ncmncm

33 ms·

301.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Looks like Rockwell was fined a little bit, and nobody was actually tried despite a Grand Jury identifying several people who should have been. One guy responsible got cancer.
302.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Yes, Hans Blix, the UN inspector who visited the supposed labs well before the invasion, openly reported it was all bullshit. Even the New York Times, which was a huge invasion booster, ran that story. On page 18. Never forget, Thomas Fri
303.
by ncmncm 4y ago
There was a natural nuclear reactor in Gabon. But that was 2 billion years ago. It ran for long enough that a microbe evolved to harvest the radiation to use in place of regular chemical energy sources. Which still exists.
304.
by ncmncm 4y ago
"Never" is outside the scope of "safety". Just Always.
305.
by ncmncm 4y ago
> ... tested to see if they remain safe and reliable for use in the nuclear stockpile. Note here this expression " safe and reliable ", taken from the DoE's founding legislation, is officially re-interpreted to be ver
306.
by ncmncm 4y ago
It was kind of hard on Russian people, though, considering they had so little say in how things were done at the time. Not as hard as Stalin, or even Lenin. But it seems like if more had been done, we would not be in the present fix.
307.
by ncmncm 4y ago
I guess you eat tempeh, sauerkraut, nori, or something else fermented that has microbial B12, or drink soy milk that has it added. Feel smug knowing you are luckier than some.
308.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Yes. Living creatures are subject to these events we call mutations and adaptations, and so almost every biological molecule comes in thousands of variations, each produced reliably by whichever species uses that one. What the molecule actu
309.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Fortunately, kombucha has all the B12 even people with impaired absorption need.
310.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Kombucha has a huge amount of B12, along with other B vitamins. So, I don't take the supplements I used to need, anymore. B12 deficiency is very interesting, biologically. Bodies are normally really, really good at extracting trace amo
311.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Trades batched by second would provide as much liquidity as anybody could use, without the yachts.
312.
by ncmncm 4y ago
BTW, pi x 10^7 seconds, a 0.4% underestimate.
313.
by ncmncm 4y ago
That would not displace any CO2 emission. Storage as a separate business is not viable beyond a few years, so investment is limited. Original producers of energy will have their own storage, and prices will level out. Excess generation capa
314.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Before SOFIA there was AOA, "airborne optical adjunct", a military project probably funded by the fake Star Wars anti-missile program that spooked USSR into crashing their economy. Same configuration, a 747 with a hole in the top,
315.
by ncmncm 4y ago
I think the technical term is "patronage". I am not very clear on the details. It is just, the bigger the budget, the more people you need on board pulling for it vs. every other project after the same money. Some people will supp
316.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Obviously not. Anyway that efficiency will not be important.
317.
by ncmncm 4y ago
I mean the odds of somebody coming up with a nuke that can be operated purely on non-compulsory commercial power rates are slim to none. No one has ever even tried. Everyone promoting SMR relies heavily on continued massive subsidy to make
318.
by ncmncm 4y ago
The Soviets scuttled a nuke sub that way, in shallow water off Novaya Zemlya. Putin has offered to raise and dispose of it "properly". The international Standard for "properly" appears to mean in deeper water.
319.
by ncmncm 4y ago
There is absolutely no need to use any land exclusively for solar or wind. Both coexist synergetically with reservoirs, canal, pasture, even crop land. So, zero acres of land needed.
320.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Strictly speaking, oil still gets almost all the subsidies. The rest are chicken scratch. But yes, nukes all rely heavily on subsidies, always have.
321.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Hint: no one is building coal plants. Coal is being phased out. Your competition is not coal.
322.
by ncmncm 4y ago
There has never been a nuke plant operated without subsidies, anywhere in the world, and probably never will be. In the US, taxpayers pick up the tab for disaster insurance because no private insurer is big enough. No reactor would be left
323.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Earth? Who said any of that will be used on Earth? OK, Earth will use a bit of it. We will need to dismantle gas giants' moons for construction materials.
324.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Most storage will not be batteries, unless a new battery chemistry proves radically cheaper (which might happen). Right now the overwhelming majority of storage is pumped hydro, almost as dispatchable as batteries. There are plenty of alter
325.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Storage emits CO2... Really, you think so? Before you have built a thing, you have to build it. After you build it, you have it. Building will be a big job, but nowhere near as big as building nukes instead would have been. The good news is
326.
by ncmncm 4y ago
It would be stupid to spend money building out storage before there is renewable generating capacity to charge it from. So, they spend on that, first. Most of the storage, in the end, will not be batteries. Most existing storage is pumped
327.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Storage is not, in fact, hard. Its efficiency is not important beyond a few hours' worth, because it is rarely needed. For those few hours, battery efficiency is very good.
328.
by ncmncm 4y ago
All of the above is true enough, but it is not the full story on why US nukes cost like they do. The ones attempted recently in South Carolina and Georgia cost so much because people in a position to block building them want it that way. On
329.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Usefully close, anyway. "Pi seconds in a nanocentury".
330.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Amen. I guess whatever target you hit with it would have to be worth as much as it cost to get the thing into orbit.

More ›