SETI@home is in hibernation

Post by eru » Sun, Mar 19, 2023, 7:08 AM UTC

bboygravity wrote: post #164

eru wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that nuclear power would have been great. However it's no deficiency of planning. It's down to public opinion and misguided regulation.

That's like a project manager blaming the missing of deadlines on "the opinion of certain people in the company and the bureaucracy within the company". Not sure if that would fly.

Post by ETH_start » Sun, Mar 19, 2023, 8:00 AM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #223

ETH_start wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Third, if you switch all of our energy to nuclear today with a magic switch, we would run out of all easy to mine uranium in a few decades. There are vast quantities of uranium in ocean water in concentrations that while low, still allow it to be extracted. More importantly, breeder reactors can harvest 100X more energy from uranium than currently deployed reactor types, and in the process eliminate all of the long…

All those options are significantly more expensive than what we've been building. I mean, we've built fast reactors, and thermal breeders with thorium, and had pilot efforts for U extraction from sea water. None of them could compete with LWRs with a once-through fuel cycle on conventionally mined uranium. Fast reactors also present the possibility of prompt fast criticality (that is, an actual nuclear explosion) in…

Post by btdmaster » Sun, Mar 19, 2023, 11:07 AM UTC

pbronez wrote: post #288

redeeman wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

shit like slack and other electron abominations are not just 10-20% improvement going native. We are talking a simple chat application, irc glorified to load images and preview, and this somehow takes more memory and cpu than the total resources I had in 1995 times 100. these systems are so abominable, and people have just gotten used to it, hell, many users never even tried anything else, but saying 10-20% is just r…

Man I want a native TUI client for Teams.

Post by RobotToaster » Sun, Mar 19, 2023, 12:41 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #226

RobotToaster wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was less than 100 deaths from chernobyl, and only one person died directly from fukushima[1]. I suspect more people have died from falling off roofs while fitting or cleaning solar panels than that. You're correct that nobody builds rbmk reactors any more, but others of the design continued to operate safely for many years. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-cher...

> There was less than 100 deaths from chernobyl There may well be tens of thousands of deaths from Chernobyl. No, we can't state that these deaths absolutely occurred/will occur -- they are spread throughout large populations, mixed into the vast number of naturally occurring cancers -- but technology regulation is not like criminal prosecution where things must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Technologies are not…

    "2 workers died in the blast.

    28 workers and firemen died in the weeks that followed from acute radiation syndrome (ARS).

    19 ARS survivors had died later, by 2006; most from causes not related to radiation, but it’s not possible to rule all of them out (especially five that were cancer-related).

    15 people died from thyroid cancer due to milk contamination. These deaths were among children who were exposed to 131I from milk and food in the days after the disaster. This could increase to between 96 and 384 deaths, however, this figure is highly uncertain.

    There is currently no evidence of adverse health impacts in the general population across affected countries, or wider Europe."

Post by iopq » Sun, Mar 19, 2023, 1:39 PM UTC

ETH_start wrote: post #179

iopq wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, the costs of nuclear power are quite substantial AND they are front-loaded making it a bad investment. You will need to go through a lot of red tape and spend all the money right away to get some benefit later when it's built. Second, it's not zero carbon if you include building the plants, since the plants have a limited lifespan, so there's still a carbon footprint for the materials. Third, if you switch all…

>>Third, if you switch all of our energy to nuclear today with a magic switch, we would run out of all easy to mine uranium in a few decades. There are vast quantities of uranium in ocean water in concentrations that while low, still allow it to be extracted. More importantly, breeder reactors can harvest 100X more energy from uranium than currently deployed reactor types, and in the process eliminate all of the long…