โฒ 49 โผ Not a single one (sh.itjust.works) submitted 3 months ago by einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works to c/science_memes@mander.xyz locked 104 comments fedilink hide all child comments ๐ฟ 5
[+] einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works [S] -10 points 3 months ago (17 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [โ] felykiosa@sh.itjust.works 20 points 3 months ago (2 children) Million year really , so you talk about the EXTREMELY small portion of nuclear waste ? Also why not both , why not nuclear AND solar / wind / hydro electricity? Because all those renewable energy sources are either limited (hydro electricity) or intermittent (solar / wind) And I know you dont care but Yes we can bury nuclear waste if we do it properly, there already were natural nuclear reactor on earth way before humanity and it didnt kill everything where they were. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works [S] -5 points 3 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 months ago "it's not exactly the same, so the waste and radiation it produced naturally is irrelevant to this cherry picked discussion" permalink fedilink source parent [โ] BaroqueInMind@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago* This has got to be the single silliest take I have seen so far on this website, like holy shit this is pants-on-head silly permalink fedilink source parent [โ] mirshafie@europe.pub 5 points 3 months ago (7 children) No, you couldn't. You need base load. Countries like Denmark and Germany freeload on the base load of France, Sweden and Finland. And the moronic EU laws that currently enable this will eventually change to charge them for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [โ] naught101@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (4 children) Baseload has always been bullshit, see e.g. https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/migration_files/ceem/publication-documents/MarkBaseloadFallacyANZSEE.pdf It's even more irrelevant now that battery storage can level out multi-day variability. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [โ] mirshafie@europe.pub 11 points 3 months ago (3 children) Great. Fucking build it then. Go ahead and build your non-hydro non-nuclear baseload, and I'll shut the fuck up. Until then, I'll call you out every time you say that nuclear and hydro is too expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] naught101@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (2 children) I'm in Australia, it's already happening.. https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/green-energy-is-shielding-australia-from-a-global-power-price-shock-20260608-p604sc.html permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] mirshafie@europe.pub 3 points 3 months ago The article is paywalled, but just from the first snippet I don't see how it's relevant. If you're replacing oil or coal based power generation with wind, then that's awesome. But my assertion is that you do actually need to supplement that with something that can be tuned on the fly to keep a stable frequency in the grid. So far the experimental designs to do so with massive "batteries" have not looked very promising to me. A rule of thumb is that you need a minimum of 20% of your grid to be tunable. That's a hard minimum. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 point 3 months ago We're literally about to turn on snowy hydro 2.0 for base load AND storage permalink fedilink source parent [+] einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works [S] -4 points 3 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] mirshafie@europe.pub 12 points 3 months ago You're deflecting because you don't have a real argument to come up with. It's true that global warming is having a negative impact on nuclear power in France, Switzerland and other places, but it doesn't change the fact that you need some way to keep a stable voltage and frequency over your grid. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago But that would enrich the oligarchy slightly more slowly! Won't anybody think of the poor oligarchs? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (4 replies)
[โ] felykiosa@sh.itjust.works 20 points 3 months ago (2 children) Million year really , so you talk about the EXTREMELY small portion of nuclear waste ? Also why not both , why not nuclear AND solar / wind / hydro electricity? Because all those renewable energy sources are either limited (hydro electricity) or intermittent (solar / wind) And I know you dont care but Yes we can bury nuclear waste if we do it properly, there already were natural nuclear reactor on earth way before humanity and it didnt kill everything where they were. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works [S] -5 points 3 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 months ago "it's not exactly the same, so the waste and radiation it produced naturally is irrelevant to this cherry picked discussion" permalink fedilink source parent
[+] einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works [S] -5 points 3 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 months ago "it's not exactly the same, so the waste and radiation it produced naturally is irrelevant to this cherry picked discussion" permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 months ago "it's not exactly the same, so the waste and radiation it produced naturally is irrelevant to this cherry picked discussion" permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] BaroqueInMind@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago* This has got to be the single silliest take I have seen so far on this website, like holy shit this is pants-on-head silly permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] mirshafie@europe.pub 5 points 3 months ago (7 children) No, you couldn't. You need base load. Countries like Denmark and Germany freeload on the base load of France, Sweden and Finland. And the moronic EU laws that currently enable this will eventually change to charge them for that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [โ] naught101@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (4 children) Baseload has always been bullshit, see e.g. https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/migration_files/ceem/publication-documents/MarkBaseloadFallacyANZSEE.pdf It's even more irrelevant now that battery storage can level out multi-day variability. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [โ] mirshafie@europe.pub 11 points 3 months ago (3 children) Great. Fucking build it then. Go ahead and build your non-hydro non-nuclear baseload, and I'll shut the fuck up. Until then, I'll call you out every time you say that nuclear and hydro is too expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] naught101@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (2 children) I'm in Australia, it's already happening.. https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/green-energy-is-shielding-australia-from-a-global-power-price-shock-20260608-p604sc.html permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] mirshafie@europe.pub 3 points 3 months ago The article is paywalled, but just from the first snippet I don't see how it's relevant. If you're replacing oil or coal based power generation with wind, then that's awesome. But my assertion is that you do actually need to supplement that with something that can be tuned on the fly to keep a stable frequency in the grid. So far the experimental designs to do so with massive "batteries" have not looked very promising to me. A rule of thumb is that you need a minimum of 20% of your grid to be tunable. That's a hard minimum. