|
The department recorded many talks, but they never put them up for public viewing to my knowledge.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
How about, um, solar toads? Like cute little froggers cybernetically enhanced with solar panels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
Ok, just think about this for a minute... What if we make plants that run on sunlight? FuuuuuuUUUUuuuuuck......!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
Internetjack posted:Ok, just think about this for a minute... Burns down entire amazon rainforest for usurping my power
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
We need to figure out how to terraform Earth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
I really want to have photosynthesis genes CRISPRed into me
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
Charles posted:I really want to have photosynthesis genes CRISPRed into me So basically an orc
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
Delvians from Farscape.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
I'm sparkin up fatties of chronic rolling down my solar road, smooth as silk on mageticnick sproinker things : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT9bY7pCBNg
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 05:58
|
|
|
I was trying to think if there are any places that would be worse to put solar panels than on roads. So far all I have is: -In the ocean -in volcanoes I was thinking of train tracks but you could put them between the rails and that would probably be better
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
I say we clear out all of the undesirables and use that space to farm solar. Less riff raff, more electricity. Win-win-win. 3rd win is for me because I thought of this idea and that means I win
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 01:50
|
|
|
I don't buy the argument about solar being useless because its output is unreliable and you have to fall back to some other energy source sometimes. Yeah, that means a 100% solar solution isn't feasible, at least without some way better storage solution. But having some of your load generated by solar is still cleaner than no solar at all, and it's already cheaper than nuclear. And it's not like we can't predict demand or when and where clouds are going to appear and have the backup plants ready to engage in an efficient manner. Also, there's no way you're going to convince me that manufacturing a panel is dirtier than mining and burning the equivalent amount of coal/gas to produce the energy that the panel will produce in its multi-decade service life. If you live somewhere sunny and there's large amount of vacant, cheap land and your grid isn't already mostly clean, then the only reason not to build solar is if you can build wind or nuclear cheaper. Just don't build it under your cars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:I was trying to think if there are any places that would be worse to put solar panels than on roads. So far all I have is: Use them as the foundation for new buildings
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
Bad Purchase posted:I don't buy the argument about solar being useless because its output is unreliable and you have to fall back to some other energy source sometimes. Yeah, that means a 100% solar solution isn't feasible, at least without some way better storage solution. But having some of your load generated by solar is still cleaner than no solar at all, and it's already cheaper than nuclear. And it's not like we can't predict demand or when and where clouds are going to appear and have the backup plants ready to engage in an efficient manner. Also, there's no way you're going to convince me that manufacturing a panel is dirtier than mining and burning the equivalent amount of coal/gas to produce the energy that the panel will produce in its multi-decade service life.  looking strictly at the $$$ is an insufficient census of the facts about power sources. Ahem,  Also the storage problem is huge, and incredibly costly. Fossils < Solar < Nuke
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 03:18
|
|
|
Cost and regulatory considerations are absolutely a factor, but I agree that cleanliness is also important. It would be helpful if coal and gas were on those charts. If solar is only marginally cleaner than those, then yeah, maybe it is a waste of time to pursue. But if it's a case where solar is 80% cleaner and nuclear is 90% cleaner, then I don't really care. Just build whatever you can build fast and cheap before this figurative hell earth becomes a literal hell earth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 03:24
|
|
|
I got bad news about hell earth and its hereness. But here's a chart with everything I'm not outright against solar, if it is a sunny place build it. Just don't wait to build the nukes everywhere else because they take longer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 03:27
|
|
|
The answer is carbon tax. Finding a source of energy is fun but it won’t really happen until there’s a meaningful price on carbon
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 03:31
|
|
|
I found a good place where they can put solar panels https://medium.com/social-innovation-japan/fukushimas-nuclear-exclusion-zone-7-years-on-5b1998a1d560
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 03:33
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:I found a good place where they can put solar panels  u dumb  
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 03:36
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:I got bad news about hell earth and its hereness. But here's a chart with everything Just nimby I think most itt are in agreement a blend is necessary though
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
Yeah, I agree that nukes are great and we should build more of them too. I do have one nagging reservation, which is that humans operate them, and humans are notoriously bad at not cutting corners to save money, which is kind of a problem when one little oopsie can mean poisoning a huge chunk of land for hundreds of years. Part of that could be solved with safer reactor designs, but you also have to transport waste at some point. Other than the Russians, the world has done an OK job of preventing disasters so far, but the stakes are pretty high. Also, yes, make producers of pollution pay the cost of cleaning that pollution up front, and all those really motivated business types will quickly find a way to pollute less (or more likely, game whatever regulatory scheme you come up with  ).
