zizee

7 ms·

31.
by zizee 2y ago
That is understood. The comment had a well written article that goes into detail about how the poorly designed regulations more than double the costs of building nuclear. Just saying you dispute something, without providing any arguments, o
32.
by zizee 2y ago
It's ridiculous because the much ridiculed SLS has a launch cost of 2 billion dollars. If you think SpaceX is throwing billions of dollars into developing a vehicle that costs thisuch to launch, you clearly haven't been following
33.
by zizee 2y ago
Good luck to them. SpaceX is great, but healthy competition is always important at driving progress. I'd like to take a trip to space one day, and even if SpaceX nails rapid reusability, the best chance of them being motivated to pass
34.
by zizee 2y ago
2 billion is ridiculous, and I can only imagine that number was a misunderstanding SpaceX/Musk saying that they were spending 2 billion in a full year of R&D on Starship. https://spacenews.com/spacex-investment-in-s
35.
by zizee 2y ago
This changes if SpaceX can get full reusability working, which they have been making very steady progress towards.
36.
by zizee 2y ago
But it's not just that guy. > Starship rocket to less than $10 million. However, Starship is still very much a development program, and Payload estimates it currently costs around $90 million for SpaceX to build a fully stacked Star
37.
by zizee 2y ago
This is just not true. A hydroelectric dam failure has demonstrably more potential for mass disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
38.
by zizee 2y ago
Ok, so your argument for Starship not being the best choice for all mission profiles is based solely on cost. If Starship was cheaper, then you'd agree that it serves the mission profiles? An estimate of 2 billion per launch is laughab
39.
by zizee 2y ago
We should put a stop to hydro electric as well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
40.
by zizee 2y ago
Which mission profiles does Starship not make sense for?
41.
by zizee 2y ago
The same can be said about most large scale have man engineering efforts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
42.
by zizee 2y ago
And we're back to the beginning. One of the major costs of current reactors is regulatory burden. One of the reasons we don't see improvements in costs is it is extremely hard to release changes or new designs.
43.
by zizee 2y ago
Which part of the linked article do you dispute?
44.
by zizee 2y ago
They don't want to what? Don't want to give up poorly designed regulations? Or do not want nuclear power? The latter is largely due to the anti nuclear movement, as sponsored by the petroleum industry. This will go down in history
45.
by zizee 2y ago
The economics of nuclear power is dominated by a poorly designed regulatory environment (which can be changed if regulators are suitablely motivated). https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power...
46.
by zizee 2y ago
No need to give up anything, except a poorly designed regulatory environment : https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power...
47.
by zizee 2y ago
Well, back to my original point that the challenges are political in nature. Nuclear has one of the lowest mortality rates per megawatt hour. It would be even better if only modern reactor designs were considered. https://www.sta
48.
by zizee 2y ago
It's not irrational, but it's a similar concern to things like lead poisoning (similar because you cannot see it, and the effects are long term). Like with any risk, there should be appropriate and proportional risk mitigation str
49.
by zizee 2y ago
Vitrification of the waste (mixing it into and storage deep underground provides a safe way to store waste for 1000s of years. > There is no place in the world geologically stable for the required period (we have no way to know) This can
50.
by zizee 2y ago
You are probably being cheeky, but just in case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom https://hinative.com/questions/18367967
51.
by zizee 2y ago
Most of the storage challenges are political, rather than engineering. There is so much fear around this stuff, but it's usually based on the incorrect notion that radioactive wastes is both super dangerous, and lasts forever. But this
52.
by zizee 2y ago
My experience with exec types is they most often will either agree with the problem, but not want to listen to proposed solutions (because they want to be "the one"), or they won't want to acknowledge the problem is real, and
53.
by zizee 2y ago
Thanks for sending me down a rabbit hole :-) A fun collection of articles!
54.
by zizee 2y ago
If you like Project Orion, you might like to read about the Medusa Drive, which is a related, but probably more promising concept using a sail instead of a giant pusher plate. https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2012/07&#x2
55.
by zizee 2y ago
Ancient humans causing extinctions and environmental change is at odds with the image of "indigenous societies are perfect environmental stewards", which has been popularized for various reasons.
56.
by zizee 2y ago
I don't think the "interrupt" part of this is what I find concerning.
57.
by zizee 2y ago
Given the wide variety of views expressed in this HN discussion, it's clear there isn't consensus on how this is being interpreted, so I think you're wrong in claiming that there is only one type of behaviour being discourage
58.
by zizee 2y ago
The "chilling" effect is still the same.
59.
by zizee 2y ago
How frustrating. Hopefully my comment above didn't lead anyone to miss any part of that historic event yesterday. Mea culpa!
60.
by zizee 2y ago
Good stuff. Fingers crossed this will help a bit.

More ›