natmaka

29 ms·

331.
by natmaka 2y ago
> The larger the interconnection the bigger the failure domain True, however we have to consider the chances of a given proportion of the grid to fail: a more spread-out and heterogeneous (wind, solar...) fleet of production units is way
332.
by natmaka 2y ago
> This statement doesn't mean anything Nope. Take it into account all facts described in my previous answer. Short version: to produce at most 17% (and now 9%) of the electricity we built reactors. We therefore now need about 10 t
333.
by natmaka 2y ago
Which source states that more than a few minutes will be necessary, once the adequate continental system (storage: including V2G and similar ways such as Powerwalls) will be in place? > the efficiency is beyond terrible ... when used in
334.
by natmaka 2y ago
> local/decentralised energy When it comes to gridpower working at continental-level is, and for quite a while, the best way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Network_of_Transmissi... > relies on count
335.
by natmaka 2y ago
By 'all accidents' I was referring to industrial accident. I should have specified, please excuse me. May 'Act of God' qualify an industrial accident? Even in such a case (asteroid falling on a nuclear plant?) there is
336.
by natmaka 2y ago
Source? None of those are meant to be sufficient ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy ), as for any system this is for the complete set of ways to reach the 'good enough' stage: a continental ( ht
337.
by natmaka 2y ago
The LCOE (total cost of production) is quite solidly established ( https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... ) and favors renewable sources over nuclear. > the real costs will become appar
338.
by natmaka 2y ago
Pretty sure that the Cultural Revolution ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution ) induced such a chaos that tackling this dam's problems was much more difficult. List: the low amount of victims (given
339.
by natmaka 2y ago
There are many other reasons. We believed that: - major accidents will be very rare (if any), - industrial breeding will become possible (in order not to be dependent on uranium reserves or suppliers), - nuclear power was the only option (
340.
by natmaka 2y ago
All accidents are due to some error (human). A tsunami isn't the sole way to trigger an accident as there is an infinity potential human errors enabling a series of minor incidents leading to a disaster, nor will it always trigger one:
341.
by natmaka 2y ago
The production cost of 'renewable' electricity (RE) is increasingly lower than that of nuclear. So when they produce, they are and will be preferred. This will reduce the effective load factor of nuclear power and therefore increa
342.
by natmaka 2y ago
Even neglecting debates about the real amount of victims from nuclear accidents, the hydro case is highly debatable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090
343.
by natmaka 2y ago
It can be solved at continental-level. Germany already sells part of its overproduction (wind, solar...) to Austria and Switzerland, to have it stored by their dams.
344.
by natmaka 2y ago
Obtaining electricity thanks to industrial renewable (see Lazard's LCOE) is way (and more and more) cheaper than with nuclear. There are many ways to alleviate unwanted impacts of 'intermittency' (PEM membranes, central plant
345.
by natmaka 2y ago
This was a major ordeal as long as we could not conveniently store massive amounts of electricity nor transport it far away, or quickly and frequently balance the grid (hence the need for 'baseload' generation). Those challenges v
346.
by natmaka 2y ago
It is not about "fossil fuel or nuclear". Fossil fuel has few (and fewer and fewer) advocates. it is about "renewable or nuclear", and the trend is clear: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear
347.
by natmaka 2y ago
> are already extremely safe This is debatable. What is pretty sure is that a field of wind turbines or solar panels just cannot trigger any disaster involving durably dangerous (and difficult to recover) stuff spread on a large geograp
348.
by natmaka 2y ago
Sorry, I much prefer an argument about the point made than an unsubstantiated ad hominem attack.
349.
by natmaka 2y ago
> designed the attack to deplete the expensive iron dome stocks with ultra-cheap drones This! As war is more and more about attrition who wins when a system costing 1000 to build + 1 per hour to maintain is saturated by another one cost
350.
by natmaka 2y ago
> firing hundreds of anti-ship missiles The War Nerd stated it clearly: https://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carrie...
351.
by natmaka 2y ago
I could not find a satisfying way to detect an unusual log, qualitatively (new message) or quantitatively (abnormal amount of occurrences of a given message, neglecting any variable part), and therefore developed a dirty hack and it works q
352.
by natmaka 2y ago
I may have misunderstood but why aren't standard tools (such as rdfind or fdupes) inadequate?
353.
by natmaka 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%...
354.
by natmaka 2y ago
"bald and bankrupt" take on this (2019) was enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnDxHTaeNX0
355.
by natmaka 2y ago
https://www.cepsa.com/en/businesses/commercial-clean-energie...
356.
by natmaka 2y ago
> 2) I quoted the report (took three days) This is key. During a nuclear accident autorities cannot wait 3 days, then start to evacuate. > 4) Can you at least provide evidence for the "experts' description" you menti
357.
by natmaka 2y ago
> You were arguing about the fact that the evacuation is not opinion-based, and also that evacuate Tokyo was "reasonable". No. I was arguing about it being adequate. A decision is always opinion-based. Science explains how t
358.
by natmaka 2y ago
>> Please name a satisfying ready-to-deploy industrial nuclear reactor not needing uranium. There is none. > There are certainly options in the wind Those are mere hopes, not ready-to-deploy adequate reactors. > The Chinese TMSR
359.
by natmaka 2y ago
>> In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was >> there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone > Still, how should a person's opinions have scientific value? It is not about his opinions but
360.
by natmaka 2y ago
> the evacuation was entirely based on subjective opinions and lacked scientific basis. This is not what experts say: at the time of the nuclear accident information was scarce and volatile, and they estimated that the worst potential ac

More ›