ncmncm

71 ms·

901.
by ncmncm 4y ago
The numbers say otherwise. If we generated enough spare power to run lots of carbon capture equipment, and removed enough carbon, the planet would cool. There are fantastic reasons to abandon fusion, and even better reasons to accelerate bu
902.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Still negligible. Fusion and fission are bad ideas on their own merits, regardless of heat they might produce.
903.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Fusion cannot produce cheap energy, in any case. Fuel cost is a substantial fraction of exactly none of the generation methods in use.
904.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Dams are being taken down at an increasing rate as it is recognized that the fisheries they destroyed are far more valuable than anything they produce.
905.
by ncmncm 4y ago
In case of catastrophic failure, thousands of tons of radioactivated lithium hydroxide burn uncontrollably, the smoke producing drain opener in contact with mucus membranes and lungs.
906.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Except, it cannot. No new nuke design begun today could produce any power before 2035. The money spent building it, spent on renewables instead, would produce immediately, displace CO2 immediately, and produce more.
907.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Affordable nuclear recedes further with each passing day, as costs for better tech continue on down. Each dollar diverted from renewables build-out to nukes brings climate catastrophe incrementally nearer.
908.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Dropped is dropped is dropped. Continuing to spend up until then diverts money from other things not best dropped. Confining plasma does not suffice to get you power generation.
909.
by ncmncm 4y ago
The Maginot Line held. Germans in Czech tanks went around the end of it, through Belgium.
910.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Right: intractable, but much smaller than other problems.
911.
by ncmncm 4y ago
People talking about fusion expect to "breed" tritium in their reactor. This takes the form of blasting GW of hot neutrons into a thousand (or ten-) tons of lithium hydroxide, and somehow extracting grams of tritium from it at par
912.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Yes. Just just keeping a steam turbine up and running, completely ignoring where the heat comes from, costs more than both building out and operating wind and solar.
913.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Isn't it amazing that no one has ever thought about these things before you dropped in?
914.
by ncmncm 4y ago
The argument from incredulity has rather a poor history. Are you sure you want to join in with all its previous failures?
915.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Storage is not a source of energy. It is a way of managing an existing stock of energy. Grid, likewise. So, storage is just a part of the grid, and the grid may be fed by wind, solar, hydro, and geo "alone".
916.
by ncmncm 4y ago
The absolute cost of anything world-scale is unavoidably very large. Pretending serves no one. At issue is how this cost compares to that . Renewables and storage costs, as big as they will be, will be overwhelmingly less than alternativ
917.
by ncmncm 4y ago
It would be an overwhelmingly smarter and better use of money to burn uranium in an ordinary fission plant, and maybe breed up extra fuel there. But we already know that fission, too, is uncompetitive, moreso each day as costs for renewable
918.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Not what happened. Other options were worse.
919.
by ncmncm 4y ago
The transition will perforce be very far on the side of what you call "sane", to a pathological degree. There is no merit in arguing for what must certainly happen anyway.
920.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Hasn't been, yet. The syllogism works the other way too.
921.
by ncmncm 4y ago
There is if you want it not to crumble to tiny metal shards before it has paid back the cost of building it.
922.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Usually we spell that "intractable".
923.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Molten lithium would interfere with your magnetic containment. You need a diamagnetic like LiH. Extracting tritium from a thousand tons of radioactivated lithium hydroxide at PPB concentration is left as an exercise for the ambitious reader
924.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Pointlessness is. If you want to maximize pointlessness, Energy Vault is right there . But defrauding investors doesn't seem like a great choice to enable. Maybe it would be better to do what might help avert global civilization colla
925.
by ncmncm 4y ago
If you read what he wrote, your question is answered already. Saying the best way we know is the best way we know is vacuous. Nothing about steam is especially good except that water is cheap. It was cheap before, and still is. Its problems
926.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Correct: he is not. All the success he has had comes from lots of bucks to start from, and lucky hires. You can tell from all his obvious duds, and the idiotic things he says whenever he goes off-script. Gwynne Shotwell probably deserves th
927.
by ncmncm 4y ago
"Librate". It probbly concentrates the ice closer to the center. With enough atmosphere, like Venus, and some libration, I guess you might be able to get convection cells going enough to distribute heat. But really, the galaxy is
928.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Only if your "sweet spot" has the sun always right at the horizon, and you don't mind mining all your water from the stuff frozen on the night side. You could pick a planet where the noonday sun is not too hot, but then the i
929.
by ncmncm 4y ago
The amount of power your traditional water mill extracts would be exceeded by solar panels on its roof, which would be cheaper than the building under them, not even counting the cost of the water wheel and weir. The mill might last centuri
930.
by ncmncm 4y ago
Looks like they left POPCOUNT off. Again.

More ›