Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Harvard and UNC just lost a civil rights lawsuit because they were openly racist to Asian applicants. They guised that organized hate as “diversity, inclusion, and equity”.
[flagged]
Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)
61–70 of 371 posts
Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)
#62original title is in quotes
Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)
#63[flagged]
I think we will outlive the Sun. I think it's possible that we will repair the Sun and prevent its death..
Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)
#64Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could very, very easily kill a thousand times more. That we haven't seen anything like a worst case scenario for a unclear accident does not mean those are impossible.
What do you think that worst case is, and how are you estimating it?
Worst case is a continent wide Red Forest.
Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)
#66[flagged]
[flagged]
Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The article has a great flow chart in it that highlights rejected energy and energy services and where the rejected energy comes from. energy here spans the spectrum of electricity generation, heating, industrial usage, transport, etc. > Basically more than two thirds of the energy is lost to heat, friction, noise, transmission losses, etc. Most of the losses are coal, gas, and oil. To uninitiated like me the chart…
"Lost" means spent towards nobody's useful purpose. Nobody used the output in any way. In transportation, you used your car to get from point A to point B. You don't care about the heat or noise or whatever that you generated. That energy was "lost." If somebody harvested that same energy directly from your vehicle for some purpose, like making fried eggs on your engine block, then the portion used to fry your egg wo…
That just seems either an impossible, or just useless measurement. I guess for industries like aluminum smelting you can say the product captures significant part of the energy put into the process, but most human activities are not like that. For example machining/casting that raw aluminum stock into some intricate product, all the energy ends up as waste because from physics point of view that intricate object doesn't contain any more energy than the raw stock material. If that is how its considered, then I struggle to understand how the rejected energy is not closer to 100%
Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
> operation of these facilities will require teams of people recruited, evaluated, and compensated by merit, not metrics of “diversity”, “equity”, or “inclusion” Indeed a gem. Or do you want a nuclear power plant in your neighbourhood managed by people who happen to be the pet-minority-du-jour on Twitter?
[flagged]
[flagged]
Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)
#69The article has a great flow chart in it that highlights rejected energy and energy services and where the rejected energy comes from. energy here spans the spectrum of electricity generation, heating, industrial usage, transport, etc. Basically more than two thirds of the energy is lost to heat, friction, noise, transmission losses, etc. Most of the losses are coal, gas, and oil. Important to note that the image is…
This chart distresses me: solar at 0.9 is only about a third of petroleum at 36. It is making it look like new renewable (ie non-hyrdo) are a lot more sizeable than they really are. From Lawrence Livermore this is hard to swallow. If the boxes sizes are on a weird logarithmic scale, then this should be explicit in the legend.
That's the 2018 one by 2021, it hit 1.5. And you forget this is the entire US energy economy; not just electricity.
Also, only about a third of that petroleum input is useful (worse in transport, about a quarter). So, that would be about a 12. Add wind, hydro, and nuclear to the mix and it's basically a 50-50 split in terms of useful output of oil vs. renewables. Of course most of that goes into electricity generation. But luckily there's a major transition from ice to evs under way. So, that will eat into petroleum usage quickly.
If you look at the useful energy component, the transition to renewables is a lot further than many people think. Everybody keeps comparing the raw produced energy. The only thing that matters is the useful part of that.
Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely a nuclear accident will affect 600x more people than a plane crash…
Less people died in Fukushima accident than dies yearly because of coal powerplants pumping radioactive materials into atmosphere. If you calculate radioactive materials released per energy produced - nuclear is below coal, even including all the accidents. It's irrational to avoid nuclear powerplants.
the exclusion zone of fukushima hasn't changed since the beginning even after 10+ years. same for pripyat and chernobyl, those already close to 40 years. UK had to test sheep for radioactivity in certain domestic areas up until 2012.
nuclear damages aren't just dead humans. they come in the forms of lost lands and untrustable food source.