty happy to open up. trying to get a couple of them to start blogs. Coolguye has issued a correction as of 19:04 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:They are able to do this thanks to very expensive upgrades that sometimes go horribly wrong and break the entire plant, like when SONGS replaced their steam generators with new ones that had a critical design flaw, leading to both reactors being permanently shuttered. Or when Crystal River thought "hey, we can save $20m on this steam generator project by running it ourselves instead of hiring the one company that's done dozens of them around the country!" and promptly broke their containment building twice. Collectively, that flushed over $10B worth of assets down the drain. lol
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:I'm very skeptical about anything coming out of the Oklahoma legislature, especially when it's being used as a justification to say "lol gently caress liberals and their dumb green energy, ROLL COAL!" the research was done by a non-partisan office, and while i share your dim view of basically everything oklahoma, i really could not find anything that looked like bullshit in the figures, especially since i've been going down to oklahoma wildlife reserves for the last almost 10 years now for vacations and saw a stop-motion of the farms surrounding the turbines die. 2008 there were longhorns bopping around the turbines like it weren't no thing, 2012 i noticed the herds seemed to be smaller, 2015 it was just grass and the fences were torn down. e: also coal in Oklahoma is another big bag of lol. the politicians there pay lip service to how great coal is but let all the coal bills die in committee because even they see the writing on the wall about how that poo poo is doomed. you know it's bad when even those hicks stop pretending so now they'll just cause the state to literally fracture into a broken Warcraft hellscape by diving headfirst into fracking Coolguye has issued a correction as of 19:15 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
and nothing on project orion yet? FOR SHAME: http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/ProjectOrion.html   because there's no CONCEIVABLE bad repercussions to detonating nukes in high orbit!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Condiv posted:wouldn't this just cause an immediate giant sinkhole? where's the force from the explosion supposed to go? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
from a biological angle it's kind of doubtful anything with a DNA repair scheme much more elaborate than our own would have ever had the spare energy to get big brains and flexible niche behaviors the way we have. DNA repair is an energy-intensive process, and the one we have is really drat good for the few resources it requires. single mutations are handled by a backup copy, and double-mutations that corrupt both copies can be repaired through end-joining. it could be more effective a couple of ways, but all those ways require either some really serious glucose and lipid input (and therefore hurt our chances to survive mundane famine) or some really funky chemistry that makes our homeostasis a lot easier to shock. naked mole rats basically went the former route, but the extra energy they put into hostile environment survival left relatively little left over for brain size. brains are insanely energy hungry. prly doesn't matter in the long run, CRISPR will likely allow you to back up an idealized version of your DNA and allow you to undergo an IV treatment forcing it back into your body like a memetic virus in 30 years or something
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
good goddamn question! i certainly don't know the answer, i'm not even familiar with any theories that have been advanced to explain it.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:bro have you ever heard of petos paradox i'm not following what this has to do with the post you're quoting
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 16:33
|
|