411–420 of 435 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if you wanted to power the world with nuclear, you'd need breeder reactors or seawater U extraction. Burner reactors powering the world would go through a megaton of natural uranium each year.
Even if we ask South Korea to please build us world of nuclear, it would be long time before uranium would be an issue - it is very small part of overall price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds about right. See https://model.energy/ for a toy model that gives about that number, when you solve the optimization problem for Germany. The optimal solutions still have some renewable curtailment, though.
Trying to get usable values for Warsaw area, it gives me the result that we need 8x overbuilding (curiously it suggests solar power mostly), and I'm not sure if we could decarbonize heating on that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should probably prefer pumped hydro before stored h2.
Molten Salts powering the old coal plants in a closed system.
https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/07%20D...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you must also remember that it was Poland that allied with Hitler before anyone else, in hope that Germany will help it to attack Russia. But Hitler had other plans. Why you always forget about this part of the history? I guess it's not illustrated well in your media blaming Russia for all of your miseries.
You cannot take anyone seriously, who writes "conquest of Poland". Do they even know, what territory they are talking about and how Poland conquered it 20 years earlier? The same Poland, who had their government officials attending NSDAP conferences.
It would take about 115k square miles of normal solar panels to cover the world energy use (23000TW), this translates to about 340 miles side square of land, I'm sure we could split this to various solar efficient locations and just close the deal with all this hydrocarbons Et al. BS. And can be solar parabolic-through systems instead of PV, no efficiency loss and night thermal storage built in. But of course we'll n…
Best to have decentralized grids. Every country and state having 100 solar farms is better than 1 fucking huge one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot take anyone seriously, who writes "conquest of Poland". Do they even know, what territory they are talking about and how Poland conquered it 20 years earlier? The same Poland, who had their government officials attending NSDAP conferences.
You are denying the conquest of the sovereign nation of Poland in World War II?
Certainly not by USSR. By the time USSR took their territories back - are you still forgetting, that Poland had conquered their territories mere 20 years earlier? - Poland didn't exist anymore and the Polish government was in exile in Romania. There was nothing to conquest. USSR took back what was taken from them.
And let's not forget that Pilsudski government, while it lasted, was fascist, just like the Germans. They played a game and they lost. Unlike Austria and Czechoslovakia, which were also thrown over the board for the Germany, they were not innocent here and had their own imperial ambitions (did you forget that they took their part in partitioning of Czechoslovakia, just months earlier?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the more likely outcome is that personal and commercial travel will just be illegal for people outside of political leadership. The mineral resources to replace all vehicles with EVs don’t exist. Sort of Holodomor repeated as farce.
The mineral resources to replace all vehicles with EVs, in fact, do exist.
So no, and state-imposed poverty (lots of examples) seems much more likely than a successful extraterrestrial mining industry (no examples).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Factor in all the externalities that these other forms of energy bring in and nuclear is probably one of the cheapest. If you could put a figure on the economic damage from an entire city of millions breathing in fumes from pollutants every day on their lives, it would probably be astronomical.
> Factor in all the externalities that these other forms of energy bring in and nuclear is probably one of the cheapest. There's a lot of handwaving in that personal assertion. The fact is that nuclear is by far more expensive than any alternative source of energy, baseless assertions on how with some imagination you can inflate cost of alternatives does nothing to change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever nuclear fails you can trace it directly to poor policymaking rather than any faults with the underlying technology, unlike something like coal which is flawed from the drawing board due to pollution.
> Whenever nuclear fails you can trace it directly to poor policymaking rather than any faults with the underlying technology (...) This line of argument is pointless because policymaking is not something that you can remove from the equation or even ignore the risk that it fails. It's a kin to claiming that a machine mostly fails because of human error when human interaction is mandatory and a critical part of the p…
On the other hand, for these other energy sources there are serious faults with the underlying technology that policy can't do anything about. Take a coal plant. The entire mechanics of that technology rely upon taking a block of solid carbon and converting it to a gas and expelling it into the atmosphere where it lowers air quality and increases the greenhouse gas effect. There is no way to policy your way out of that inherent fault with this underlying technology where you need to add more carbon into the air in order to produce any energy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they at least can store months worth of gas/oil/coal on their own territory.
You can store months worth of hydrogen from electrolysis too.