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/)E
Posts
0
Comments
58
Joined
7 mo. ago

  • False,

    Reactor production is throttled down to preserve the river environment, not because they cannot cool themselves. Only 18% reduction on the worst event.

    Dismissing the biggest low carbon energy producer because 1970 engineers did not account for the unknown temperature extremes 20 years after the predicted lifespan of the reactor is silly.

  • You say lot of things that are correct and some that are not:

    • nuclear is not good at following fast changes in demand (battery are the best technology for that) but are very good at following the grid load. Nuclear fleet in France can cycle down to 30% daily. And they do that when needed.
    • nuclear is safe in the same way that airplanes are safe: very few incidents with lot of consequences, but still very few incidents. Nuclear is one of the safest form of energy, and new design are even safer then the already safe old designs that are currently running. Given the current alternative to nuclear with similar characteristics (dispatchable steam turbine with cheap fuel) is coal, which is responsible for millions of dead, we need to keep nuclear efficient and competitive to save lives.
    • renewables, batteries and nuclear are complementary technologies that works well together. In places with lot of wind and hydropower the need for nuclear is vastly reduced. Not all places can enjoy the same conditions, and nuclear saves lives
    • the reason why we do not put the necessary effort in finding a solution for nuclear waste is that nuclear waste is very little, so, as all human do, we procrastinate as this is not really a problem.

    We need to invest in renewable technologies, batteries technology, and nuclear technology. We want all of them to succeed in decarbonizing the grid, as those technologies insists on different industrial bottlenecks on their deployment. China knows this, and is building nuclear reactors at rate never seen before, while doing the same for solar, wind and batteries. Renewable will be the bulk of energy production because they are cheap. Nuclear role is not the same as renewable. Nuclear is to provide dependable baseload when wind and solar do not produce enough. Nuclear, renewable and batteries together are cheaper and faster to deploy then any other combination, so it is good to continue investing in all of them.

  • Nuclear is certainly ready for climate change ahead. Nuclear is one of the tool to use to solve climate change. There is no doubt from the technical prospective. 1970 nuclear is still a tool, given they continue to extend the usable lifespan of the plan. This is not a technology problem: Palo Verde nuclear power plant works in the desert, by evaporating sewage water. This is not a problem at all for power plants near the sea.

    I will be explicit: we should use nuclear to fight climate change, we should not destroy local environment to cheap out on building more carbon free power generation.

    Nuclear produce tons on stable carbon free electricity. This stabilize electrical grid. Without it, we have to use something else to compensate renewable instability. Hydropower (if you are lucky), batteries (still expensive but becoming more and more viable) or fossil fuel plants.

  • We are talking 1970. Scientists lacked the numerical models and the computing capacity to make these predictions. To accuse civilian engineers to not take into consideration recent hot topics of environmental science that lacked, at the time, rigorous models is disingenuous.

    The design lifespan for those reactors was 40 years. We are extending those past lifetime because it is cheaper to do even if we need to shut them down more and more often.

    The infrastructure have not adapted because it is cheaper to build a new power plant or to shutdown existing one occasionally then to adapt old existing design.

    I do not understand what is your point here.

  • Of that I agree. This is also a problem on western platforms like X for sure.

  • What is bias in that sentence?

    TikTok is Chinese -> true China is under an authoritarian regime-> true Freedom of expression is constitutionally guaranteed in Poland -> true

    Is the bias in the implication that authoritarian regimes may exploit freedom of expression to promote propaganda? I think is safe to assume this is also true. Not exclusive to authoritarian regimes, but true nonetheless for authoritarian regimes.

  • It is not twisting it. It is exactly like that. The problem is not the water level. The nuclear power plant can work in these condition. The hot water discharge would raise the temperature too much on top of existing higher temperatures in the river for the flora and fauna to survive. We are doing this to protect nature. There is no twisting here.

  • Uuuuh, dozens?! I am so scared by this blatant misuse of the New York City Hall employees! They should buy bots from Chinese bot farms like everyone else!

    But more importantly, why does World Zionist has access to the IPs of X users and the IPs of New York City Hall?

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • And now is going back up. The lowest price was around 2014-2018. Now, 12 years later, HHD with the same size cost double the price of 2014.

  • No you don’t. This is how dictators are made. You fix it one piece at a time. Starting from erasing Super PACs from existence

  • The fact you think high tech silicon manufacturing, so complex to do that only few companies around the world can do it, is a high slave labor sector tell you everything you need to know about your thinking process.

  • Your definition of “scam” is not what other human being use. Causes unnecessary back and forth.

  • Green hydrogen is water electrolysis with solar power, not scam, it works, it is just a question of making it economically viable. Hyperloop is just stupid, but within the realm of possible. Cold fusion is the only scam here.

  • Cold fusion is a scam, not a bad idea. There is no scientific basis for that. Is as bad as “infinite energy engine”.

  • Ok, I am the hacker from France that compromise the golf in Florida. Now what? Do I start the engine to pre-condition the car from across the ocean? You know you cannot even drive with the app, just start the engine… There is no reason at all for going all the way and doing this. None.

  • So you have hackers mass compromising rooted android os around the world hoping for an overlap with Volkswagen users with the app, so that they can hack the app to unlock a car hopefully located near them instead of just opening the first car you find with a suction cup on the glass.

    Ok, got it

  • So? What is the problem? It is not unsafe to start a car. Could you blame VW if the car started because of unsafe software on your phone? Is there really a risk of malicious actors targeting car apps to start random cars?

  • Why does my car needs to verify the integrity of my phone OS? Why does my car cares? It is not like my car is using my phone to make money transfer between banks or managing third party medical information no? Why do you need a safe OS to start the AC on my car?

  • I know what I am talking about, but I cannot dissect the entire document in a comment. And even so it is worthless as it is not a technical document but something completely vague. Most of the stuff there is industry standard elevated (code signing, secure boot, memory safe languages, pointer authentication, encryption, stateless processing).

    The document totally ignore the elephant in the room: the trust root is circular -> iphone verify attestation correctly. So Apple controls client, keys, logs and servers. This is only as safe as much as I trust Apple. Transparency log is run by Apple only, and nothing guarantee that my device log will be the same as the researchers (and with 90 days delay).

    They actually admit to unmitigated memory remanence issues with the all "the address spaces are periodically recycled to limit the impact of any data that may have been unexpectedly retained in memory"

    How does Apple does moderation if the claim of stateless processing is true?

    There is more stuff for sure, but I got bored very fast looking at that document.