Skip Navigation

Posts
0
Comments
184
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Well, you guys don't even have holiday destination going for you. Good luck lads.

  • use it for one-on-one chats or messaging small friend groups

    Those are exactly what I use Matrix for.

  • It's not an "actual source", it's a shit source. N=16, really? Barely qualifies as a study.

  • Hah this was great. Let out an audible chuckle at the "does he brush it?".

  • What cherry picking? Carbon intensity takes that into account, it's normalised data. And the environmental impact includes Fukushima and Chernobyl. It is the most generalised data possible, unlike yours.

    But if you do want to cherry pick Fukushima and Chernobyl, which of course are the only things you can cherry pick, since they are very literally the only disasters in 80 years of nuclear power with environmental impact, you should compare them to disasters caused by fossil fuel. If you don't want to be accused of being biased, that is. The Exxon Valdez alone devastated sea life and ecosystems in an area of 2000 km of coastline (20x times larger than Chernobyl and Fukushima combined!). But then there's also the Deepwater Horizon spill, and dozens of others more. And that's just oil spills. Oil, coal and natural gas have their fair share of disasters too. And that's without counting climate change exacerbated wildfires, hurricanes, and other "natural" disasters. Fossil fuels are in a whole nother level of environmental destruction compared to the other energy sources.

    And I would have absolutely zero qualms about storing HLW casks in my backyard, so long as I was paid for having less space to grow my peppers and tomatoes. Kyle Hill has an easily digestible video about this, if you're interested.

  • If he is very young, that only makes him more justified in his anger.

  • Where did I refuse? The whole argument is comparing Germany's emissions to countries with nuclear- and renewable-based grids and you completely sidestepped it with some handwaving about industry. You provided no claim for nuclear being worse for the environment than fossil fuels. Coal literally emits more radioactive waste than nuclear, straight into the environment. Regardless, I'll indulge you:

    Carbon intensity of European countries:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261921012149#s0085

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity?time=latestยฎion=Europe

    Safety of energy sources (and nuclear specifically in second source):

    https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

    https://web.archive.org/web/20130404145453/http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_nuclear.html

    https://www.zmescience.com/feature-post/technology-articles/sustainability/renewable-energy/safest-forms-of-energy-05022022/

  • No, running engines at the limits makes things less efficient, which is why on fuel-limited tracks you see a lot of lift and coast and turning down engine modes when that was a thing.

    The efficiency comes from having two different complex energy recovery systems, which is what makes them expensive to transfer to the road.

    Still, you'd see more real world applications if countries' carbon regulations were tighter.

  • Sure, buddy:

    I specified per capita. You don't like it, you can look at carbon intensity instead. Whatever way you want to spin it, Germany is still doing much worse at decarbonisation than its neighbours using nuclear power.

    Nuclear is even worse for the environment than CO2

    Wow. Demonstrably false. You're either mad or you've fallen for the decades of fearmongering from the oil megacorps.

    Nuclear plants emit only water vapor, waste is contained and isolated. Unlike fossil fuel waste which goes directly into the atmosphere and kills millions of people a year. While being directly responsible for bringing us to the brink of climate catastrophe, putting billions more at risk. You need to get some perspective.

  • I did compare countries with heavy industry. And with a lot of nuclear + renewables in their energy mix specifically, that's the argument. Could have included Spain too.

    Why not Poland, Netherlands, or Belgium?

    Go right ahead and compare them too. What do they have in common? Still burning a lot of fossils maybe?

  • I mean the only argument you need is comparing the emissions per capita of Germany to France or Sweden.

  • Nuclear waste is not the reason they're closing, it's purely political. You could fit all of the high-level waste Germany's ever generated on a football field, and be able to walk around without any protection, getting less radiation dose than in an airplane. Let's not spread disinformation.

  • They aren't very reliable because they run at the ragged limits. It is a competition, after all. Motorsport has always been like that, nothing to do with current PU tech.

    The reason we don't use them in regular cars is because it's expensive to make, and combustion engines are being phased out anyway.

  • That's just, like, his opinion, man.

  • It's good that they can do it. Even better if they don't need to.

  • like saying you can't modernize the Mona Lisa, but it's fine if you put a new coat of paint over it.

    A new coat of paint would be updating the graphics, which is the opposite the person you're replying to meant.

    A better analogy to what they've done with Quake is it's like updating the Mona Lisa's display case to modern standards and improve the museum's lighting, so more people can enjoy it.

  • Have had absolutely zero issues on slrpnk even after the big Reddit migrations.

  • PV panels, not really, but concentrated solar can and does kill birds. Not nearly as many as coal, though, lol.

  • Nuclear can only perform as baseload

    That's only true for NPPs built decades ago. Modern designs can also do load-following power. For peaks you have renewables, of course, they complement each other. Diversity makes a healthy grid.