frankie95 boosted
frankie95 boosted

@makhno Vero, è una quantità finita, ma si esaurirà in un intervallo di tempo talmente lungo (considerando che già oggi è possibile estrarlo dall'acqua di mare e che i FBR riescono a utilizzare il 100% del combustibile) che non ha senso preoccuparcene.

frankie95 boosted
>muh nuclear waste
literally just bury it and shut up
Show thread
frankie95 boosted
extremely efficient, safe and cheap energy
nuclear fission is great i want to see it used more
frankie95 boosted
frankie95 boosted

the choice it's only between and extinction because it's the only type of clean energy capable of sustaining a civilization .It's not about , it's about

frankie95 boosted
frankie95 boosted

Ho appena finito di leggere "Menti parallele" di Laura Tripaldi, una delle cose più interessanti degli ultimi anni, un ragionamento complesso e articolato su ibridazioni possibili (natura-tecnologia, umano-inumano, uomo-macchina, organico-inorganico...). Dalla scienza dei materiali alla filosofia, dalla cibernetica all'epistemologia alla mitologia. Pieno di spunti e di intra-azioni illuminanti, che di sicuro ispireranno alcuni passaggi di un intervento che dovrò fare sulle Digital Humanities (su cui mi sono da poco affacciato). Se non mi si fonde il cervello ne scrivo presto.

Loyalty to your boss | How companies quell worker alienation through corporate propaganda. invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=

frankie95 boosted

@silmathoron ''And extinction would come from failure to tackle climate change by doing things stupidly, based on ideology, like Germany did.' yes by closing or by not investing in nuclear ,as i said :'' 15 years more spent on trying to de-carbonize only the electricity grid without nuclear could be too much for the planet and could lead us to extinction'' so we should quickly start building more nuclear to de-carbonize all the electricity production and other sectors.

'', closing in the right order for the environment being coal, fuel, gas, then nuclear for those who want.''
yes , if nuclear fission ever become useless ,by the development of cheap fusion

@silmathoron 15 years more spent on trying to de-carbonize only the electricity grid without nuclear could be too much for the planet and could lead us to extinction, while nuclear abundant energy could be use also for de-carbonize other sectors.
For example waste heat from nuclear power could be use for district heating or to produce hydrogen,furthermore countries with a significant amount of already installed low carbon renewables could use the excess electricity for carbon sequestration , trying to attenuate in part , not solve , the damage from climate change, and buying us more time 3/3

@silmathoron Even without spending money on new nuclear and only on renewable without closing any nuclear power station, they would have less air pollution, and consequently less people killed by air pollution and a more de-carbonized electric grid.Germany it's a specific case ,i know, but it's a nation that said '' we don't need nuclear'' and ended up spending billions try to implement a 100% renewable grid, not so successfully.

As i said if in 2011 they started building nuclear reactors they would have de-carbonized their electricity grid by 2023 , Germany said that they will exit coal in 2038, even if this will happen there's a difference of years , billions of euros, time and resources between using nuclear energy and try to achieve a decarbonized grid without it 2/?

''Furthermore, not reducing our consumption and using nuclear (meaning now fission) for everyone would get us what? A century from now?''

there's a lot more nuclear fuel ,considering thorium , spent nuclear fuel, and seawater uranium, there are also breeder reactor that can create more fuel

''And there's no telling when/if fission will ever stop being "less than 50 years away".''

Maybe you meant fusion? but i would not wait for fusion to become a reality

'' Why not, but first let's lower our power consumption"'

you need 5 years to build a nuclear reactors but you can start immediately to reduce consumption,so i completely agree and i think we should do both

@silmathoron ''I know there is a lot of research to make high power industry "intermittent"' i really don't know if it's possible or efficient ,but it's not only intermittency , it's also the unpredictable nature of this intermittency , you can't plan your production if you rely only or mainly on renewables and in case there's an emergency you have energy to rely on
''what makes you say that without nuclear we face extinction?'' because Germany tried to implement a nuclear phase-out in 2011 and started to re-open lignite and coal power station, it invested billions of euros with little results ,if they used part of that money in nuclear reactors they would have a 100% carbon free electricity by 2023 (worst case) ,and they could use part of the money not spent on renewable on electrifying other sectors.
1/?

@silmathoron

''However, how do we know that, reducing our energy and material requirements, we could not reach a nice modern society that could be powered by a limited amount of renewables?''

Well because even in that case,and with the goal to reduce consumption of resources, nuclear is a good choice ,see nuclear need less materials than wind or solar .Also a modern civilization that need like a third of our energy requirement would still need it on a 24/7 base , that only nuclear , hydro or geothermal can provide,and nuclear it's not heavily constrained by geographical location like hydro and geothermal

@silmathoron ''But then why on Earth would you not want to rely on solar and wind as much as you can?'' ok so let me clarify a thing when i said
''the choice it's only between nuclear and extinction''

it's because without nuclear there's only extinction ,not that we should use ONLY nuclear to avoid extinction .I base my believe on empirical evidence like germany ,france and california.
In some cases nation that cannot afford the initial cost of nuclear, or cannot build it for other reason , should start using renewable energy,sure, but renewable sources are inefficient and consume a lot of resources so their use should be limited where it's necessary and convenient ,and always be accompanied by a base of nuclear energy or hydroelectricity when it's possible

Show older
Mastodon Bida.im

Un'istanza mastodon antifascista prevalentemente italofona con base a Bologna - Manifesto - Cosa non si può fare qui

An antifa mostly-italian speaking mastodon istance based in Bologna - About us - What you can't do here

Tech stuff provided by Collettivo Bida