gregbot

22 ms·

1.
by gregbot 4mo ago
>a small village less than three miles from the Israeli border which had turned into a battlefield during Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah in 2024. Classic New York Times style writing. This sentence should say “Israel attacked this v
2.
by gregbot 6mo ago
This made me absolutely livid: > We requested a security incident report from the ethical hackers as proof So instead of paying him a fair bug bounty, they demand that he write a formal report for them and prove to them that there is eve
3.
by gregbot 8mo ago
So do you oppose DACA? That was the executive deliberately refusing to enforce the law as passed by congress. Edit: Here’s what a federal judge had to say in 2023: "The solution for these deficiencies lies with the legislature, not the
4.
by gregbot 8mo ago
This website lists the ADL as “highly credible”. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/anti-defamation-league/
5.
by gregbot 8mo ago
could you explain what moral value you are referring to?
6.
America's $3T Nuclear Bet (HALEU) [video](youtube.com)
14 points by gregbot 8mo ago|1 comments
7.
by gregbot 8mo ago
Its remarkable to see the propaganda shift from “these are unarmed protestors not terrorists with guns” to “they are terrorists and they should have had more guns”. I’m just glad President Trump didn’t start Iraq War 2.0 with this unrest as
8.
by gregbot 8mo ago
> Investing into renewables brought prices down by creating an economy in scale, which for nuclear never has worked Never worked? How do you explain all the countries in the world with large low carbon nuclear fleets and reasonable elect
9.
by gregbot 8mo ago
In 2023, coal-fired electric power plants accounted for 86% of West Virginia's total electricity net generation https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WV Looks like west virginia is still a state where hybrid-electric veh
10.
by gregbot 8mo ago
Arguably yes! But it avoids a lot of the safety and environmental hazards of traditional methods.
11.
by gregbot 8mo ago
US NREL Puts it at $2/W with no storage and ~20% capacity factor. Lifetime of latest panels is unknown but optimistically is 25 years. Assuming perfect and free storage that comes to $24.4 billion per year of capital expenditure for a
12.
by gregbot 8mo ago
Nonsense? Why was US nuclear built at all in the 60’s and 70’s? Or in France? Because it was cheaper? No. It was built because people thought it was a good idea. The same is true for intermittents today. They are popular with a section of t
13.
by gregbot 8mo ago
Great. So 538TWh per year is 61 GW so roughly 61 GW * $9.38 = $576 billion staggered over the 80 year life of nuclear plants is $7.2 billion per year of capital expenditure. For comparison, wind is about $5/W. Assuming a 35% capacity
14.
by gregbot 8mo ago
Ahh yes. France’s investment in replacing carbon free nuclear with… carbon free intermittents. Fortunately that hype-driven waste is not stopping France from building out new EPR2 reactors.
15.
by gregbot 8mo ago
No, what you are saying is a bunch of nonsense. If germany had simply kept its nuclear plants running and replaced its remaining coal with new nuclear back in 2000 instead of going with wind and solar it would have as low emissions as franc
16.
by gregbot 8mo ago
Well, the only real downside to this is that energy is a bit more expensive and emissions won’t go down significantly for an extra 15 years or so. Depending on your preferred social cost of carbon that could not matter to you.
17.
by gregbot 8mo ago
I highly doubt german reactors were designed to only last 35 years. Most gen II light water reactors in the US are expected to operate for 60-80 years. Edit: ah i reread and see what you meant but my point still stands that 45 years is abno
18.
by gregbot 8mo ago
>There's no market for them In an economic sense, when compared to burner reactors, this is correct. As the rise of wind and solar has shown however, political will and popularity matter more than pure economics. Burner reactors are
19.
by gregbot 8mo ago
I await your updated study to back up your claims
20.
by gregbot 8mo ago
Ah yes. “Old” plants. This plant is “old” so we could never build more like it. What an argument. And no, they would not be “considerably more expensive” because we wouldnt build a fleet of them until uranium was expensive enough that they
21.
by gregbot 8mo ago
Yes it is. Here is the study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03062...
22.
by gregbot 8mo ago
Could you post a link to those projected costs?
23.
by gregbot 8mo ago
Proven Uranium reserves with breeder reactors will last 10,000 years. With a modest increase in the price of Uranium, extraction from sea water becomes viable and unlocks tens of millions of years of supply. Some geologiats have argued tha
24.
by gregbot 8mo ago
Well if by close to nothing he means waste lasting 300 years instead of 10,000 years and by latest generation he means gen IV reactors like bn-800, superpheonix, oklo, moltex etc sure he is basically correct. Here’s a source where you can r
25.
by gregbot 8mo ago
1GW of nuclear is worth about 3 to 6GW of solar if you account for the weather and nighttime. If you also account for nuclear not needing fossil backup its worth even more
26.
by gregbot 8mo ago
France decarbonized way before the rest of Europe with nuclear and it wasn't expensive. 50 reactors for $200 billion. Gernamy has spent twice that on intermittents and still relies on coal
27.
by gregbot 8mo ago
Uranium actually does not require mining. Most uranium is extracted using underground wells where water is pumped underground and the Uranium is extracted from the water. Also extracting Uranium from sea water (which would be basically unli
28.
by gregbot 8mo ago
it depends where your electricity comes from actually. In west Virginia it comes from coal so is worse than a hybrid but still better than non-hybrid gas cars (in terms of CO2)
29.
by gregbot 8mo ago
Who cares? Those blades and that concrete are totally inert and just sit in the ground after their useful life. The ground already has lots of rocks in it.
30.
by gregbot 8mo ago
The Potassium naturally occurring in your body produces 5400 Bq of radiation. All the Krypton-85 in the atmosphere produces 1 Bq per cubic meter of air. So this is a trivial amount of radiation and not a hazard. https://en.wikip

More ›