lntl

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago

for sure, nuclear is too expensive and money is non-renewable

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (7 children)

I'm glad for both of these things and neither necessarily reduces fossil fuel consumption

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

would be great to see a nuclear/renewable mix displace the king. i hope to see it while I'm here

[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago

article says they're SMRs which i don't know another example of them ever being deployed commercially. this is also pretty neat

[–] [email protected] 19 points 11 months ago

I just bought a license just because

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

here's my Thursday:

  • check cashing place
  • cigarettes
  • alcohol
  • scratch off tickets
[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

this lemmy gets it

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (9 children)

did anyone at this climate conference commit to reducing fossil fuel consumption at all in any way?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

i think a central barrier at the moment is fusion doesn't readily start a chain reaction like fission can. scientists are likely exploring the use of the yield of the fusion reaction to reload the reactor (kind of like an automatic firearm) and these techniques are far from mature in this setting.

PV is a simpler mechanism in every way and we've been studying it for more than 100 years. They're very different both technologically and maturity-wise

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

it's crazy that the US still leads the oil consumption charts. it's possible that'll never change if others don't sink money into the same infrastructure decisions the US did

view more: ‹ prev next ›