• 0 Posts
  • 12 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 5th, 2024

help-circle

  • You clearly didn’t comprehend what I wrote. Educate yourself on this topic - not from forum arguments, but from TEA and policy papers.

    For one, I said ‘base load’ generation isn’t needed. Your thinking that is is means your thinking on the matter is 10 years out of date. If you insist base load is needed, then gas plants and carbon capture systems are far cheaper and faster to build.

    You don’t care, though, as you aren’t seriously involved in the policy and just want to live in a world where you are right 🤷.


  • Base load is an outdated concept. It is cheaper, by an order of magnitude, to install surplus generation capacity using renewables and build storage to cover periods of reduced production.

    Nuclear reactors actually make terrible ‘base load’ generation anyway, as large swings in output induce thermal cycling stress in their metal components AND the economics of these multi-billion dollar investments depend on running near max output at all times - otherwise the payback time from selling power will extend beyond the useful life of the plant.

    The policy wonks shilling for nuclear are not being honest. The economics for these plants are terrible, they are especially terrible if The Plan ™ is to use nuclear as a transition fuel to be replaced by renewables - as then they won’t even reach break even. To say nothing of the fact that a solar installation in the US takes 6 months, while there have been two reactors under construction in Georgia for a decade…

    50 years ago, nuclear was a great option. Today, it is too expensive, too slow to build, and simply unnecessary with existing storage technologies.

    If y’all were really worried about base load power, you’d be shilling for natural gas peaker plants + carbon capture which has much better economics.


  • skibidi@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneREMOVED
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    25 days ago

    2000 Bezos or about 4x the GDP of the planet.

    People just need to invest and stop blaming others for being broke SMH.

    Invest one penny at 3% per year, who can’t afford one penny? You’ll have $68 billion in just one thousand years. Poverty is a choice.



  • skibidi@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldThose poor plants
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    The ideal answer is compost, regenerative agriculture, and (better treated) human-sources waste.

    Organic crop yields will almost certainly reduce a bit without animal waste fertilizer, but that is fine since crop consumption will fall by a greater amount due to not needing to feed a bunch of extra animals.




  • There is always a tension between security, privacy, and convenience. With how the Internet works, there isn’t really a way - with current technology - of reliably catching content like that without violating everyone’s privacy.

    Of course, there is also a lack of trust here (and there should be given the leaks about mass surveillance) that the ‘stop child porn powers’ would only be used for that and not simply used for whatever the powers that be wish to do with them.


  • The world bank isn’t involved so much in printing money - that’s central banks like the US Federal Reserve or European Central Bank.

    They do love to force developing nations to adopt US-style capitalism by withholding loans for needed development projects. They also focus far too much on increasing GDP at all costs and do not give really any weight to increasing living standards or reducing inequality. Basically, think loans to institute Reaganomics and you won’t be too far off.

    The loans pay for large capital projects (power plants, large-scale irrigation, etc) that are built by the state and then mandated to he handed over to private entities that then charge rents and extract wealth. Not every loan and program is bad, but there’s plenty to give pause when they are involved in a project.



  • Cats convert CO to CO2, and NOx to N2 (mostly irrelevant for this conversation). In closed space, the exhaust is still deadly, but you are correct in that CO would cause quicker death than CO2 displacing the oxygen.

    Relatively low concentrations of CO will cause severe drops in red blood cell’s ability to transport oxygen, then follows unconsciousness and death. CO2 in contrast would require higher concentrations to be effective, as it would only reduce the efficiency of gas transfer in the lungs and lead to slow and painful decreasing blood pH - and a strong panic reflex and the ‘I can’t breathe’ feeling - until eventual unconsciousness and death.