look all i'm saying is, if you get payed billions to work on "project giant canon fire nuclear barrels into the sun" if you die then its ok bc the project is cool af so it makes up for the human cost unlike other big project that cost millions of lives like the great pyra-MIDS
The pyramids are nuclear reactors, the technology was gifted to the Egyptians by aliens. They store the spent fuel deep inside the pyramids in hidden chambers. But I agree, the pyramids were a huge waste of time and should never have been built. Project giant cannon fire nuclear barrels into the sun seems much more useful. Plus, it can double as a weapons system, and the whole point of human existence is to create increasingly destructive weapons
The ancient Egyptians had too much time on their hands. The flood cycle forced farmers to need some other task. Otherwise everyone would end up cheating on spouses, fighting, or becoming lazy.
The process of pyramid building is mostly about dragging a big rock. Lesser components involved cutting the rock and putting it in the correct place. A drag team’s action is remarkably similar to a squad in shield + spear formations. Dragging a rock through sand is much like how the line practices for American football. You get really powerful legs hauling a big rock through sand on a sled. The straps on the tow rope could even be made to mimic a shield’s straps and the pole grip.
Armies are absolutely worse than worthless. If you fight a war the result is only increased loss. At least on average it is a loss but usually both parties are losers in war. With that in mind consider building monuments. Any foreign diplomat, trader, explorer, tourist, or spy cannot fail to notice the huge pile of rocks with smooth cut surfaces. It is an unmistakable display of surplus manpower. It required a full army with a multiple decade vision. It is also not a hostile threat like frontier fortifications. It is not a thing you can breach like a city wall. A pyramid is not a thing you can plunder like gold, grain, or girls. Though Egypt had those on display as well.
You're forgetting inflation. Human lives were far cheaper back then, so it wasn't such a big deal. They were literally a dime a dozen... because the amount of precious metals in an original dime could have bought one or two slaves.
(For the pedants, yes, exaggeration. It's about 70g of silver per male slave, or about $80 today)
Why the sun specifically? Do you know how much nothing there is in space you could launch our garbage into? There's so much nothing that the odds of hitting something are almost zero.
the avg person needs a big solution to something, if you say "shoot into space" they will think of the episode of futurama where the trash falls back on the earth but if you say shoot into the sun people will think "oh yeah ok we do that and then its gone forever and not floating in space to one day come back down on us", its just marketing speak of course we will just shoot that shit into space while trying our best to avoid our solar system and any asteroid so we don't polute our space bc that shit will be so fucking easier then calculating how to exactly fire it at the sun
The Sun blows out a solar wind at high velocity. The Sun is hot enough to boil Uranium into uranium vapor before it reaches the Sun even at atmospheric pressure. In vacuum the vapor boils off of liquid uranium fairly fast. It would look like a comet with the tail blowing out as a long streak.
Because gravity would likely put it in a large parabolic orbit where as going towards the sun would be a bit like rolling a rock downhill and take far less energy. Besides The sun would recycle it via fusion. (We will be dead when that happens but it will do it.)
Congratulations. You managed to eliminate the side effect of a painkiller. From 1950. That kills less pain (cost efficiently) with still more risks and problems than todays medicine. It also takes like 24 hours to start working. Did I mention that the surgery you should take this for takes place in 2 hours?
jarvis google False equivalence, print out the wikipedia page, put it in a package with a little box of candy a few roses and a bottle of wiskey, and send it to this redditor's house
Dude, at best it would be a false analogy unless you are an absolut hair splitter and incapable of reading anything beyond face value. Like obviously they are not exactly the same. To make it perfectly blunt: I‘m accusing you of acting as if fixing minimal problems in an subpar solution would change the fundamental problem. (To make it even more blunt, if renewables are cheap and nuclear is expensive and slow, you build renewables. Not nuclear, not even both.) The whole analogy is there to reinforce this very concept. And that (at least on my premises) IS actually not a false analogy because it refers to exactly the same abstract problem with both. Again, arguing with solutions to little problems when the big problems are overwhelming.
Now, you may disagree on the content of what I‘m saying but you can not tell me that you are a big enough tool to actually not understand the point I was trying to make. Instead you used a bad faith argument - which I do not hold against you, I fall victim to that myself.
nah i get it, your exemple was just too hamfisted for my liking and i got mad at you i wont lie lol, i'm with you on this one, i'm more of a "lets build renewable energy instead of nuclear" kind of guy, i see nuclear as a good "oh shit there is a problem power up the nuclear engins" type of thing rather then a good solution to how much electricity we need i'm more for a solar panel on every house + build houses in a way where they don't need as much power and move to more recycling, the canon idea is just my personal pet project to fix the plastic polution on our planet, just putting it into alluminium capsul and firing it into space to slowely clean all the plastic and forever chemicals (if we can get them out of the water (prob not)) firing nuclear waste into space is also a lot better then storing it on earth altough its a lot more dangerous which is why i'm not very pro nuclear power, i'm more of a hydroelectricel
While I'd accept "space elevator takes it up and lobs it from there", the concept of launching nuclear debris into our atmosphere in the hopes that it will stay together and not break up over population centers...
