korantu

14 ms·

91.
by korantu 6y ago
And even if it does, could it be atmospheric/captured carbon instead?
92.
by korantu 6y ago
What I meant is ofcourse de-carbonise economy, Singapore can't be energy independent in meaningful sense as it does not have fuel sources of any kind. And solar/wind do not count as there could totally be still nights. I frankly d
93.
by korantu 6y ago
I am all for pursuing fusion, for pushing borders of our knowledge. At the same time, concerns are way overblown about fission. You know, it is regulated to 1/10000 amount of radioactive increase that is known to ever cause harm. This
94.
by korantu 6y ago
To add to your list of currently available proven approaches, would an approach that decarbonized France's energy in just 10 years should also be considered? It looks like proven track record of decarbonisation if there is one.
95.
by korantu 6y ago
Well, one example. I live in Singapore, and for it to become energy independent, it would need a square kilometer for a nuclear plant. To achieve the same with solar, you need to pave the whole country with solar panels. Besides, to make th
96.
by korantu 6y ago
nuclear energy density is derived from e=mc2, so fusion/fission are in the same ballpark. Current accepted way is to build solar/wind and redesign grid to deal with intermittency. Solar and wind are even more energy diluted than f
97.
by korantu 6y ago
The fundamental difference between nuclear and any other source is energy density. It boggles ones mind that your can replace burning 14 thousand tonns of coal _every day_ with something that needs to be refueled once a year.
98.
by korantu 6y ago
In this particular case, they are planning to take energy from carrier's nuclear power plant. More generally, either hydrogen or fuel synthesis requires energy to come from somewhere; In this regard it is no different than re-building
99.
by korantu 6y ago
If my understanding is correct, the goal is to reduce aviation effect on climate change. There is an ongoing project [1] by US NAVY to turn seawater into jet fuel. This way we would not need to burn fossil fuels and would not need to throw
100.
by korantu 6y ago
The point is to be able to have way less exclusion radius, not 10 km but 500m, as nothing will fly out of there. Chernobyl occured because of graphite/fuel configuration went wrong. In this fuel it just cannot go wrong as it never chan
101.
by korantu 6y ago
High temperatures does not mean high pressures, so there is nothing to disperse the nuclear material outside reactor. There wont be steam explosion (which is what Chernobyl incident boils down to) I am not even taking into account that Cher
102.
by korantu 6y ago
It is for use in reactors cooled with gas, so there is nothing to boil up and explode. And higher temperatures allow for smaller and more efficient reactors. Smaller also means cheaper.
103.
by korantu 6y ago
The reason for nuclear is that it has proven trackrecord of decorbanizing an industrialized economy. [2] As for the waste, it pays to extend 'relative' - nuclear leaves a coke-can size of waste safely stored on site for a person&#
104.
by korantu 6y ago
Editor opinion on Marx [0] and the 'About' section of the web site [1] where class struggle is prominently featured give some credibility to this opinion. [0] https://mobile.twitter.com/ashermoses/status/
105.
by korantu 6y ago
> “senior U.N. environmental official” claims that if global warming isn’t reversed by 2030, then rising sea levels could wipe “entire nations . . . off the face of the Earth.” > Crop failures coupled with coastal flooding, he said, c
106.
by korantu 6y ago
Current (US) laws, if I understand correctly, designed to prevent leveraging success in one market to harm your competitors in another. For example if Chrome would only work with google docs and not microsoft live. USA does not have laws to
107.
by korantu 6y ago
Interestingly, they (unwittingly) did experiment on this in Taiwan [1]. Smaller doses efdect is nowere as clear-cut as large ones. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/
108.
by korantu 6y ago
As far as I saw, draw io dors not do automatic layout. Would be very happy to be proven wrong
109.
by korantu 6y ago
This is not very practical answer. France got waste reprocessing to the extent where decades of electricity provided to Paris only leave several glass slabs of waste behind [1]. France has solution to the problem [2], where the rest of the
110.
by korantu 6y ago
Maybe it can be accompanied with an app which would send you test result so you don't have to literally queue. And then use the result to enter the building.
111.
by korantu 6y ago
The difference here is that you test everyone entering a certain location, not everyone in general. This is much easier, and allows testing to be focused on most needed areas. In effect, if you only go to the groceries once a week, you will
112.
by korantu 7y ago
Technical analysis of the app [1] It uses Bluetooth to find people nearby, and records their randomised id Each randomised id is associated with a phone no Link between id and phone is with ministry of health, so stealing the logs is not us
113.
by korantu 7y ago
The actual process already exists in electrofuels. [0] . If one has enough hear/electricity, they could generate fuel directly usable in existing jet engines with captured CO2, making overall process CO2-neutral [0] https://
114.
by korantu 7y ago
This is actually comparison with coal plants. Coal contains traces of uranium, which gets released during burning. The uranium released in such way would have been sufficient to generate the energy obtained from burning coal if it used for
115.
by korantu 7y ago
Just to conclude, before industrial revolution civilisation could only provide hunger-less life to 0.1B people. Now, civilisation provided hunger-free life to 7B people. If this is not 'getting better', I don't know what is,
116.
by korantu 7y ago
What do you mean _other traffic_? These are different people. Probability that you suffer from hunger in your life reduced from 0.8 to 0.08, an order of magnitude. If one had choice, one would certainly choose to be born now. Yes, there is
117.
by korantu 8y ago
Our definitions of crazy shit are different :-) I am referring to large scale North Korea type shit, not the 'give government contracts to my friends' kind
118.
by korantu 8y ago
Sorry, I did not make it clear. I was talking about dynamics, IF government of Singapore for some reason in the future decides to do crazy shit - citizens will have harder time stopping it. That's all. I am not referring to situation r
119.
by korantu 8y ago
The standard reply would be - if the government controls everything and gets corrupted - it has the power to corrupt everything. This is a worry - there is no feedback loop unless government makes sure it is. On the other hand, if current
120.
by korantu 8y ago
Solar and wind are fine for residential, which is 13% of global consumption. Transportation and industry, with their 75% , would need some clean source of energy, for which calm nights are not a problem, crony capitalism or not.

More ›