We’re just gonna set up a vat of molten metal and send it out Terminator 2 style. /s
We’re just gonna set up a vat of molten metal and send it out Terminator 2 style. /s
Yeah this ain’t relatable at all. The only time ever spent a night in a hotel with a family member was when my dad chaperoned a school trip.
How are there more bronze medals than silver, and more gold medals than silver?
Me who bought AMD cpu and gpu last year for my new rig cause fuck the massive mark up for marginal improvement on last gen stats.
Enormously long when compared to those tiny hands.
Not to defend him (can’t really stand his videos at all) but he’s not a journalist. He’s just a freelance spokesman for products that will sponsor him.
https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Land-use-of-energy-technologies_1350.png
I’m not against renewables but utilizing them as our main source of energy just is not practical for long term, there are serious ecological issues that have been sidelined because of global warming/climate change. Things like rooftop solar only become viable in low density housing, but low density housing is also not good use of land.
I don’t know to laugh or cry when I see peole quote the thousands of years waste storage of nuclear. That’s never been a thing, and never will be.
Land usage is what makes nuclear the most ecologically sound solution. Solar and wind play their part. But for every acre of land, nuclear tops the chart of power produced per year. And when you’re trying to sate the demand of high density housing and businesses in cities, energy density becomes important. Low carbon footprint is great for solar and wind but if you’re also displacing ecosytems that would otherwise be sucking up carbon, its not as environmentally friendly as we’d like.
If you calculate the cost of nuclear and include that you need to store the waste for thousands of years i
This hasn’t been true for decades.
High Level Nuclear waste, aka spent fuel, can be run through breeder reactors or other new gen types to drastically reduce their radioactive half-life to decades and theoretically years with designs proposed in the last few years. Only reason reactors don’t do this is lack of funding and demand for such things, the amount of high level waste produced is miniscule per year. And there are theories proposed already that could reduce ot further but nuclear phobia pushed by the oil lobby prevents proper funding and RnD to properly push those advancements to production.
Not stupid as you think if its being used as a tunnel for overseas stations to have a clear route to send encrypted traffic.
Its also a training base so you goy that going, but that’s definitely not enough to compare to the ops dept.
I can only assume they are somehow expecting a cut or kickback from this, I can’t think of anything he’s done in the last 10 years that was actually good for the company. You have to live under a rock, or more accurately in an echo chamber, to believe someone like this is good for the profitability of a company, let alone deserves that many zeros.
Dyson swarm goes brrrt.
I know it’s not killing the sun, but we’d be hogging up all that sunlight from other planets in the solar system.
When costs are level per kilowatt over lifetime Nuclear is cheaper thanks to economies of scale, it’s only more expensive when plants are restricted by local authorities in how much they can produce in a given cycle so that other power generators in the energy sector can fill their contracts. When these artificial caps are removed and the plant is allowed to operate as intended and no kneecapped to allow coal and oil plants to operate at their peak effeciency rates, nuclear drops below .10USD. And thats using outdated equipment and maintaining the absurdly high safety standards saddled upon them despite being the safest form of power production bar none.
Theoretically the main advantage of the thorium is precisely because its safer and cleaner. When removed from its neutron source thorium quickly ceases fission and decay.
From where I stand you couldn’t be further from the reality of the situation.
Nuclear has a number of advantages from low carbon output per kilowatt over lifetime as well as being extremely cheap per kilowatt.
But the real advantage being overlooked is the small foot print and land use compared to other forms power generation. A nuclear reactor is ideal for high density population areas, adding no pollution like fossil fuels and using a fraction of the land that renewables require. And there is room for overlap between renewables and nuclear as well, meaning days where wind or solar would produce more power than usual, its easy to scale back solar production to take advantage of cheaper power, and vice versa for times when renewables aren’t going to generate enough to meet demand nuclear can increase their output relatively quickly and effectively.
The future of nuclear is however one of the most important. We are eventually going to be spending humans to other planets, and having mature, efficient and compact forms of power generation with long lifetimes and minimal start up power from idle states is going to be important, solar gets less effective the further from the sun we get, you can’t stick a wind turbine on a space craft and expect good results, and you’re out of your mind if you want to burn fossil fuels in an oxygen limited environment.
Treating nuclear as more than a curiosity but rather as the genuine lifeline and corner stone of our futures and future generations is significantly more important than fossil fuel profits today and all their propaganda.
We just call them Karens these days
Wind Turbine’s problems is we have to replace the blades every 3-7 years depending on the model and there is no good way to recycle or break down the fiberglasse components. So every every 3-7 years you have 3 XL tractor truck trailer size turbine blades going into landfills.
Wind and Solar are still good, don’t get me wrong, but lets not pretend they have no downsides or drawbacks.