sir_bearington

6 ms·

1.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Why on earth would it make sense to think that someone is saying solar powered trains only run at night? I'm a native English speaker so I don't think you're in any position to try and lecture me. It's absolutely a val
2.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Yes, trains can only run at night when it's also windy. I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that solar powered trains can only run at night, short of willful misinterpretation.
3.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Except we don't. Where's my single-core 100GHz processor? Improvements still happen, but not always in the same way. If you implemented an application in 2003 assuming we'd have such a processor you'd be very disappointe
4.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Correct, the bulk of nuclear waste is from nuclear weapons development and manufacture. In power generation the containment vessel and cooling water also get irradiated. But that's not persistent waste, and doesn't require long te
5.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
The comment said that solar powered trains would only be able to run at night if wind generation is sufficient to power them in the absence of solar power - at least not without massive amounts of storage to account for this intermittency.
6.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
> Before you try to sink billions into nuclear energy, explain why we can't do it with solar + storage alone? Just one good reason. I've yet to hear anything substantive. The fact that storage at anywhere remotely close to the
7.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Waste is easily the biggest straw-man concern there is against nuclear. The entirety of the nuclear waste produced by US nuclear grid electric power generation fits in a volume the footprint of a football field and 10 yards high [1]. We tes
8.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
The above comment didn't say CO2 emissions, it said that coal use is "down enormously" with a "tiny bit of gas generation growth". The reality is that overall fossil fuel use remains largely the same, coal reduction
9.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
While non-hydroelectric renewables have gone up, fossil fuel usage remains largely flat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:... Germany's CO2 intensity of electricity isn't
10.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
"Healthcare for all" and "single payer healthcare" are two very different things. Most countries still have private health insurance companies, but the government subsidizes healthcare. The main blocker of doing this in
11.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Storing waste in place is also hardly any risk. Are terrorists going to retrieve one of these [1], weaponize it, and then deploy it? If they have this capability, then they almost certainly have the capability of shooting up a mall. And the
12.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Because then you end up with a ministry of truth that has to determine what speech is "clearly false". E.g one could make the argument that "nuclear power is unsafe" is "clearly false" given the facts based on
13.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Terrorists are going to break into a government facility, go a mile deep, retrieve massive concrete cylinders, and transport them back to base. Just to get access to low level nuclear material? If they want to poison people en-masse there a
14.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
The whole point of power to gas (methane) is that we can reuse the existing natural gas storage, distribution, and generation infrastructure. Hydrogen brings with it other challenges. Namely grid scale deployment of energy cells, storing hy
15.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Power to gas needs a source of carbon to produce methane. No, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not a good candidate for this, since it's at very low concentration. Theoretically one could use biomass, but thats a very inefficien
16.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
> And the largest digital players have argued that they’re mere technology “platforms” rather than “publishers” to preserve the shield Section 230 provides them. This has helped stave off regulation and spared them the expense of complyi
17.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
The irony is that I almost certainly would have zero idea who this person was or the existence of this controversy were it not for this crackdown. On one hand I can empathize with people seeing someone they know have negative press about th
18.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
When countries build multiple nuclear power plants, instead of one at a time, costs are significantly lower. E.g: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taishan_Nuclear_Power_Plant South Korea's nuclear plants are also muc
19.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Correct, and algorithm shouldn't use a protected class as an input. But at the same time, simply pointing out that a inequitable outcome is produced is not evidence of bias. Also, dual citizenship is not a protected class last time I c
20.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Assuming that exponential growth will be steady is a very risky assumption. Where's my single-core 100 GHz CPU? Moore's law says we should have that by now.
21.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Phrasing it in the way you do is misleading. The defendants labeled as high risk and low risk were just as likely to re-offend. To put this in simpler numbers * Out of 100 white people, 5 were labeled high risk. * Out of 100 black people, 2
22.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
What do you mean? Over the course of a decade and a half we brought the share of nuclear generation to 20%. That's way more impressive than what intermittent sources have achieved.
23.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Nuclear gets cheaper when it's built at scale. The price history for nuclear demonstrates this: it was considerably cheaper when many plants were built in parallel. It's expensive
24.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
> When AI criminal risk prediction software used by judges in deciding the severity of punishment for those convicted predicts a higher chance of future offence for a young, Black first time offender than for an older white repeat felon.
25.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Yes, cost goes up as the number of reactors being constructed goes down. Lower economy of scale.
26.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Emphasis on "trying". They aren't actually reducing nuclear production because renewables can't replace it.
27.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
> Therefore the only cost estimate we can rely on is what we have actually managed thus far. Correct. And we've managed to bring the cost of nuclear down to 1-2 billion dollars per GW when building plants at scale [1]. This was done
28.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Nuclear's economy of scale is not at all "basically zero" even with traditional PWR reactors. Here's a graph of nuclear plant cost relative to construction year: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image
29.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
I'm not sure I follow. The fact that a nuclear grid doesn't require storage is precisely why it's so much better. In order to make renewables viable we'd need to redirect a huge portion of our storage capacity away from
30.
by sir_bearington 6y ago
Your response fits the same pattern: allude to the existence of storage solutions, but neglect to actually specify what those solutions are. > There's a few papers on managing the mix of this but theyre not widely read or reported o

More ›