korantu

11 ms·

61.
by korantu 5y ago
Yes, when you are building a lot of turbines, it by necessity involves a lot of work in dangerous conditions, so people fall
62.
by korantu 5y ago
Is income inequality even good measure in the forst place? More and more people of this world are rising out of poverty, and getting education, why specifically does uphieval would occur?
63.
by korantu 5y ago
The problem is high level radioactive waste that is going to be there for millenia, and is actually the problem. and it is 11 grams per year of that. Low level waste can be just stored until radioactive levels decrease enough, and dealt wit
64.
by korantu 5y ago
Comparared to advantages, 22 workers getting aroundx-ray dose would still count as technically solved, i think
65.
by korantu 5y ago
It is political issue, so it is a matter of deciding. Climate change will eventually force the decision, so I dont think nuclear coffins will be involved.
66.
by korantu 5y ago
It is not theoretical advantage, France in practice decarbonised an industrial economy in 10 years, with no outages etc. Worth trying to replicate I think. South Korea can build nuclear plants in practice, on time and on budget. One of
67.
by korantu 5y ago
The article says the problem flagged were already being fixed... Waste from nuclear is miniscular per unit of energy, just _40_ grams per person per year, all energy included [transportation, electricity, heating - all]. 40 grams. [1] It wa
68.
by korantu 5y ago
The report talks about hypothetical setup with smart girds and customers reacting on price change. This configuration was never tried at 80% scale. It might or might not work. People did try decarbonise industrial economy to 70% - it worked
69.
by korantu 5y ago
Most of people who contribute to open source software are not motivated by copyright. I think without copyright we would still have our software, just would have way bigger share of open source software in the world, as well as nastier copy
70.
by korantu 5y ago
People are steadily getting out of poverty [1], living longer [2], can afford more and more education [3]. Things like access to drinking water [4] and electricity [5] are also improving. So, yes, world in theese important ways is better th
71.
by korantu 6y ago
Waste from nuclear is miniscular per unit of energy, just 40 grams per person per year, all energy included [transportation, electricity, heating - all]. 40 grams. [1] It was quite eye-opening to know that 1GW nuclear plant, working for dec
72.
by korantu 6y ago
My understanding of GP point is that majority of social media companies is negative to Trump and positive to Biden. The difference with Russia is that media is controlled by government, but the original point is that it is healthier when me
73.
by korantu 6y ago
that would be 'suspend' button
74.
by korantu 6y ago
I was specifically referring to energy spent to build and operate / energy actually generated over lifetime, so called EROI. My post refers to the sources of the info
75.
by korantu 6y ago
> At the current rate of improvement of these technologies, this will be cheaper. As you imply here, it is not cheaper now, and plan something on hopes that it will be seems not very prudent. Past performance is not indicative of future
76.
by korantu 6y ago
Fair comparison here is overall energy invested for energy obtained. For nuclear, as it is much denser energy-wise then anything else, you need to do the least amount of digging per MW capacity / let alone overall produced MWh. Nuclear
77.
by korantu 6y ago
I think you missed the point where majority of people now having access to things that were not invented/widely awailable as recent as beginning of last century. It is not specific to a place
78.
by korantu 6y ago
BitWarden, for sweet spot between being open-source, and hosted. Also, cheap , well-thought out and has responsive support.
79.
by korantu 6y ago
If source of energy is low CO2, such as nuclear, then losses dont contribute to CO2 increase. As for taking CO2 from the ocean, it is done for this project as it is military for airplane carriers. CO2 can be had from atmosphere as well, wit
80.
by korantu 6y ago
Electric propulsion is very cool in and of itself. If the goal is to fly without adding CO2, there are other approaches as well, though. One could synthesize fuel usable by nornal existing airplanes from atmospheric CO2. This would require
81.
by korantu 6y ago
Have you considered cost of NOT building nuclear? France's industry was decarbonized in 10 years, long ago. Imagine the cost for future generations of not doing the same to other industrialized economies.
82.
by korantu 6y ago
For nuclear, as it is much denser energy-wise then anything else, you need to do the least amount of digging per MW capacity / let alone overall produced MWh Also one has to consider how much energy needs to be spent to get certain amo
83.
by korantu 6y ago
Children population in the world is already constant, which will lead to overall population becoming constant at 10b in about 40 years, iirc Moreover, in many places of the world food is produced inefficiently, so there is a lot of addition
84.
by korantu 6y ago
Thank you.. a lot to digest to be fair. As for turnkey contract, interestingly, other industries trying to avoid uncertainty and not pass costs to consumers. AFAIK, Russian nuclear contracts come with warranty of all funding, so if overrun
85.
by korantu 6y ago
France got its industry decarbonised in 10 years with nuclear. There are some providers in Russia, China and South Korea who do deliver on time and on buget. With energy less dependent on climate, we can further proceed to atmospheric CO2 c
86.
by korantu 6y ago
Thank you for the details! Can you point me on where to look for the price/cost distinction in early nuclear? I was not able to find definitive info there.
87.
by korantu 6y ago
Well, in the link above there is a very clear take as to why that happened; in particular regulations were pushed to be way over stringent than needed by nuclear service companies themselves. regulations were changed retroactively as well,
88.
by korantu 6y ago
Well, technically you can find now a nuclear plant that with all the overruns ended up being 10 times more expensive. My point is that with cheaper than coal it becomes viable co2-less source of energy for,among other things, vertical farmi
89.
by korantu 6y ago
In 1969 electricity from nuclear plants did cost less than coal one [1], [2] so it is totally possible, no fairies needed. [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html#early-days [2] https://m.youtube.com/wa
90.
by korantu 6y ago
I guess we can agree to disagree here. What will probably happen is that Russia and China continue to build up nuclear, and export it to whoever will take it. even the most active proponents of solar/wind will continue to lag way behin

More ›