schroedingershat @ schroedingershat @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

375

Joined

2 yr. ago

Chances of an economy-destroying disaster on the other hand are much lower, but you didn’t ask that.

Also now you're lying again with that second sentence. For no benefit whatsoever, as well. This is also a 100% consistent pattern with nuke shills.

Nah, it's been around for a while. Someone pulled it in front of a public forum and the speaker made him put talc on it and try again. The look of sheer confusion and mild sadness when it fell of was golden.

Most uranium ore is lower energy density than low grade coal. Digging it up with diesel equipment after removing twice as much overburden with explosives in a coal powered country and then milling it with 10s to 100s of litres of sulfuric acid is incredibly dirty. All of the "representative" lifecycle studies use Ranger (which used a specific much cleaner more expensive process only suitable for some specific ores on ore 30-70x as concentrated) or Cigar lake which is 1000-2500x as concentrated.

Even after that nuclear is still relatively low carbon, but about 10x a modern wind turbine. It is largely irrelevant (the best llw carbon technology is the one that deploys soonest), but that doesn't stop the shills constantly lying to try and delay decarbonisation.

My point is they'll (continue to) blame the people whose carbon footprints are <1% of theirs and would be manageable for centuries and advocate for genocide as a solution.

Currently blaming the global south is just used to deflect.

Don't worry, they're gearing up for the "Climate change is real, but we just need to genocide more of the people with a <100kg/yr carbon footprint to fix it" chapter of dogshit rhetoric soon.

Nah, that will be 2027. After the current El Nino oscillation but before the 50 degree summers start.

The character adapted from daneel plays a major role, but the characterisation is really bad.

You're confusing tired contempt with fear.

Which are just as legit as all the studies that show how great oil, coal and gas are, and are peddled by the same peoe using the same methods.

Show me your study showing that the average time for a gen III or later plant is finished in 7.5 years from the time where sites are being assessed.

There aren't good imperial projects and bad ones. Just bad ones that lay the ground work for worse ones.

Having a category of entity that wasn't considered in the base assumptions show up and throw a spanner in the works is consistentnwith the theme.

Having a singularity or error which needs correcting works.

Having the same people be the crux of every crisis is incredibly grating.

They also done my boy Daneel real dirty.

The plants that can allegedly do this almost never do, and most of them have had maintenance issues which cost more to fix than replacing them with renewables.

Being able to pay even more than running at full power would cost to throw some energy away isn't power regulation and doesn't at all explain why france produces 10-20% of their electricity via dispatchable sources even on a warm summer night where demand is around half of their nuclear fleet's alleged capacity.

Idiotic straw men about assuming order of storage rollout aside. Replacing just that portion which is profitable right now will lower emissions over the next century than stopping and building nuclear instead.

That's a weird way of spelling "having a right wing government cancel most of their renewable rollout 10 years ago" ie. what's happening in sweden now.

You're deliberately trying to conflate the time from before-site-selection to a finished plant with the time for finishing a particular reactor after ground breaking. An analogy would be claiming the average time for a solar plant is three minutes because screwing one panel on takes that long.

There's also the bit where we have at least two "universe's most special boy/girl" characters upon whom everything hinges repeatedly when the entire point kf the psycho-history concept is that major events like that happen one way or another regardless of the specific details.

Not every neutron capture causes fission. And throwing a random soup of fissile and fertile elements in a hole is how you get a meltdown or no reaction -- they're not fungible. Please stop digging your ignorance-hole deeper.

Maybe consider that PV panels aren't kdentical and the ones built after the WESS are not the same? But there goes the nuance-allergy nuke shills have again.

Also this is all an incredibly stupid tangent in the first place, as renewables are renewable so long as they're at least as recyclable as the nuclear plant. Yet again demonstrating the inability to push over your own straw man.

Now you're also trying the condescending from a position of ignorance tactic on top of that. Stupid and ignorant or smug, pick one.

That last bit is the rub though. I'm fighting to decarbonize and reduce exploitation kf resource rich countries and you're fighting to stop it.

The constant tirade of insane lies is tolerable. Pretending you're not on the side of fossil fuels is the incredibly insulting bit.

I'm plenty open to evidence, it's just every time I look at some it shows a new lie that nukebros tell. Every single talking point isnutter bullshit to the pooint where if you look it up you find that nukes are significantly worse by whatever hair-splitting metric is being used ti try and distract from their main downsides.

There is a fully renewable solution for the 2-5 >100 hour events a year where battery storage is unsuitable, but it requires holding more than one thought in your head at a time (thermal storage, dispatchable load and w2e is one combo).