511–520 of 585 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably wanna look up benzene to start.
You think benzene is toxic? Wait till you meet your attitude!
It's cancerogenic. Namely causes leukemia. 20k deaths per year in US alone.
But yeah, throw some jokes around. Maybe something about lead retarding detonation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a comparison of how much nuclear costs versus the number of cities destroyed per year? Say, if we allow 1 meltdown per year does it become comparable to solar or does it require 10 meltdowns per year?
How many cities per year does solar destroy? What?
Meanwhile, we're in a multi-year shortage of turbines for thermal electrical plants. Electric bill beatings will continue until morale improves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many cities per year does solar destroy? What?
Allegedly the reason nuclear is expensive is that it's expensive to prevent Chernobyl. So I'm asking for a curve relating energy costs to Chernobyls per year. I'd like to read off the curve how many Chernobyls per year would be required to make nuclear energy as cheap as solar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think benzene is toxic? Wait till you meet your attitude!
> toxic It's cancerogenic. Namely causes leukemia. 20k deaths per year in US alone. But yeah, throw some jokes around. Maybe something about lead retarding detonation?
Years ago, this very subject was an interview question at a national lab (at an undergrad level). The question was roughly: > the ends of windmill blades look a lot like a jet on radar. If you were assigned to this project, what would your approach be to avoiding false positives? This was in 2011/2012. I find it difficult to believe the problem is not solved.
It has been solved. Get rid of all the windmills. Easy.
You dropped this: /s
Meanwhile, we're in a multi-year shortage of turbines for thermal electrical plants. Electric bill beatings will continue until morale improves.
Are wind turbines remotely similar? I would have thought something mounted high up on an always-moving top would have to be smaller, lighter, and sturdier than something that sits on the ground in a controlled environment. I'm not sure the two are in competition for production.
The real takeaway is when a big project can be paused entirely due to one presidents very specific / frivolous whims - we won’t be able to do big projects in the current order. We need a shift in the constitutional order where the whims of one person isnt fused with the bureaucracy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The theory that the US government does those wars to keep oil prices high fits the timing way better than the opposite. I still thinks it's missing important details, but the US making wars to get more oil doesn't fit reality at all.
I still find it very curious that after Russia invaded Ukraine, now Trump is using rhetoric that makes it look like the US is ready to invade some other country, too, they just have not decided on the victim yet. And of course "start a war with another country" is an excellent example of how to control your country in case you have to, because, say, elections are coming up and you may loose.
> Moscow at the invitation of Soviet ambassador Yuri Dubinin, in a private jet accompanied by “two Russian colonels”
and then after he ran full page ads attacking NATO. Not much has changed there really.
I'm surprised that all he has to do is say "russia russia hoax" and then the voters forget about it. I think maybe people have some similar failure modes to LLMs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I consider that I'm intertwined in the evolution of a very different friend's very local efforts, with their own hybrid battery-backed grid-tied offline-capable solar power system. That rig is pretty sweet. It pays for itself, and in present form and with their present use (wherein: they're not trying to live particularly-efficiently) it is almost entirely capable of keeping them with power even if the grid goes down…
"entirely capable of keeping them with power even if the grid goes down for an indefinite period." You do know that batteries have a capacity right? And powerplants have something called a capacity factor. That means for a given amount of capacity, you generate on average a certain amount of power. For nuclear that factor is .9. For renewables its .1. So 1 watt of nuclear provides the same power as 9 watts of renewab…
And I'm a big fan of nuclear power. I, for one, am completely in favor of having as many nuclear power plants in my back yard as possible.
You seem to be having an argument with someone who is not present -- as if you have some unseen enemy.
This delusion has been noted.
There is nothing here for us to discuss.
Good day.