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 point 3 months ago We're literally about to turn on snowy hydro 2.0 for base load AND storage permalink fedilink source parent [+] einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works [S] -4 points 3 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] mirshafie@europe.pub 12 points 3 months ago You're deflecting because you don't have a real argument to come up with. It's true that global warming is having a negative impact on nuclear power in France, Switzerland and other places, but it doesn't change the fact that you need some way to keep a stable voltage and frequency over your grid. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] naught101@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (4 children) Baseload has always been bullshit, see e.g. https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/migration_files/ceem/publication-documents/MarkBaseloadFallacyANZSEE.pdf It's even more irrelevant now that battery storage can level out multi-day variability. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [โ] mirshafie@europe.pub 11 points 3 months ago (3 children) Great. Fucking build it then. Go ahead and build your non-hydro non-nuclear baseload, and I'll shut the fuck up. Until then, I'll call you out every time you say that nuclear and hydro is too expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] naught101@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (2 children) I'm in Australia, it's already happening.. https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/green-energy-is-shielding-australia-from-a-global-power-price-shock-20260608-p604sc.html permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] mirshafie@europe.pub 3 points 3 months ago The article is paywalled, but just from the first snippet I don't see how it's relevant. If you're replacing oil or coal based power generation with wind, then that's awesome. But my assertion is that you do actually need to supplement that with something that can be tuned on the fly to keep a stable frequency in the grid. So far the experimental designs to do so with massive "batteries" have not looked very promising to me. A rule of thumb is that you need a minimum of 20% of your grid to be tunable. That's a hard minimum. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 point 3 months ago We're literally about to turn on snowy hydro 2.0 for base load AND storage permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] mirshafie@europe.pub 11 points 3 months ago (3 children) Great. Fucking build it then. Go ahead and build your non-hydro non-nuclear baseload, and I'll shut the fuck up. Until then, I'll call you out every time you say that nuclear and hydro is too expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [โ] naught101@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (2 children) I'm in Australia, it's already happening.. https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/green-energy-is-shielding-australia-from-a-global-power-price-shock-20260608-p604sc.html permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] mirshafie@europe.pub 3 points 3 months ago The article is paywalled, but just from the first snippet I don't see how it's relevant. If you're replacing oil or coal based power generation with wind, then that's awesome. But my assertion is that you do actually need to supplement that with something that can be tuned on the fly to keep a stable frequency in the grid. So far the experimental designs to do so with massive "batteries" have not looked very promising to me. A rule of thumb is that you need a minimum of 20% of your grid to be tunable. That's a hard minimum. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 point 3 months ago We're literally about to turn on snowy hydro 2.0 for base load AND storage permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] naught101@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (2 children) I'm in Australia, it's already happening.. https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/green-energy-is-shielding-australia-from-a-global-power-price-shock-20260608-p604sc.html permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] mirshafie@europe.pub 3 points 3 months ago The article is paywalled, but just from the first snippet I don't see how it's relevant. If you're replacing oil or coal based power generation with wind, then that's awesome. But my assertion is that you do actually need to supplement that with something that can be tuned on the fly to keep a stable frequency in the grid. So far the experimental designs to do so with massive "batteries" have not looked very promising to me. A rule of thumb is that you need a minimum of 20% of your grid to be tunable. That's a hard minimum. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 point 3 months ago We're literally about to turn on snowy hydro 2.0 for base load AND storage permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] mirshafie@europe.pub 3 points 3 months ago The article is paywalled, but just from the first snippet I don't see how it's relevant. If you're replacing oil or coal based power generation with wind, then that's awesome. But my assertion is that you do actually need to supplement that with something that can be tuned on the fly to keep a stable frequency in the grid. So far the experimental designs to do so with massive "batteries" have not looked very promising to me. A rule of thumb is that you need a minimum of 20% of your grid to be tunable. That's a hard minimum. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 point 3 months ago We're literally about to turn on snowy hydro 2.0 for base load AND storage permalink fedilink source parent
[+] einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works [S] -4 points 3 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [โ] mirshafie@europe.pub 12 points 3 months ago You're deflecting because you don't have a real argument to come up with. It's true that global warming is having a negative impact on nuclear power in France, Switzerland and other places, but it doesn't change the fact that you need some way to keep a stable voltage and frequency over your grid. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] mirshafie@europe.pub 12 points 3 months ago You're deflecting because you don't have a real argument to come up with. It's true that global warming is having a negative impact on nuclear power in France, Switzerland and other places, but it doesn't change the fact that you need some way to keep a stable voltage and frequency over your grid. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago But that would enrich the oligarchy slightly more slowly! Won't anybody think of the poor oligarchs? permalink fedilink source parent