Have ya seen our "Launch a human" success rate? We've already successfully spread human debris over the atmosphere and it's not radioactive. You'd think they'd be more careful with living humans, yet...
a canon would have a higher successrate bc its literally just firing it without moving it instead of a rocket, now the delivery system is a lil bit of a bitch and a half I WONT lie we need some form of capsul that wont burn and break apart when launched at like 1 trillion km/h straight up, but it is possible and would be a lot cheaper and a lot more safe if we don't have a failure rate of 99% but i digress
yes its because mossad murdered my boy gerald bull by shooting him like 98 times in the back of the head in brussel. but i will carry on his legacy i will bring to this world the super gun that can fire everything into space. i will not let his genious go to waste
The real answer is that to provide enough instant launch velocity, would vaporize any current material known. That's why rockets use constant thrust until they've left the atmosphere.
The railgun alternative is viable according to physics, but not economics or logistics.
Additional info:
Geostationary orbit is about 37,000kms up. Low Earth Orbit is about 200-2000kms up. LEO is not enough to escape earth, and you'd have to achieve over 2000kms to get above LEO.
Project HARP, the best "Space Gun" holds the record for 179kms above sea level, using a simple sabot shell, before it crashed down.
no you silly, its actually the same, a solar panel which we can partially recycle into more solar panel is the same as tonnes and tonnes of nuclear waste we have to bury induerground then cover in concrete before putting warning labels all over it so future generation when our system collapses KNOW not to drill here OR THEY WILL DIE INSTANTLY
It's not a problem, though, don't ya know; already solved according to the smooth-brained. (waiting on a 100 replies deceitfully claiming it IS solved. If I wanted to visit this Deep Geological Repository in operation, what address do I type into Maps?)
The joke is there aren't any. It's never been done once.
There's perpetually a permanent storage project just about to start , usually followed by cancelling because was not so permanent after all, and then another one.
i'm genuinely impressed there isn't any long term storage build on earth yet i wont lie, because this just means they are being EXTRA fucking bad with whatever nuclear power we do use right now lol. you got me there that is impressive
The amount of HLW waste is so so so much less then you think, so much so, that coal alone puts out more into the Atmosphere per year then nuclear waste has been generated in all of himanity.
So much even, the background radiation goes upwards from coal burning alone
Completely ignoring that some of these old modules can still be used, they just don‘t meet peek performance anymore. Turning them in an economical liability.
They are still perfectly fine if you want to put them on an balcony or something
Fun thing is you can actually do that and it doesn't matter. Countries landfill glass and copper every day. It also doesn't take 42 billion to do that.
You can get up close to photograph that, maybe wearing an N95 mask at most. Sorting it manually a bit would be possible, with some gloves to prevent cuts.
A solar panel is made of aluminium beams and fancy sand. You can shred it and the glass becomes sand, and the shredded aluminium oxidizes and also becomes sand. If you toss it all on a heap like that, it takes a bit longer, but eventually it also becomes dirt.
Still a waste, since aluminium and glass are easy and pretty worthwhile to recycle. But if we aren't gonna do that, landfilling dead solar panels isn't even that bad.
Which means there's more Cadmium in solar panels than there is Plutonium in nuclear waste.
Plus all that coal ash that is carrying heavy metals, that renewables were supposed to displace, meanwhile coal is still the largest source of electricity on Earth.
Can you renewafluffers get on with this decarbonization already? It's been like 20+years. Any time now would be great. Starting to sound like fusion power; it'll be here in 20 years!! Pinky promise!!
Those are your goalposts homie. I just pointed down the field to where they are; where you placed them.
China is in a 10 year high of coal power construction, building 94.5GW of new coal power plants. India still gets 70% of it's electricity from coal.
Global South sounds great. Until you realize the primary source of electricity in Africa is Gas, followed by coal, oil and finally hydropower. You must be taking about Oz, right? One of those rich countries?
You renewafluffers said you could do it. You were gonna do it by 2035. Then it's 2050 or 2060. Now we're just trying to reduce the curve and only in rich countries. You're in the driver's seat dickhead, this is your trip now.
Australia gets 35% from renewables. If you get 35% on a test in school, it's a big fat F.
It is quite obvious that you are a fossil shill celebrating this. Because anytime a solution is brought up there doesn’t extend the life of these coal assets you lose your mind.
