Photonic
@Photonic@lemmy.world
- Comment on Never Gonna Give You Up 2 days ago:
Looks like gramma is trying to break dance .
Hums: “it’s like that~It’s just the way it is~”
- Comment on A fossil-fuel plant seeing nuclear coming... 2 days ago:
pretend that batteries haven’t become enormously more popular
Am I? Where? And I thought you said I was arguing in bad faith? Quote me or GTFO.
equivalent to someone whose career is research in this exact area
I never said that. I said they were both opinion pieces. Building more straw mans it seems… And your career research dude’s answer to winter nights without much wind is GAS TURBINES.
that tells me everything I need to know
You just can’t handle being proven wrong, you’re a sore loser and an even poorer debater. You couldn’t make an argument stick if your life depended on it.
basic decency
LOL
- Comment on A fossil-fuel plant seeing nuclear coming... 2 days ago:
Who is the one dealing out personal attacks here? And I’m the one discussing in bad faith?
Just because someone doesn’t agree with your misguided views doesn’t make them argue in bad faith. You simply haven’t made a strong argument.
Have the life you deserve.
Thanks. I will. I hope you will too. This is pathetic.
- Comment on A fossil-fuel plant seeing nuclear coming... 2 days ago:
Tell me about it! Opinion pieces huh?
And how has the feasibility of battery storage skyrocketed exactly? We haven’t built that many at all in the last 13 years since the article was written. It’s always a promise of much better batteries in the next decade. We don’t have enough lithium mining capacity as it is, and sodium batteries require even more factories that still have to be built.
How about not betting everything on unproven tech where it still needs to be researched, factories still have to be built, storage facilities have to be built, and those have to be connected to the grid.
Does that really seem like skyrocketing feasibility to you?
- Comment on A fossil-fuel plant seeing nuclear coming... 2 days ago:
Ooh an opinion piece from 2013. The point is that we used to think that we could all solve it with cool storage ideas. But that hasn’t shown to be the case. Sorry to be the messenger of bad news, please don’t shoot me.
And even this guy admits he doesn’t know what to do in winter except to keep burning methane in gas turbines.
The real challenge is to supply peaks in demand on calm winter evenings following overcast days. That’s when the peak-load power stations, that is, hydro and gas turbines,
Sounds an awful lot like baseload power….
And what about places that have no hydro?
Here’s another opinion piece that says the opposite.
We can keep going for a bit…
- Comment on [deleted] 3 days ago:
Folks, this will be a very big win… not just for the United States, but for all of humanity! We will claim the strait of Hormuz for our own… and we will annex Greenland! We will build big beautiful roads between the two, so you can commute from your home on the strait of Hormuz to your job in Greenland in under two hours!
–Trump probably
- Comment on Brexit 3 days ago:
Good to hear that it all moved quickly for your mum.
But, not everyone is so lucky unfortunately. It seems mid an south Essex are the worst places to be when you have cancer.
- Comment on Brexit 3 days ago:
Well, there’s that. And the fact that it can take up to 3 months to even get a CT made and reported on.
If you have cancer and you need to wait three months for (the results of) a scan, the cancer may very well have become inoperable or have spread to other organs in the meantime.
- Comment on A fossil-fuel plant seeing nuclear coming... 3 days ago:
They are either not feasible everywhere (flat terrain) or wildly expensive and take up a lot of space. Nuclear is also actually green.
I’m not ignoring any of your points. They simply aren’t as good as you think and ignoring reality is not the same as making a point. Nuclear is not just great in theory, it’s great in reality. It is the most reliable source of power and we have had functioning nuclear power plants worldwide for decades.
You don’t need to “embrace” nuclear for it to be a good and viable source of energy. It’s okay to admit you think it’s scary, but it’s not based on reality. This is why the airplane analogy works.
- Comment on A fossil-fuel plant seeing nuclear coming... 3 days ago:
Fingers crossed!
- Comment on A fossil-fuel plant seeing nuclear coming... 3 days ago:
Maybe you missed the fingers crossed emoji?
- Comment on A fossil-fuel plant seeing nuclear coming... 3 days ago:
What are you talking about? Airplanes do have a bad rep. More people are scared of getting into them because they think it will crash than there are people scared of getting into cars. It’s the same with nuclear. The events are big when they happen, but it’s overall very safe. What’s more, airplane crashes have killed many, many more people and they have crashed much more often than there have been NPP accidents or deaths. So, if you want to call airplanes
incredibly safe
you might want to reconsider your stance on NPPs.
if one occasionally crashes the death toll is generally limited to the passengers.
And if NPP accidents occur, the death toll is generally limited to the workers.
the list of nuclear and radiation accidents is quite long
The list for NPP accidents is actually not that long, especially when compared to airplane accidents, and it stops at 2011. That’s 15 years ago and Fukushima caused only one possible death. There have been no signs of increased cancer rates in the 15 years afterwards. What’s more, after each major event—after Chernobyl and again after Fukushima—measures have been taken to prevent these events from happening again.
As for Chernobyl, you can debate the numbers, but it doesn’t mean anything for modern nuclear power plants in the west, since the Soviets built a reactor with an inherently unsafe design that isn’t used anywhere in the west. So, using the airplane analogy again, that would be like saying flying on an airplane is unsafe because of the Hindenburg disaster.
