Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)TU
🇨🇦 tunetardis @ tunetardis @lemmy.ca
Posts
8
Comments
628
Joined
2 yr. ago

Permanently Deleted

Jump
  • But the mining, milling, and production of nuclear fuel, as well as the construction and decommissioning of nuclear plants, emit greenhouse gases at levels ranging from 10 to 130 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour of power — lower than fossil fuels but higher than wind and hydroelectricity (and roughly on par with solar).

    That's interesting. The article they link gives a bit more detail:

    These energy intensities translate into greenhouse gas intensities for LWR and HWR of between 10 and 130 g CO2-e/kWhel, with an average of 65 g CO2-e/kWhel.

    While these greenhouse gases are expectedly lower than those of fossil technologies (typically 600–1200 g CO2-e/kWhel), they are higher than reported figures for wind turbines and hydroelectricity (around 15–25 g CO2-e/kWhel) and in the order of, or slightly lower than, solar photovoltaic or solar thermal power (around 90 g CO2-e/kWhel).

    The wide range for nuclear apparently comes from difficulties in estimating the carbon footprint of mining/processing the uranium, but that nuclear is sort of in the middle of the pack in carbon footprint relative to renewables in spite of the fueling costs is good to know.

    I suppose these sort of numbers may change dramatically in years to come. Take solar. A lot of focus seems to be on the efficiency of panels, which would almost certainly lower the carbon cost per unit of energy as it improves, but a breakthrough in panel longevity would also do that in an amortized emissions sort of way.

  • Yeah, I think the current situation is they have to burn a certain amount of fuel to refine the bitumen, and then of course the oil itself is eventually burned by the end user. So it's a carbon emissions double whammy. Not a good look. But if nuclear steps in to handle the refining part, they may be able to sell more oil by trading on a "clean" image? Or something. I have trouble getting into that mind set.

  • it may look to replace the role of fossil fuels in its electricity grid with another controversial energy source — nuclear

    I wouldn't be so sure about the "replace" part. Refining oil sands is an energy-intensive process. Couldn't the nuclear power wind up going to that? I thought they were even advocating for this.

  • We donated a guitar to a high school music program. Honestly, I don't know anyone who owns exactly one guitar. You either have none or several. Do you really need them all? How about taking your old student model and letting a beginner play on it? I get it. It's that sentimental first instrument you ever picked up. But you're not playing it anymore, and instruments like to be played. It deserves a happier life than sitting at the back of your closet.

  • I guess the central premise of capitalism is that while every society has its haves and have nots, capitalism is supposed to encourage the haves to invest in the economy rather than hoarding their wealth. In return, they stand to get even wealthier, but a stronger economy ought to generate more employment and generally improve the lives of commoners as well.

    Unfortunately, in a never-ending quest to make wealth-generation more efficient and streamlined, employment is being eliminated through automation, outsourcing, etc. and the system is eating itself out from the inside. I doubt it can persist much longer, but what will replace it remains unclear. I pray that it will be something sensible that ensures everyone has their basic needs met and can still find rewarding pursuits in life. But there are so many ways it could go very wrong, and that includes staying on the current course.

  • Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • For the most part, I choose the generic version for pharmaceuticals where available, but there are a few exceptions. For example, for something like a nasal spray, the generic version's dispensing mechanism may be inferior?

  • I find as I get older and my vision is not what it once was, I need bigger screens with good contrast but don't care so much about resolution. I think it was on the show Corner Gas where they were talking about how big a screen you should get and concluded the size in inches should match your age. That made me laugh but I have to confess now there may be some truth in that…

  • It's been a long time since I got my astronomy degree, but your version is what I recall also. Whatever small rotational perturbation in the initial gas becomes more pronounced as it coalesces in on itself and defines the plane of the star system. Planets form within this plane after it is defined, and they all travel in the same direction around the star.

    Regarding galaxies, the most common spiral ones like our own Milky Way follow the same principle at a larger scale. But there are also elliptical galaxies, not to mention irregular ones. In an elliptical galaxy, there is a more random movement of stars in a cloud around its core. So they look more 3D I guess, to go back to what the OP was asking about. I seem to recall the most accepted explanation for how these form is from the aftermath of a collision between 2 spirals? So presumably, when our galaxy collides with Andromeda in several billion years time, the resulting combined galaxy may emerge as an elliptical?

  • I've actually been having more trouble with Apple Maps lately.

    My last trip was to perform at a country fair type thing and it couldn't locate the venue. So I thought maybe if I put on the satellite view, I could spot it and drop a pin? But the whole area was behind a cloud. Wow.

    Then later, when we were returning, it tried to send me on a shortcut through a mall parking into an overgrown field.