I’m pretty sure it was Bob. Or Brad. Billy? Bitchass! Yes it was definitely Bitchass.

Who let the tankies in?

It’s semantics but the difference between expat and immigrants is an expat intends to return to their home country some day, where an immigrant does not.

To tack onto that: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source

When you account for land use in the entire life cycle from mining resources to disposal at end of life cycle, nuclear uses a quarter of the land of rooftop cadmium panels and a tenth of silicon panels.

Offshore wind is the only thing that gets close and even that has ecological and commercial concerns.

If you’re pro-stable and sustainable ecological systems, nuclear based power grid is a no brainer.

Would you like to kill Son Goku?

Batteries are not cheap, especially on industrial scale. And most batteries are not ecologically friendly. It makes far more sense to put all the power solar panels produce during the day to immediate use for maximum efficiency, there is no form of battery that exists that doesn’t have some kind of efficiency loss.z

Putting a battery on this is like building a water tower in your front lawn that only feeds your sprinkler, and you’re only filling it from a hose. You don’t really get any benefit out of it and it’s just easier to run the hose right to the sprinkler anyways.

It’s just a lot of salt. Seawater (on average) is 3.5% salt. So for 1kg of water (aka 1 liter) you get 35 grams of salt. For 5 thousand liters, thats 175kg of salt. While we do use salt for industrial purposes, that salt is usually treated and chemically processed for sanitary reasons. Given the average person uses 310 liters of water a day (drinking, cooking, cleaning, ect…) 5,000 liters gets you slightly more water than 16 people are going to consume in a day. And 175kg of salt is way more than 16 people are going to use in a day. Now figure this system runs all year round, and we have 63,000kg of salt. Just so 16 people could drink desalinated sea water all year.

There are a number of theories put forth in recent years how best to desalinate sea water for drinking water and disposing of that salt, most of them involve dumping it in the desert, burying it in old mines, or possibly deep sea operations where salt concentrations are already too high for most life to exist, so adding salt to those regions won’t have a ecological impact and it’s possible for currents to spread that excess salt over a wider area.

Every one of these options has downsides, but we do need water to live and oceans are a vast source of water we aren’t really tapping so you can see the desire to utilize them when majority of the global population lives within a hundred km or so of a coast line.

Steam controller flash backs Pass

Mom never supported any kind of sexual education and definitely refuses any kind of healthy and mature conversation with the poor kid.

I want to believe this is satire but fuck I will not be fact checking.

Talk about a cherry picked survey. They only include EU deaths but still opted to add Chernobyl and Fukashima deaths to make solar look better.

Baseload means the consistent day to day requirements a grid always has while up, aka people running their lights, tvs and appliances at regular times throughout the day.

Flex loads are unusual peaks on the grid such as unexpectedly hot days where people run air conditioners or electric heat in the winter time. These are the points where things like wind power is invaluable to the grid.

The idea that Nuclear can’t flex though is absurd, it’s not as fast as wind, but raising or lowering control rods takes seconds to minutes depending on reactor type, not hours like people seem to think. It just makes more sense to run them at schedule outputs because you need to shut them down entirely to refuel them. But if a nuclear plant was built up enough to handle capacity of a given region, it could realistically move between 50% load and 80% load and back in under ten minutes.

Ecologically, Nuclear is by the far safest route, having the among lowest carbon outputs of all power production AND using less land per kw produced. The only thing that even gets close is rooftop solar, and even if you covered every external surface of every building in a city with solar you’d still not meet base loads.

The price point of nuclear is a two part problem, both of which stem from propaganda leveraged against nuclear. We don’t have economies of scale because NIMBY and fear mongering how “dangerous” nuclear is (despite being the safest form of power in human history) preventing new constructions, combined with the second front of overzealous and unrealistic safety standards forced upon the nuclear industry that make it difficult for them to be profitable, it’s like requiring people to wear full body kevlar pads while driving or biking. Keeps them safe, maybe, but is that level of protection required? Not even remotely. No other form of power production could survive if strangled the same way nuclear has been for the last 80 years, which speaks volumes to how effective it is where even being kneecapped and held back at every turn it still persists to this day. Because it’s that damn effective and energy dense.

