neutronicturtle

joined 1 year ago
[–] neutronicturtle@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

I have. I would probably use my last phone for at least another year if it didn't loose system updates. There's too much important personal data (bank, photos, messages including medical info...) on the phone to risk using it unsupported. At least to me it is not worth it so I try to buy a phone with reasonably long support and buy a new one soon after the old one looses support.

[–] neutronicturtle@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Cars are also not safe, especially at 200+ km/h but somehow it's OK to drive them this fast in Germany.

Edit: What I want to say is that there is no absolute safety.

[–] neutronicturtle@lemmy.world 36 points 8 months ago

Unfortunately use of fossil fuels also continues to hit record numbers year after year.

[–] neutronicturtle@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it's an error. It's should likely be Nissan Quashqai. Or Hyundai ix35/Tucson.

[–] neutronicturtle@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You basically need a few conditions to be met to make this useable: tide needs to be high enough, there needs to be suitable geological formation that enables building of such power plants, it has to be publicly acceptable to build there, and you need to connect it to the grid. The last two can especially cancel eachother out.

However, this assumes you use potential energy. What you are envisioning might be more like current power (so kinetic energy) where I'm not sure what the limitations are. Perhaps it's not too practical to build huge plants underwater in locations with relatively constant current and connect them to the grid

[–] neutronicturtle@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Hehe, I walked right into this one. You're right. I totally failed at trying to be a smartass.

[–] neutronicturtle@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Why are you comparing fossil fuels and nuclear "per tonne" that makes no sense. You replace tens of tones of nuclear fuel per year any you burn millions of tones in a comparable fosil fuel plant.

And regarding the carbon emissions from enrichment... Just use nuclear to power your enrichment plants. This way your emissions are extremely low because you don't need much fuel and you use nuclear energy to produce nuclear fuel. French example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricastin_Nuclear_Power_Plant

[–] neutronicturtle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

With energy positive here I mean useful energy positive, so electricity or high temperature heat.

[–] neutronicturtle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

You are technically wrong, the worst kind of wrong :)

DT and DD fusion reactions release energy. More energy than is put in. It's the whole system that hasn't been energy positive. We're close to breakeven in terms of plasma (heating power vs fusion power, and it's not like heating power is lost from the system it still heats the reactor) but to be useful fusion power needs to be >10x heating power so the whole system is more than self-sufficient.

[–] neutronicturtle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I wonder what the round up efficiency is like.

[–] neutronicturtle@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Generally for extended periods you would pedal with something like 100 - 200 W while small electric compressors seem to be in > 1 kW region (and don't get tired as quickly :D).

So basically with pedal power you could feasibly run some led lights and portable electronics but anything beyond this is not practical.

[–] neutronicturtle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Homo sapiens also doesn't originate from Europe.

view more: next ›