As for uranium: Australia and Canada have uranium reserves that dwarf Russia’s. Storage of waste is not as much of an issue either. Old mines go down kilometers into the earth.
So while yes, nuclear powerhas its downsides, nuclear is the only form green energy that provides base load power. If you want to transition away from fossil fuel there is no way to provide base load power without nuclear. Battery storage scales very poorly and we already can’t mine enough lithium and cobalt to power all cars with electricity, let alone having battery storage for all electric grids worldwide.
It may seem scary and accidents happen, but like I said, it just has a bad rep like airplanes do.
The numbers are not propaganda and the only propaganda I am seeing is coming from you. You haven’t made a single valid point and have been fear mongering about deaths and accidents that rarely occur.
- Comment on You Used To Be Cool. Pfft, Sell Out 3 days ago:
The US can’t even ban elected officials from trading stocks. It has a president who openly brags about his own grift and nobody does a thing. I don’t think it’s going to happen soon…
- Comment on Brexit 3 days ago:
I always heard the NHS was a totals shitshow
- Comment on A fossil-fuel plant seeing nuclear coming... 3 days ago:
Well. This is a science meme community, but a science community nonetheless, so I’ll try to keep it somewhat scientific.
Like airplanes that crash, nuclear power plants get a bad rep, but in reality it’s one of the most reliable and safest forms of energy production. For example looking at deaths from power generation, it currently sits right near the bottom between solar and wind power and well below hydro power and the rest. And that includes the Chernobyl accident.
As for the water: yes, but when Mr. Sun is out the solar panels go vroom, so Mr. Fancy Atom isn’t necessary as much. So they compliment each other nicely. And the current extreme drought in Europe is hopefully a rare occurrence 🤞🏻
- Comment on You're visiting your grandparents and you hear them having sex in the middle of the night what's your gif reaction? 1 week ago:
- Comment on Hmmm 1 week ago:
No but there might have been one in Germany if the rest of the world hadn’t intervened
- Comment on I may be wrong here. Isn't AI only as smart as the user putting in the information or commands? What's the big deal? 2 weeks ago:
Oh hey, what happened here? I thought we has a nice discussion going on…
- Comment on I can't believe this is the only comm that will not throw a hissy fit about this. 2 weeks ago:
Sounds awesome indeed…. And this maximum is yearly?
We have a mandatory out-of-pocket maximum (set by the government) of ~ €400, which, if you don’t expect to use much health care, you can increase to ~ €900 in exchange for a reduction in your monthly fee. Still, some people complain about that maximum, but I think they would complain a lot less if they knew a little more about the US system.
- Comment on Typical 2 weeks ago:
My delivery driver:
Good things come to those who wait
Well, shit…
- Comment on I can't believe this is the only comm that will not throw a hissy fit about this. 2 weeks ago:
You had to pay $44,000 out of pocket for a single flight?!
- Comment on New clean energy comes out. *look inside* It’s just boiling water again… 2 weeks ago:
Looks like the Dutchies were right in the first place
- Comment on Do americans living in Red States really despise american living in Blue States? 3 weeks ago:
Cognitive dissonance
- Comment on How polite 3 weeks ago:
Ooh look who it is, talking about dicks again!
- Comment on I warned you 3 weeks ago:
- Comment on I may be wrong here. Isn't AI only as smart as the user putting in the information or commands? What's the big deal? 3 weeks ago:
Yes, but non-AI users can become AI users. Women can’t become a fully biological male with l XY chromosomes.
Maybe you should look at it more like GLP-1 agonists. They work in obese and overweight people, but don’t cause much weight loss in normal-weight people. But there is no reason to assume they won’t work in people that are now of normal weight when they become overweight.
- Comment on I may be wrong here. Isn't AI only as smart as the user putting in the information or commands? What's the big deal? 3 weeks ago:
Well that’s because women usually don’t have a dick. That is a big difference.
I said there is no reason to assume non-AI users would behave differently. If you have a reason to assume non-AI users would behave differently you should state that reason. Now it’s just an empty statement of “that doesn’t work”.
- Comment on I may be wrong here. Isn't AI only as smart as the user putting in the information or commands? What's the big deal? 3 weeks ago:
You’re reading too much into this…. It was a joke my man
But yes, often times results in a certain subset of people are extrapolated to people at large. That is how nearly every study in humans is done.
- Comment on I may be wrong here. Isn't AI only as smart as the user putting in the information or commands? What's the big deal? 3 weeks ago:
Well we are talking about AI users so those are the people we were talking about. But there is no reason to assume the non-AI users are very different
- Comment on What's the difference between ignorance and stupidity? 3 weeks ago:
I feel most of the comments split these two apart too. I mean yes, in the most basic form ignoro means to not know. Which seems innocuous enough in its elf, but a lot of ignorant people will often not admit (be it to themselves or others) that they’re ignorant. And I don’t know whether that’s stubbornness, stupidity, pride or whatever.
Now we’re seeing more and more people who feel cool and tough about themselves because of their ignorance.
People, like AI , can state bullshit with such conviction it may even fool other ignorant and stupid people. Meanwhile people actually might have a good idea or something to say get laughed at. Providing back up for your statements with evidence Is useless in this post-truth
