UnPassive @ UnPassive @lemmy.world

Posts

10

Comments

172

Joined

2 yr. ago

Pretty sure the law specifies minimum size of the poster and states that the motto must be the focus of the poster...

I think multiple signs from many deities might be nice. Especially the flying spaghetti monster.

Have you tried other proton versions? I think I use a glorious eggroll custom proton for bo3. I think something to do with videos not playing

Maybe Australia's grid is 90% ready for solar, I've heard they're pushing for full renewable in 2 States. But the USA's isn't ready.

Again, I understand that new installations of solar power plants are cheaper than nuclear. My points against solar are:

• its footprint (solar farms outside every town/city)
• its lack of power generation during night (batteries aren't cheap and don't last long, new tech will help but doesn't exist yet)
• how quickly output changes due to weather. This is extremely hard for the grid to adjust to. The best solution is filling gaps with natural gas (methane) because it starts up fast. Methane is a potent greenhosue gas and it's supply chain is extremely leaky so that stinks.

Meanwhile points agaisnt nuclear are

• cost
• waste

Both of which seem like much simpler problems to solve:

• subsidize (like renewables)
• store on site, reprocess, or build a storage facility (last point being expensive, but solving the problem completely). Reprocessing is my favorite choice.

I guess it depends on perspective. On one hand, it's an enormous amount of land - on the other hand, the USA is extremely big. I personally think the footprint is significant. It's not like we'd tear down suberbs to make solar farms, we'd tear down nature (undeveloped land).

The cost being the motivator that makes solar better than nuclear I don't believe to be accurate. Short term, solar is cheaper, but also we're making panels as fast as we can. It takes a lot of materials and is hard to scale quickly, so we can't just decide we want to switch the USA to solar and think we'll have enough panels in a decade even.

Additionally, nuclear isn't expensive in the long run. It's quite profitable and low maintenance. Nuclear waste is blown up by people who don't understand it. And our grid is ready to be powered by nuclear. Our grid can't yet handle the quick variablility of solar. If that weren't a problem, we still need additional power from events where there isn't a lot of sun for a while. Batteries may get us through the night someday (also another enormous manufacturing feat) but they won't get us through the week.

If both can be profitable, it's really a question of what we want to build. I argue that we can't even run off solar yet without some new technologies being made. Nuclear is the quick fix we need. The only reason we don't have it already is because of attitude towards it ("not in my backyard"), which I think would be different if people understood it.

Yeah agriculture isn't great for the environment either, but that doesn't actually make solar any better

Coal was also considered clean in the beginning because they didn’t have to sacrifice forests anymore.

False analogy fallacy

We may not consider the waste a problem now, but that may very well look differently in 50 or 100 years.

Argument from ignorance fallacy

I am not so fine pretending it’s without tradeoffs

No one is saying it's free energy or perfect energy. I myself would argue it's clean and solves some of our current energy problems, while renewables still can't. Unfortunately it suffers from a bad reputation and misinformation.

Nuclear power plant waste doesn't significantly contribute to climate change or pollution? So it's "clean" by most metrics.

Nuclear waste can generally be stored on-site without issue. Reprocessing would be nice, but not even necessary. Just because you don't understand the problem, doesn't mean others are "religiously defending a technology."

Remember that blanketing the world with solar panels isn't exactly great for the environment. Rooftops makes a lot of sense, but the cost goes way up, an maintenance becomes a nightmare. The footprint of nuclear is much smaller

I'm definitely all for some decentralization, but our power grid would need to be overhauled drastically to support solar/wind at a large scale. A cloud going over a bunch of solar panels, for example, is a massive engineering problem and can bring down a grid temporarily.

Our tech just isn't ready to go full steam ahead into renewables. Storage tech will be a large step closer, but remember the scale we're talking about. I understand that investing in renewables invests in research, but I fail to see how nuclear isn't the off the shelf answer.

Cheap - sustainable - steady power - thorium reactors are even renewable. Modern designs and computers make nuclear disasters far less likely (to the point where it's not really a valid concern). Nuclear waste isn't even as big an issue as people believe. Most of the waste can just decay on-site. The Boring Truth About Nuclear Waste

Bridgerton and Vampire Survivors

Thanks! I'll keep a lookout on news of what happened to fossware (probably just down for server issues)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this community on social.fossware.space before? Anyone know what happened?

I'm particularly interested because my main Lemmy account was on the fossware instance which seems to have disappeared overnight. Not sure if it's just temporarily down, or was moved here. I definitely can't log in to lemmy.dbzer0.com as my old account.

Not sure where best to post this question because the dbzer0 instance doesn't seem to have a meta community

Edit: looks like c/div0 might be the meta community