schroedingershat @ schroedingershat @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

375

Joined

2 yr. ago

Ridiculous.

In reality all bears are fake. Have you seen one move? Or even worse, a shaved bear? No animal is that shape. They're all animatronics run by a secret cabal of Potoos.

Every single time the topic of the complete environmental and geopolitical clusterfuck of uranium comes up, someone comes along with the astroturfed propaganda bullshit line about how cigar lake and ranger (which are also clusterfucks, just much smaller ones) means it's all fine.

Whether or not you're doing it on purpose, you're spreading russian propaganda. It's really gross. You're now paltering again by claiming the rounding error of the contribution from Australia means the overwhelming majority that comes from Niger and Russia isn't the important bit.

France's history and present in Niger is brutal, violent, and environmentally economically devistating.

Russia's present in Niger and central asia is even worse.

France depends on both for over 50% of its electricity (and 90% of their nuclear power) and has made zero actions to stop funding a terrorist state's nuclear weapons infrastructureand violent colonisation program. Instead they are actively spreading propaganda and fighting against russian sanctions.

More bizarre paltering and attempts to change the meaning of my words.

Russia owns the supply chain for the uranium from central asia for the stuff china and the US doesn't use. Just because they do the polluting and economically devistating part elsewhere (as france does in Niger) doesn't meant there isn't dependence on Rosatom and Russia.

Only one of those countries (the one with the smallest share) does not have a history (and present) of brutal exploitation by either france or russia or both.

Both of which are irrelevant to france, which sources their uranium primarily from russia and their former colonies.

You brought up australia and canada with the implication that their production meant there was no dependence, which would require those two to produce uranium in sufficient quantities to supply France and the USA, and the rest of Europe from just the subset of mines not controlled by China and Russia in those countries. This is impossible given that the total production from Canada and Australia is about what France alone uses and China+Russia have major interests in both countries.

This is that same lie and now you are doubling down on it.

Kazakhstan's uranium is controlled almost exclusively by russia (with china and orano having some control). The situation there is just as corrupt and imperialostic as Niger.

Canada and Australia's combined production is enough for Canada's domestic use and about half of the USA's (although russia controls a substantial portion of that too), no amount of playing shell games and handwaving at global markets makes it magically go further. This insistence that we believe the 20 year old lie that all uranium comes from Cigar Lake and Ranger is infantile and insulting.

France's uranium supply is dependent on theirs and russia's colonial control and brutal exploitation of africa and central asia. About the best that can be said is Namibia's comparative stability along with the fear of China's (very temporary) comparatively good treatment of the miners leading to less control has led to slightly less exploitation there and some of France's uranium is sourced in Namibia.

May I direct your attention to the middle east, southeast asia or south america?

Having colonisers fighting to destabilize your country and install puppet governments is never good for the locals.

The world’s two biggest uranium producers are Canada and Australia

You misspelled Kazakhstan and Namibia. Niger also has massive mines, but is very unstable. It's consistently top ten and often top five though,

Why do nukebros always lie about every single easily checked detail every single time without fail?

Red coloured fascism and colonialism is left donchyaknow /s

This is just the same buck-passing that BP was doing.

You are personally responsible for your own contribution.

You are doubly responsible for giving money to BP or Chevron.

You have control over some things in your life. If you choose to live like the average american driving everywhere, eating meat, and inefficiently climate controlling a building that is far bigger than needed and poorly insulated, then you are choosing to emit an amount of CO2 that will contribute to several deaths.

You are also directly giving the oil, gas, and meat industries the resources to kill many more.

Just because BP passed the buck, doesn't exonerate you.

Sulfate emissions.

Which are bad, but are not CO2 emissions.

The entire shipping industry is a small fraction of the US's automobile emissions.

Also white (but high emissivity) paint. Painting every dark urban and suburban surface white would reduce total radiative forcing somewhere around a watt.

An international standard unit is not the same thing as a unit. A cubit is a unit even though people's arms aren't all the same size.

I said stop trying to project your stupidity onto others, not double down on it.

Implementation defined.

But like kWh you can easily learn (either intuitively or by the dark magic of multiplication) the ratio between tanks and ability to get to your destination.

The idea that people can't learn that they get roughly 6 or roughly 3 etc km per kWh with their driving style and thus physical units should be hidden from them is insulting and anti-intellectual. Stop trying to project your stupidity and anti-curiosity onto others.

Nah. Give tesla the same number of points everyone else gets on their license. If the company runs out, no more cars controlled by tesla on the roads..

Many manufacturers get around this by quoting an estimated range and then the WLTP in small print ie. Highway Range: Est 415km in normal conditions (600km on WLTP cycle)

Tanks is a unit of volume....

Damaging property would be going against their duties.

It won't be your hardware in a few years if this goes through. The code will run in a secure enclave and you won't be able to access your bank or log in to government websites if you control the hardware.

Does this not just make the professor's point?

The claimed saturation current is very low. If this is inherent and not just a first-try thing it will be less-good than permanent magnets for doing many magnetic-field things and less-good than Aluminum for some current-carrying things.

It's a perovskite, in semiconductor applications these have stability and durability problems.

It might also be a scam. This would make it useless.