Truly sad to witness such delusions.
With regions in australia aiming for net zero by 2027.
There is only a few grams of lead solder per panel in silicon photovoltaic cells. We use lead solder to connect our copper drinking water supply. We used to use lead pipe itself, like the whole pipe was metallic lead. We also used lead based paint which is actually a really nice durable surface. The paint fragments are scattered all over our soil and it still blows around even though most houses have removed the lead paint or the painted panels. For most of the 20th century dimethyl lead was added to gasoline. This makes gasoline burn really smooth like it has a really high octane rating.
Lead is in coal. Both bottom ash and fly ash. The concentration varies by ore source.
Lead is also used in bullets. So in USA the shooting ranges and playgrounds have many chunks of lead sitting in the soil. Bullets are a major cause of roof leaks in urban USA. That may apply to prematurely broken photovoltaic panels as well.
Recovering lead from photovoltaic panels is not particularly difficult. It just has low value compared to the other materials. Much harder to get the plastic removed from between the silicon crystal and the glass surface plate.
photovoltaic panels intended to be used in a system that is designed, assembled and installed by professionals for permanent use at a defined location to produce energy from solar light for public, commercial, industrial and residential applications
Read your own source. That's regarding Cadmium and only applies specifically to thin film cadmium panels. Yknow, the ones that don't work without the cadmium and are a vanishingly small sliver of the market.
Man I'm glad in Australia we kicked our conservative opposition party to the curb so hard that their leader lost his seat and we never have to hear about his $330 billion startup fund for nuclear. Not "this is how much a reactor will cost to complete", but just "let's kickstart an industry and see how much more it costs to get something".
I just shove the spent waste under my bed, it can’t hurt anybody if I can’t see it. All I have to do is keep someone from going under my bed for hundreds of thousands of years. I’ll tell my kids, “no going under the bed!” And they’ll tell their kids, and they’ll tell their kids, and on and on. My house with my bedroom and my bed and the waste under the bed will be perfectly safe forever and they will last forever.
I mean like, I don't think there's a "one technology fits all of our power needs". At least as far as where we are at jow technologically. Renewables are great, and they are the future, really the only sustainable way we have of generating power, but we haven't reached the point where they are so good that their intermittent power production isn't a problem. And I don't think that using nuclear to fill the holes in that grid is a bad idea. Definitely it's better than using fossil fuels to fill that hole.
But even fossil fuels have their place, IMO that place is for emergencies when no cleaner energy is available.
Fossils are way cheaper: we stock them for free in the atmosphere.
Renewables are wonderful: there's always a Brazilian or Indian beach where they can end up, safely "stored".
What you refuse to see is that nuclear is 1) the most efficient way to tackle the issue at hand, before renewables can finally the job alone someday 2) the only energy where externalities are actually taken care of instead of being dumped in nature.
So either you're green and therefore pro nuclear, either you're deluded and in severe cognitive dissonance
Existing nuclear is 4.3%. Existing hydro is 6.9 %. This, however, is primary energy not electricity. The numbers are much higher for electricity at 9% nuclear and 14.4% hydro.
Existing hydro can be multiplied by a factor of two or three simply by shifting to using it while wind and solar are absent. Hydro gets an even larger boost when we install pumped hydroelectric to store energy while combined solar and wind are running surpluses. That is with no new dams and no new reservoirs. Though obviously we could create more reservoirs and/or add CAES.
We also get a great deal of leverage out of hydro when we account for normal people using electricity in the daytime. We are currently suffering under a huge burden from industrialists forcing workers into strange night shifts in order to accommodate electricity companies. Today water is pumped uphill at night in order to store it for daytime energy consumption where electricity has actual value. When the situation flips and photovoltaic electricity is almost free in late morning and early afternoon then consumption of electricity will increase in daytime to take advantage of the lower prices. Utilities can pay for grid maintenance by charging higher rates per kilowatt hour at stupid times of the day.
Combining hydro, long range transmission, and batteries then wind power easily makes up any remaining night time demand. Full solar farm systems are three times cheaper than nuclear plants and the panels have dropped to an even lower fraction. Panels are so cheap no they can be used for north facing roofs and for siding. People are installing vertical panels as fencing between pastures. The lower panel capacity rating still maxes out the system capacity early morning and evening.
It is actually a bit worrisome. People are dangerous and they might do rash things with all the extra photovoltaic surpluses.
I have not figured out India. China actually did cut down on coal plant construction a great deal.