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
Bad Purchase posted:Yeah, I agree that nukes are great and we should build more of them too. I do have one nagging reservation, which is that humans operate them, and humans are notoriously bad at not cutting corners to save money, which is kind of a problem when one little oopsie can mean poisoning a huge chunk of land for hundreds of years. Part of that could be solved with safer reactor designs, but you also have to transport waste at some point. Other than the Russians, the world has done an OK job of preventing disasters so far, but the stakes are pretty high. Waste isn't the problem you've been taught, and new reactor designs are inherently safe in the way old ones were not. Without getting down into the weeds, the difference is akin to cars before and after seatbelts and safety glass. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI_3gARwn3Y Pandora's Promise is definitely a worthwhile watch in its entirety.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 03:43
|
|
|
A finely tuned coal burning plant has a higher death count than a poorly run nuclear plant, it's just not such a spectacle when coal byproducts kill thousands of people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 03:46
|
|
|
I don't know too much about reactors. Are there any unmeltdownable reactors that have already been built and are producing power today?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
Bad Purchase posted:I don't know too much about reactors. Are there any unmeltdownable reactors that have already been built and are producing power today? Yes! Sort of! The AP1000 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCorzfw5liQ e; also we built one of these then the dems killed it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp1Xja6HlIU
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 03:52
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:Waste isn't the problem you've been taught, and new reactor designs are inherently safe in the way old ones were not. Without getting down into the weeds, the difference is akin to cars before and after seatbelts and safety glass. That’s cool poo poo thx
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
Did we figure out what the nuclear explosion was a couple weeks ago that killed at least five Russians?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
Charles posted:Did we figure out what the nuclear explosion was a couple weeks ago that killed at least five Russians? Not great, not terrible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 05:22
|
|
|
We could have a Chernobyl level disaster every month, year and and out, and it wouldn't be as bad as the continued use of fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
Charles posted:Did we figure out what the nuclear explosion was a couple weeks ago that killed at least five Russians? The Russian military was apparently trying to recover a nuclear-powered cruise missile they crashed a while back in a failed test, and it blew up. "wait, nuclear powered missile?!" you say? Well it's a very simple process, you have a setup that forces air into a nuclear ramjet where it's superheated and expelled through a jet nozzle for propulsion. The radioactive exhaust is a feature, as the missiles would be programmed to fly over inhabited areas and farmland before striking their targets, spreading low-level fallout over the enemy's countryside. The US toyed around with the concept back in the late 50s under the name "Project Pluto" but ultimately canceled it for being "too provocative" and "insane." Russia is a decaying evil empire increasingly incapable of maintaining a competitive conventional military, so they've gone in on doomsday weapons like this and that cobalt torpedo intended to attack coastal cities. They can't easily threaten the rest of Europe with tanks any more, and conventional/nuclear green energy is lessening the effect of "we'll shut off the gas!" threats, so they're using nukes instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 08:59
|
|
|
Dunno if I'm getting owned by Russian propaganda but i find the drone torpedo and the Soviet pluto irl scary
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 09:33
|
|
|
I refuse to believe that American nuclear and rocket scientists in the 1950s thought anything was beyond the pale. We nuked the upper atmosphere just to see what would happen (it hosed up the magnetic band protecting us from cosmic death rays for a bit). Also, the Davy Crockett nuclear bazooka was pretty nuts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 13:25
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:Waste isn't the problem you've been taught, and new reactor designs are inherently safe in the way old ones were not. Without getting down into the weeds, the difference is akin to cars before and after seatbelts and safety glass. Also, potentially having marginal amounts of nuclear fallout are probably better than the prospect of worldwide extinction due to climate change. But that's just me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 14:16
|
|
|
We ought to install a wind power generator in every bathroom, water closet, and brick shithouse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 14:55
|
|
|
Irradiation posted:Solar Roadways sent their PR person to give a talk at the university I was a researcher at and they were woefully unprepared to present any of this to a bunch of material scientists. At one point the talk organizer had to butt in because it was just person after person telling her ten ways how stupid of an idea it was. Was their PR person at least an engineer? That must've been a bloodbath.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
The obvious solution is solar plants. That is, plants bio-engineered to generate solar electricity. Throw the seeds into a big fallow field covered with a conductive grid and voila! Even better, engineer them to also produce fruit that tastes like faux beef. You'd make a FORTUNE!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
Bad Purchase posted:I don't know too much about reactors. Are there any unmeltdownable reactors that have already been built and are producing power today? Candu. Nearly impossible to actually melt the fuel. Really we should be moving towards thorium and new reactor types. Pwrs are good but nuclear is kind of in an aviation industry situation where everything is evolutions of really old designs. It costs a hell of a lot to test out new designs, and old/evolution designs are expensive enough to build already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
ilmucche posted:Really we should be moving towards thorium and new reactor types. According to serious pragmatic people that know the industry that isn't doable because *mumbles indistinctly*
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
probably because you can’t sell the waste to the government as a component for high yield explosives, won’t somebody think of the national security??
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
Bad Purchase posted:probably because you can’t sell the waste to the government as a component for high yield explosives, won’t somebody think of the national security?? I;m thinking about thos grifts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 16:35
|
|