Edit: It goes without saying the best possible future we can have is wind and nuclear powered with solar being added where it can be done efficiently, such as rooftop or land which has no other use including ecological reclamation. Wind is better in rural setting such as agriculture, where nuclear is better for denser populations like cities and industrial centers. Solar is best used as rooftop or addition to existing structures where it can generate power without inhibiting other functions. (You can’t put solar on a green house, for example.)

The comment you replying to was trying to not so subtly point out this is a business plot and little else. Nobody is going to pay a subscription fee to have a tree in front of their business, but they might cough up money for a third party to maintain a tank of algae out front if it was sold right

Not how reactors work, they are very much closed systems specifically to avoid this problem.

Think of it like and air conditioner or refrigerator. The the attempt that cool the inside by dumping heat outside uses a closed loop and the two mediums do not directly interact or mix, which is why your home isn’t full of pollen when running an air conditioner all day if your windows and doors all properly seal.

The steam you see coming off a cooling tower is not the water than went through the reactor or turbine, a secondary cooling loop is used specifically cause the plants are not allowed to release radioactive material in any form, including the cooling processes.

The real reason this idea would not work is the same problem desalination has, making clean and safe drinking water is the easy part, it’s what are you doing with all the contaminants and water products left behind that quickly becoming a concentrated pool of filth and toxins at the bottom of your heat exchanger.

Never make the same mistake twice.

Make a new mistake to learn from.

Obviously Vance wanted to fuck the Papal seat. The pope tried to explain that he couldn’t just let Vance fuck the chair of St Peter. Vance did not like this answer.

That’s not a point in favor of why they coexist. The military is going to fund uranium mining one way or the other, given the potency of nuclear weapons as a deterrence, as well as their own militarized applications of nuclear reactors powering aircraft carriers.

The only valid argument for why military planning influenced civilian nuclear power because the military also tested and decided on nuclear power for various applications because it was efficient, reliable and had long term viability with minimal space investment. But even the military came to the conclusion it wanted nuclear power where it could get independent of wanting nuclear weapons.

Edit: And as a bonus, just because this myth is so dumb, Chicago-1 predated the Manhattan project and is directly cited as being an inspiration for the Manhattan project, not the other way around as people keep trying to claim. Even without nuclear weapons we would still have uranium powered nuclear reactors, and they’d probably be more prevalent without all the fearmongers hopping on the big oil bandwagon and spewing propaganda that couldn’t be further from the truth.

There is no correlation between nuclear weapons production and nuclear power generation. If anything they compete for the same raw materials. They were developed in the same era because that’s when we discovered how to harness fission.

Also depleted uranium is not spent fuel. Depleted uranium is the byproduct of enriching uranium to weapons grade. Given the natural ratios of u238 to u235, there’s an abundance of it from refining nuclear weapons hence why some weapons and armor utilize it.

I know enough to know that if you’re worried about pollution from Nuclear then you should be worried about all the waste products in production of solar panels which can be extremely toxic. And that if you’re specifically talking about the amount of radiation a megawatt reactor will produce in it’s life time you should never venture anywhere close to a coal burning plant because the amount of radioactive material they let loose into the atmosphere is orders of magnitudes greater than you could get from a uranium reactor, with thorium reactors being predicted and shown in small scale testing to have significantly less dangerous byproducts left over. With several theories and proposed designs for fusion and thorium reactors that could recycle spent fuel and further reduce the amount of high level waste a facility would have at the end of it’s life cycle, because unlike all other forms of energy generation, the nuclear facilities contain and keep their waste products on site for decades and only transfer it off site during decommissioning.