Jump to content

Kerbart

Members
  • Posts

    3,671
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

4,860 Excellent

7 Followers

Profile Information

  • About me
    Mun Marketeer
  • Location
    The Meadowlands, NJ
  • Interests
    Rockit sience

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Quantum target. It's when you're pointed towards the target and the anti-target at the same time. Killing the nyan-cat will disolve the quantum state.
  2. That’s a tough one. HL has a phenomenal story that needs a sequel. Portal 2 is a finished story that needs some convoluted “we need to go back” story to be even remotely believable. But then, P3 would actually get made while HL3 has a curse and will never be published. Having something is better than nothing. Rationally I’d go with Portal but my heart says Half Life.
  3. Surely congress would put an end to such waste of money if it’s pointless. Right? Right? [sound of crickets]
  4. The speed at which SpaceX develops things is incredible. Bezos is right with wanting to get in now. A year from now SpaceX is probably already landing on the moon. ULA has a "proven track record" argument to justify higher costs. BO has pretty much nothing. If you can't compete on price, or merit, go to court!
  5. And an EVA while in orbit of the sun. The flags will “only” get you to 23/4 stars.
  6. But fusion as a viable energy source is only 20 years away!! (of course it's always 20 years away, including 20 years from now...)
  7. But that seems to be the problem with large nuclear powerplants. The question then becomes: how do we take management, out of the equation all together? I'm hopeful about small thorium/salt reactors that can run autonomously and be buried underground without any need for intervention; the less can go wrong. The after-effects of those disasters are short-lived and impact a relative small area. The fallout from Chernobyl (see what I did there?) lasted over 20 years for farmers in Norway and Scotland with hundreds of thousands of sheep producing unusable milk and meat. In addition, if a chemical plant blows up, 90% of the damage is visible. Nuclear contamination is invisible and in the aftermath locals have to rely on government reports how safe things are; the same government that told them in the first place that everything was perfectly safe and nothing, absolutely nothing could happen. From a rational point of view it's hard to argue with nuclear energy but it's such an amazing PR disaster that makes it an incredible hard sell.
  8. But that argument works both ways. Yes, apparently it is possible to build and operate safe reactors, even in disaster-prone areas. But if they manage to get it wrong in a process-obsessed country like Japan, what are the chances that despite the best intentions, we do end up with unsafe plants? "While the nuclear industry is safe and clean, as a whole the possibility of a disaster with large area ramifications is a near-certainty" I'm not against nuclear power but it continues to amaze me that, as an industry, the total lack of understanding that saying "it's impossible for things to happen" when every decade or so something happens is not going to win the trust of the public. Too many engineers in charge is my guess.
  9. For one thing existing designs seem to be struggling with the extremer weather that comes with the changing climate, so those designs probably need to be upgraded as well. Seems like there's no silver bullet. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/climate-events-are-the-leading-cause-of-nuclear-power-outages/
  10. That usually comes up as an argument. “CO2 levels have been that high in the past, so why worry” because it took millions of years to go down because it resulted in a climate that was seriously unpleasant
  11. Probably. I wonder how many of these power rigs there are. And how many servers google, microsoft and amazon employ that blow these limits completely out of the water, but those will not be regulated.
  12. The 3.4 mm is what Dutch research institutes are quoting as on the high end and around 2 mm/yr on the low end. The latter part is more important because it's an indication that it's not just the lunar cycle - there would be years where the sea levels would drop, after all. Funnily enough they do mention 16 year cycles without making the connection to the moon (at least not in the reports I read). Also, there's not a hidden (fill in preferred conspiracy group) agenda controlling them; for the Dutch government it's "merely" input on their projections on where there sea defenses need to be 100 years from now, as it's something they need to start planning for now. Of course they'll be using worst case scenarios and if "planning for the worst 100 years from now" sounds utterly bizarre then you probably live in a country that considers local damages north of $100 billion once every 50 years due to hurricanes acceptable, but not everyone adheres to that kind of penny-wise, pound-foolish kind of approach.
×
×
  • Create New...