evilos

6 ms·

31.
by evilos 3y ago
I think the point is that you can't tell a good person from a bad one by inspecting the atoms.
32.
by evilos 3y ago
Doesn't one company own almost all the dating apps in the US? That seems... potentially problematic.
33.
by evilos 3y ago
Started construction in Feb 2022, with an estimated cost of 16.3 cents per kWh. https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publication...
34.
by evilos 3y ago
He's a teenager going on adventures and working small jobs in between. His parent's house is a train ride away. It's likely just a phase. Young people have been doing this since time immemorial. I think you are overreacting a
35.
by evilos 3y ago
I'm talking about financial risk btw, not safety risk. Any large project like a dam or nuclear plant is risky from a financial perspective. You're putting up a lot of capital and probably paying a lot of interest. Larger projects
36.
by evilos 3y ago
I've been wondering how to take America's existing grid structure (both in a physical and business sense) and get new nuclear plants built. Big infrastructure projects like nuclear plants are so risky for private entities that it
37.
by evilos 3y ago
Something's off there. From the product description: 3000WProduct Description Widely used: Under 4 hours of full sunlight, the daily production capacity is 400wh/day. It is very suitable for RVs, caravans, oceans, camping vehicles
38.
by evilos 3y ago
This is false for the US (and UK as the other commenter pointed out). > In the USA, utilities are collecting 0.1 to 0.2 cents/kWh to fund decommissioning. They must then report regularly to the NRC on the status of their decommissio
39.
by evilos 3y ago
Depends on what you mean by "we". China is doing it as we speak. Also, "it's been done before" is a much better argument than "we think we can make these massive and untested changes to our society because my s
40.
by evilos 3y ago
If you don't like discussion what are you doing here?
41.
by evilos 3y ago
While nuclear plants do pair well with storage (many pumped hydro storage stations were built to pair with nuclear plants), the idea that they cannot load follow is a myth. It is simply more economical for them to run at full load since fue
42.
by evilos 3y ago
Yes while that is great news, it's a demonstration reactor. An commercial operating license is a far greater hurdle.
43.
by evilos 3y ago
Many people would argue that humans did cause this loss of sea ice. Also I don't see how that justifies adding to the effect? Especially if we don't know can't compute the trade off? I'm sure someone has done that work b
44.
by evilos 3y ago
Has this actually been quantified? Earth's albedo is a critical factor in the portion of the sun's energy that is rejected into space, just as GHG incidence in the atmosphere is. In theory, darkening a portion of the Earth with hi
45.
by evilos 3y ago
I remember reading some article that said we could offset all of human emissions by painting Vermont stark white or something along those lines. Covering a desert in solar panels seems like the exact opposite of that plan.
46.
by evilos 3y ago
Same source as you (Lovering 2016), the Koreans built several 1 GW plants for an overnight cost of 2 Billion USD per plant or less in many cases. A seriously impressive feat. The graph seems to show a far greater cost decline than 13%. htt
47.
by evilos 3y ago
I mean, we know we can build nuclear plants quickly because we've done it before. It is physically possible. China and Korea can still do it today. If you just mean the bureaucracy is impossible to defeat, it would just take political
48.
by evilos 3y ago
There is potential in the federally owned TVA which has around 35 GW in its portfolio. Also Georgia has a lot of coal and is the state with these new NPPs. Plus the federal government doesn't need to mandate it. It can simply incentivi
49.
by evilos 3y ago
It will likely take a minimum of ten years to get a non light water reactor certified by the NRC. And that is very optimistic. Then you have to build the first of a kind plant which is always more expensive and takes longer. Then you have t
50.
by evilos 3y ago
We paid the first-of-a-kind costs, we should reap the Nth-of-a-kind rewards. Replace all the coal capacity with AP1000s.
51.
by evilos 3y ago
That's a 5 month range chief.
52.
by evilos 3y ago
Until the containment structure or reactor pressure vessel are irreversibly damaged, it should be quite possible to reactivate them.
53.
by evilos 3y ago
Reasonable adults can disagree on the economics of building new reactors, but to destroy a fully functional already paid for reactor in a country that burns so much lignite is brain dead to the point that it defies comprehension.
54.
by evilos 3y ago
The German plants were world class too. Hopefully they will turn them back on soon.
55.
by evilos 3y ago
This channel is one of my favorites. The mix of concise explanation, technical depth, and animation quality is consistently impressive. Perhaps it's because my knowledge of computer graphics is lacking but I found this particular video
56.
by evilos 3y ago
This feels like the setup to a joke in an "AdamSomething" video where the punch line is you just end up with bad traffic in the underground stuff highway too.
57.
by evilos 3y ago
Intel as a whole seems to be in pretty big trouble and rumor is that the GPU org is a dumpster fire in particular. I'd bet it's more likely than not that intel's GPU experiment ends within a year or two, unfortunately. Which
58.
by evilos 3y ago
That is complete nonsense. The UN Scientific Commission, Harvard Medical School, Kyiv University found no evidence for increased cancer after Chernobyl. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernob
59.
by evilos 3y ago
It really doesn't. Even the BEIR radiation safety council has had to admit recently that LNT has no scientific basis. (They refuse to stop using it out of 'an overabundance of caution'). And this is the institution that basic
60.
by evilos 3y ago
Someone burned to death atop a wind turbine. Is this a reason why wind turbines should be banned? Of course not. What matters is costs vs benefits and nuclear is just as safe if not safer than wind/solar energy per TWh.

More ›