OriginalUsername

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
science_memes
sciencememes
cursedcomments
cursedcomments
re_zero
science_memes
sorted by: new top controversial old
They use to tell us we couldnt trust Wikipedia. Now we know. Wikipedia is the only website you can trust. in c/[email protected]
How do you call someone born in the US besides "American"? in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

"someone born in the US"

incredible in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

You spin the turbine, duh

Now that's some devotion! in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And if the parents are unable to raise the children properly, then the children should just starve?

Now that's some devotion! in c/[email protected]
Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah nah, no one is saying that. What people are saying is that neither is fundamentally better than the other, and usage should depend on geographic conditions, sociopolitical considerations, materials and experience. Moreover, while both are not receiving sufficient investment and development, Nuclear in particular receives unwarranted opposition and remains unable to advance due to a lack of funding and support

Swedish government removes nuclear power promise from website in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A few errors

  • 130TWh is the final electricity consumption, not the generation. Since Sweden is a big net exporter of electricity, there is a big difference
  • I'm not sure what macrotrends refers to by "Fossil fuel consumption", but it's pobably referring to raw energy rather than electricity (which doesnt consider conversion efficiency)
  • In reality, sweden uses almost no fossil fuels in its electricity mix, and that is in large part due to nuclear
  • KWh and KW, not KW and KW/h
  • In your calculations you failed to account for capacity factors. Wind plants have average capacity factors of about 42% in sweden, so the capacity would need to be over double the consumption, even ignoring the variability of consumption and production

Nevertheless, I do agree that Sweden doesn't need more nuclear. It already generates some of the cleanest electricity in the world and I'd imagine fossil fuels are really only used for peak load.

Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Mercury will always be with us. Arsenic will always be with us. PFAS will always be with us. Natural radiation will always be with us. Fortunately, nuclear waste is easily detectable, the regulations around it are much stronger, the amount of HLW is miniscule and the storage processes are incredibly advanced

Moreover, most Nuclear waste won't always be with us. A lot of fission prodcuts have half lives in the decades or centuries

in Australia, when we pay taxes, we get a receipt. The receipt shows what our taxes were spent on in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

"correctly"

1
Suggest icon and banner (lemmy.world)
 

Since this community has 80 subscribers now it probably needs an icon and banner

Millenials being accused of not pumping out enough babies when we can't even support ourselves in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The land's not the problem though. Sustainable development is, and larger populations inevitably contribute to global warming, waste etc. The fact that cities only account for a small portion of land doesn't change anything. They will continue to exist and are only manageable if the population is controlled