I mean, the headline of this post already makes me irrationally angry. 😂

Y u no close brackets!?

• “n-jinx” wäre “en dschinks”
• “engine x” wäre “endschin iks”

Um das mal phonetisch zu schreiben: Es würd sich ungefähr wie “en dschinks” auf Deutsch anhören.

Only if you drink it in considerable amounts. Should be pretty fine for a bath though.

Don’t eat your bath salts. Don’t drink your bathwater.

As a general rule: Just don’t.

Heavy water - like water, just heavier.

This is really cool. You know who made this?

I mean META is actually doing this! #aBoringDystopia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.org

That’s a great guess when you try to answer the problem with traditional (Newtonian) physics. However, space and time do not behave in a way we would expect when we go nearly at light speed. So Newtonian laws do not apply in the same sense anymore.

Things get really unintuitive when you go near the speed of light. Einstein’s “Special Relativity” is describing that. Watch a couple of videos on the topic. It’s mindbending but seriously cool.

In short: The speed light is always constant FOR EVERY OBSERVER. That means, if you would hold a flashlight in a very fast moving train, the light would travel as the same speed for you as for a stationary person that is watching your flashlight from outside the train.

But how could that be? Aren’t you “adding” the trains speed to your flashlight? So shouldn’t the light in your train travel faster in your train? Or maybe slower? No. Light speed is always constant - but what is NOT constant is space and time. It is relative to the observer. Time and space can stretch/dilate to make up for what seems to be a paradox. E.g. your trains would shrink in length the faster you go. But it would look different to you than it does to an outside observer.

As I said, it’s mindbending, but there are a couple of cool and simple videos on the internet to get a better grasp on the matter.

I don’t quite get that one?!

The US is so intertwined with global politics and economy (e.g. financial markets, digital services, …) that it’s not just THEIR problem. If they drift further into fashism, oligarchy and right authoritarianism, sooner than later there will be a point where most of the world will be fucked in the short and possibly in the long term.

We need to fight this fight from our side as well, otherwise we all will go down. Our countries need to start pushing back against it and WE need to push our countries to do so. Write letters, go on protests, vote! Otherwise we might miss our window of opportunity to bring this spiral of destruction to a halt.

True. My hair has never been better.

Do you then ONLY wash the with water or do you wash them with something special from time to time? I use a little hair soap and apple vinegar maybe once a week, as they still tend to get a little “heavy” after days with just rinsing them with water.

1. By that logic, you would also have no problem in killing people with lower brain capabilities - like people with dementia or mentally challenged people.
2. Demonstrably not true and I don’t get where you would pick up such a false bit of information.

Hats off to you for doing research and trying to pass on the knowledge in hostile comment sections. 💪 So sad that they don’t care for facts and really love to be confidentiality incorrect. I mean, I have a degree in that matter - still doesn’t count and everybody wants to keep spinning their (demonstrably false) narrative.

Yeah, unfortunately.

BTW, do you work in the field or something? Cause you sound kinda knowledgeable.

Even large scale nuclear plants are not economically viable without huge subsidies. Small scale reactors are even less cost effective. I haven’t really seen any of them “in the wild” except for research reactors or something like that.

It’s a shame that you’re being voted down here, even though your points are actually more on the factual side. Well, that’s probably the fate of those who “dare” to say something against nuclear. Even if everyone else demonstrably doesn’t have a clue about the subject: They’re still bashing it. It’s just good that downvotes on Lemmy don’t really matter.

I think I just got jumped.

Sorry, I don’t quite understand that phrase. Does that mean you feel kind of attacked?! I hope not - this was not my goal. I think we can just learn by engaging in discussions with one another. And so far, I am very much enjoying our encounter. :)

You had a well prepared answer, however I’ll offer my unprepared thoughts in return.

Well, I mean it took me over an hour to compile that answer, because I didn’t want to spread false information. I am (re)learning a lot the stuff as well, and I kind of like to study the matter again. So I will gladly take your thoughts.

You kinda skipped past battery and other storage tech and the negatives associated with them

Well, yes, I did. As I said, it took me already over an hour to compile the existing answer and the needs of storage capacity in the energy system is reeeaaaally complex and counter intuitive at some points - especially if you need to understand the dependencies of the individual units in an energy-system as well at the same time. So it would have taken me at least another hour to give that topic my due diligence.

We can talk about that if you want / are interested. But I think we need to skip the nuclear power topic then, because otherwise it will get too complex and time consuming.

I’m a big believer in working with what we have now, there are far, far too many issues exacerbated by the premise that “Science Will Save Us”

Oh god. I hate people that are blindly trusting in “Science inventing a magic pill - we don’t have to change anything!!1!”.

People love the ideas behind some solutions, but can never seem to get them sufficiently well built

I know. And I was not talking about some “magical future solution” - I am thinking more about solutions that are already existing and have existed and proven viable for over a couple of decades. And they don’t need to include nuclear!

However it is a known tech, and an effective one

I mean, it kind of is NOT effective - at least not cost effective (as I hopefully have pointed out clear enough). We can build “known tech that is effective” which will not be a graveyard for billions of dollars and without the potentially catastrophic consequences nuclear power has. I am not advocating for “sitting on our hands”. We need to act quick and change our energy systems for the better - but nuclear energy is just not a viable solution for that. Luckily, there is existing technology that can do the job.

Nuclear may not be the best solution, but it is known, available, and can do the job.

I am afraid, that it is not as simple as you think it might be. The “availability” is kind of a deal breaker when it comes to nuclear.

You still haven’t provided a number for “how much nuclear” we need to “do the job”, so I am ending with a couple questions instead:

• Are you aware how long it takes to build a new nuclear power plant?
• Do you know how much (usable) radioactive material there is on the planet?

(I can tell you if you don’t want to do the research - just tell me.)

i just don’t think this is a valuable question to ask

But well, it kind of is! When looking at energy systems, each type of plant you put into the system has (often counterintuitive) consequences on the rest of the system. And this is especially true for nuclear power. That is why it IS important to get an idea of how much nuclear energy you want to have in your energy mix, because only then you can determine if your energy system is even sustainable.

Therefore, my question stands unchanged. Or maybe we can make it a little broader: How do you think that the energy system would need to look like?

I’m content to stick by my layman position that anything that gets us away from pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is better in the short term.

And I fully agree with you on that. I just want to discuss with you if nuclear is really the solution you think it is. (Because it probably isn’t.)

We already have the knowledge and infrastructure to do so way faster by using nuclear as a leg up

Are you aware of how little nuclear power there is currently in the energy-mix, what time it takes to build new ones and how much (usable) uranium exists on the planet? (I can tell you if you don’t want to look it up - just ask.) Because you might have wrong expectations of the technical potential of this energy source.