Kon5ole

34 ms·

511.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
>Once again 'paid the (nuclear) price', is 1 death. One . Also USD 82 billion and counting. https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14762193#:~:text=Around%2... .
512.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
>>If you try to influence the theatre to not have the person speak at all, you are suppressing free speech. >No. This is also free speech. But it is also a threat. Should threats be covered under free speech? That seems tricky, and
513.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
>Should I not have the freedom to organize a protest of my local theater for hosting a controversial figure that I think is worthy of cancellation? Isn't that a very basic and fundamental example of free speech? I don't think s
514.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
A little over ten years ago they sold fewer cars than Rolls Royce. Today they sell more cars than Volvo, and they are profitable. That's objectively successful. That they were arguably the main reason why every other carmaker is transi
515.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
You will not see lower prices because the true costs of nuclear are hidden in centuries to come and not included in the costs shown today. Nobody presents the actual cost of nuclear because nobody knows. Estimating costs even decades in the
516.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
I don't think that the safety problem with nuclear power lies in the reactors themselves. It lies in the fragility of the human civilisations operating them. Even a flawed design is safe in the hands of responsible, sane, civilised peo
517.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
You make a good point, and I like the term "bottleneck event". :) I think a case could be made that nuclear itself causes a bottleneck event in that we get addicted to the energy since it's deceptively cheap for current gener
518.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
1) Again, we know it's dangerous even if nobody has been harmed in Germany yet. Related relevant reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orphan_source_incident... 2) The only reason nuclear power exists is
519.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
Here are three arguments that I personally find both reasonable and convincing. 1) Nuclear fuel and waste are clearly dangerous. Your linked article makes a logical fallacy in that it claims a dangerous activity is safe because few people h
520.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
I think dotnet core with blazor is a good option these days. - C# can be used for all code, frontend and backend. - Several GUI frameworks/toolkits to choose from (mudblazor, radzen etc) - Cross-platform - High quality development tool
521.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
That's a good point and surely correct when considering pure SNR. Visually it might look different but that's a matter of preference. However, since we are now at 40mpx I suspect the level of details will be limited by other thing
522.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
Have a look at the color patches on dpreview's studio shot comparison and compare any X-trans sensor with a bayer sensor with the same size and pixel count. Use RAW and high ISO to clearly see the difference. X-trans is clearly better
523.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
X-Trans has a color sampling pattern of 3x3 pixels instead of 2x2 for bayer. This means that color for X-Trans is sampled from a 50% larger area, which 1) reduces noise 2) makes noise look slightly "better" than bayer noise (accor
524.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
The correct unit to use is parking lots. If you base this unit on the current area used for parking in the USA, you can even use centi-parkinglots ;-)
525.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
Absolutely true, we are probably in the middle of the handful of generations of humans that have spent all of earths oil reserves. Did we pay a fair price for it?
526.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
No, see for example the Asse II mine, where taxpayers must pay for relocating nuclear waste since the operator no longer exists as a going concern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine As far as I have been able
527.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
The article seems to support its headline by claiming that most of the millions of m3 of waste currently being stored by nuclear operating nations doesn't exist and that the remaining part is harmless because it's only plutonium.
528.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
>We could literally have hundreds of reactors blow causing 1000 km2 unlivable patches of ground and still be perfectly fine. Your numbers are off by orders of magnitude. The exclusion zone for Chernobyl alone is 2600 km2, the areas immed
529.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
It is not not a known fact, it is in fact not true. France has over 1 million m3 of waste, and I assure you they have not been operating nuclear plants for over a million years. :) Sources: https://www.ompe.org/en/franc
530.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
There are solar panels in use on svalbard island, Norway. Far north of Alaska Solar needs more space in such locations but space is abundant and also nobody lives there so you dont need much power anyway. The sun shines 24 hrs a day during
531.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
I think new nuclear is a distraction from the best solution. Closing the fuel cycle is a good idea of course but we don't know how to do that yet. Current reprocessing doesn't remove the waste it just reduces it. Reprocessing that
532.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
But how do you consider "full system costs" for something that needs people to manage the waste for 1000+ years even after you have closed the plant? We can evidently not even predict inflation correctly from one month to the next
533.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
>What people don't realize is that solar power is not enough to support industrial production. Neither is hydro and wind power. You need energy storage as well, people have realized this and it's being built in most countries.
534.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
Renewables are getting here faster than nuclear. At a fundamental level this is because you can mobilize a lot more manpower building renewables than you can building nuclear. A million homeowners adding solar power versus decade-long nucle
535.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
Very interesting! So basically what this story says means that the nuclear operator in France has been selling the electricity at a loss, so much so that they are way behind on maintenance and almost bankrupt. Which in turn means that the a
536.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
How much should people be allowed to spend on a share of a company? How do you limit it?
537.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
The actual value being locked up is surely held by the cult, not the owner of the rock? They're the ones who claim to have a bn to spend on a rock after all, the other guy just has a rock. Why can't the cult spend their money on s
538.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
The problem with running the numbers is that the actual numbers for nuclear are basically unknowable and most governments have given a taxpayer insurance that covers this unknown number "in blanco". This means that most of the cos
539.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
Here are a few: https://www.energy-storage.news/department-of-energy-confirm... https://www.energy-storage.news/batteries-at-worlds-largest-... https://www.energy-storage.news/energy-dome-la
540.
by Kon5ole 4y ago
No that's not true, radiation is not easily detectable it requires advanced instruments. Humans can't detect it at all. Instantly lethal doses will cause you to vomit, but you're a already a walking corpse by then. Carbon pol

More ›