orson2077

5 ms·

1.
by orson2077 9mo ago
Good lord, read Termination Shock by Neil Stephenson. Stratospheric aerosol injection is effective, but comes with severe risks, and can even be used as a strategic weapon (e.g. inject your sulphur over X and disrupt the monsoon in the Punj
2.
by orson2077 1y ago
For anyone interested in the economics of fission reactors, Illinois Energy Prof did a GREAT video a while back: https://youtu.be/cbeJIwF1pVY?feature=shared
3.
by orson2077 2y ago
My impression was that stratospheric aerosol injection has been kept out of the public consciousness deliberately. If the public discussed it now, they’d learn quickly about things like termination shock, and the calculable consequences to
4.
by orson2077 2y ago
Hah! Sliding keyboard, that absolutely rocks!
5.
by orson2077 2y ago
iPhone 4 was the apex of phone design, I will die on this hill!
6.
by orson2077 2y ago
Amen. An updated 4" flagship would be incredible! They say that small phones are for people with small hands, but no-one can one-hand a 6" phone without holding it like an idiot. I want the claw grip back!
7.
by orson2077 2y ago
There's no physics basis for teleportation, whereas there is a clear physics basis for fusion. The way you assess things is terribly flawed.
8.
by orson2077 2y ago
Don't take this the wrong way, but I envy your naivete. You are extremely optimistic about people and politics.
9.
by orson2077 2y ago
Fusion-relevant materials research could have absolutely advanced with funding back in the 70s. Lithium compatible structural material and 14MeV neutron source experiments immediately come to mind, not to mention tritium permeation and extr
10.
by orson2077 2y ago
Fusion is always 50 years away for a reason: https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/5gi9yh/fusion_i... IIRC, the sum total of all fusion research throughout all of history is USD$100-200B. It'
11.
by orson2077 2y ago
They looked into this concept a while back and came to the conclusion that unless the population density was great enough along the guideway, the maintenance cost was too high.
12.
by orson2077 2y ago
Is this article a joke? - The chapter titled "Advanced reactors may make waste problem worse" mentions nothing about waste. - The chapter titled "Not likely to help cut emissions" acknowledges that it would help cut em
13.
by orson2077 2y ago
They’re using hyperbole to illustrate the point; don’t miss the point or deliberately try to derail the conversation.
14.
by orson2077 2y ago
Hey, I'd love to live like the elves in Lord of the Rings, but it's not gonna happen. The first world offloads its manufacturing burden to the third world, then criticises them for polluting the atmosphere with fossil fuels. Also,
15.
by orson2077 2y ago
Regarding their main points: - Too expensive. Nuclear power plants usually operate for 40-80 years, making their ROI after the 20 year mark (greatly varies). The report's choice of "10-15 years" for a return on investment is
16.
by orson2077 2y ago
I have a tremendous love for the fast breeder reactors (particularly Superphénix); that we had that technology so long ago astounds me. However, I recognise that they are technically challenging. From a modern, pragmatic point of view, I&#x
17.
by orson2077 2y ago
Modern powerplants are closed-loop and do not consume water, although they may dump heat into it. Water is not consumed (in any great quantity) or contaminated, except that which is recirculated inside.
18.
by orson2077 2y ago
(Background: I am an engineer that has spent most of their career in energy - fossil fuels, nuclear and renewables - the whole shebang. I care deeply about climate change, and recognise the non-negotiable need of humanity for ever-increasin