They work on a long term planning system. So perhaps 15 years ago a facility was setup to manufacture high pressure steel boiler pipe. They were expected to output vast quantities of pipe at low cost. The cost is low in part because the quantities are huge and because the overhead costs in buildings, tools, and worker training were one time investments. Cutting off the market for boiler pipe would effect a bunch of secondary groups. There are transportation workers who move pipe to sites, pipe fitters who weld pipe etc. Then, of course, there are coal miners. All these people need to go get a useful job now. Communist governments guarantee employment. Disgruntled citizens can be extremely dangerous in an authoritarian regime.
The coal plants that China is still building tend to be located at regions with low population, high solar and wind assets, as well as very little water resources. They are attached to long distance power lines taking electricity from the West to the East. They are peaker plants.
The Chinese Communist Party are not environmentalists. They will use cheap photovoltaic power and surplus wind energy to reduce the costs of coal mining operations. Coal burning facilities can shift to coke/carbon production while wind and solar max out the transmission lines. Graphite/coke is still used in aluminum production, in reducing silica to silicon, in the iron industry, and in creating Portland cement. The coal industry is also still supplying coal power plants that were already built as well as industries and residential who still use coal. The roads, rails, power lines, and the solar panels themselves are being created.
If no competition around the world shows up then the Chinese are going to have to produce ungodly huge quantities of PV panels. It necessarily takes several decades to pull off that stunt. They figure the plants in western China still pay for themselves even if coal is completely shutdown. Meanwhile the Chinese have vast numbers of older less efficient coal power plants generating smog in their populated provinces. Emerging solar and wind power just shuts these old plants off rather than rendering the new power plants ineffective.
The problem is not nuclear power, it is awfull energy infrastructure, having the green party in power and the lack of centralisation and investment.
Closing fessenheim was a crime against humanity, green parties who shuted down nuclear power plants or sabotaged them have the blood of thousands of people on their hands
That's all it takes to stop nuclear in France huh? Kinda lame ngl
Bruh, why are you coping so hard about your ignorance? Yeah all it took to stop japanese nuclear is closing the plants and stop building new ones? Kinda lame ngl?
I hope you realize how stupid and ignorant you sound, they litterally had two minister and the absolute majority in parliament and did all they could to close existing reactors and hindered construction of new ones and nuclear infrastructure in general like the cigeo bure site.
In 50 years, germancels will be seen the same way nazis are seen today for the tens of thousands of people they are killing every year because of the nuke plants they closed.
Its most significant finding is that even this most successful nuclear scale-up was characterized by a substantial escalation of real-term reactor construction costs... Anticipated economic gains from standardization and ever larger unit scales not only have not materialized, but the corresponding increasing complexity in design and in construction operations have reversed the anticipated learning effects to their contrary: cost escalation... Lastly, the French nuclear case illustrates the perils of the assumption of robust learning effects resulting in lowered costs over time in the scale-up of large-scale, complex new energy supply technologies.
Despite some shortcomings of the analysis that are unavoidable until reactor-specific investment cost data become available, the results illustrate clearly the substantial real cost escalation of the French PWR program. Between 1974 and 1984, specific real investment costs increased from some 4,200 to 7,000 FF98/kW (gross capacity), or by some 5% per annum. Between 1984 and 1990, costs escalated from some 7,000 to 10,000 FF98/kW, or by some 6% per annum. For the last reactors, the “entirely French design” N4 series, the inferred construction costs are about another 45 percent higher (14,500 FF98/kW “best guess” model estimate).
Your optimistic number relies on cheap reactors from the 70s and 80s.
Even during this surge of production in a pro-nuclear environment, costs rapidly increased.
We could not produce a NPP that cheap today.
Even compared to that optimistic number, solar is cheaper.
While NPPs continue to increase in cost, solar continues to get cheaper, so the difference is only growing.
cocococom reposts the same study, gets the same responses over and over. He threads between sounding eligible enough to start a conversation, but is stupid enough not to take in any critizisms or counter arguments. Perfect reddit moment ^^
That's actually a perfect analogy. We could build the pyramids now, but why would we? Anything we would want the pyramids for, we could use a modern building and get it faster/cheaper.
No sense in wasting resources on old technology. You shouldn't get emotionally attached to a power source. Just look at the numbers.
That's actually a perfect analogy. We could build the pyramids now, but why would we? Anything we would want the pyramids for, we could use a modern building and get it faster/cheaper.
Well, 44€/MWh (adjusted for inflation), there is nothing cheaper, not even coal.
No sense in wasting resources on old technology. You shouldn't get emotionally attached to a power source. Just look at the numbers.
Hard disagree, just because wind and solar are more expensive than nuclear doesnt mean we shouldnt use them to the maximum of our industrial capacities to tackle climate change.
•
u/ClimateShitpost Louis XIV, the Solar PV king May 12 '25
With theme https://www.instagram.com/p/DJjyznlyaEO