5 ms·
"Lessons from McDonalds-- chemicals and fats must be well regulated, not ditched"
by 0x1DEADCA0 6y ago
"Lessons from McDonalds-- chemicals and fats must be well regulated, not ditched"
- Hammershaft 6y agoCan you enlighten me with a better currently existing alternative to 24/7 baseload power?
- 0x1DEADCA0 6y agoWhy should the power needs of certain people be put above the safety of giant land areas? I am happy to pay a premium for technologies that are less efficient but safer. When did it become acceptable to say that society needs to pursue as much electricity production as possible, all risks be damned?
- mpweiher 6y agoIt goes completely against what most believe, but out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
- 0x1DEADCA0 6y agoIn what world can you convince me that nuclear is safe when we have Chernobyl and Fukushima? Like are we going to compared it to coal or something of the sort? When nuclear fails, which it will, through accident or terrorism, it fails forever, catastrophically Why cant we all live off solar and wind? Why must you have nuclear?
- hntrader 6y ago"Why cant we all live off solar and wind? Why must you have nuclear?" Is large scale and cost competitive energy storage a solved problem?
- Corazoor 6y agoDepends on your definition of solved, but yes kinda: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas While I don't think any large scale P2G installations do currently exist, it is all well proven tech that requires little to no additional research. At least for Germany there exist some studies that suggest that it should be doable (especially financially) on a national scale.
- hntrader 6y agoSo it all comes down to relative costs then. Has anyone done a comparison between nuclear costs and this?
- mpweiher 6y agoHmmm...in the real world? Both TFAs answer that question for you: nuclear is safest even including both Fukushima and Chernobyl. Not "safe", because there is no power generation technology that is 100% safe. And depending on which data you use, nuclear is even safer than solar and wind.
- 0x1DEADCA0 6y agoThe good news is, if you are right about nuclear being safe, then I will benefit from it. If you are wrong, I will be too busy being dead to remember that I was right!
- mpweiher 6y agoThe "if" here is incorrect: this is not hypothesis, speculation or belief, this is the actual data from the real world.
- RealityVoid 6y ago> Why cant we all live off solar and wind? Why must you have nuclear? What are you willing to give up? What is your family willing to give up? Your parents? Your neigbours?
- 0x1DEADCA0 6y agoAnything that's needed to be given up, how do we estimate it?
- Hammershaft 6y ago> When nuclear fails, which it will, through accident or terrorism, it fails forever, catastrophically Not all reactor designs are capable of failling catastrophically. >Why cant we all live off solar and wind? Why must you have nuclear? I wish we could just live off solar and wind, I'm only in favor of Nuclear because the evidence suggests we can't. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348355
- bagacrap 6y agohave to say, you'd have a lot of health problems if you tried to ditch all fats
- 0x1DEADCA0 6y ago"therefore we need everyone to eat more big macs"
- ThePadawan 6y ago...That sounds perfectly reasonable? I don't want questionable preservatives in my pasta sauce, but they probably have their place in MREs.