I gaurantee you there is SOME kind of identifying information somewhere on the fridge if you try harder

This is the top dirtbag move

This is honestly the best take. People (including myself) gripe and moan about accessibility to charging stations and speed and quality etc. But these stations are truly just a supplement. Out side of long commutes and road trips, I don't ever think about charging. I charge at home with a level 1 trickle charge, and sometimes I'll plug in at the grocery store while I shop just to top off.

I think most.people truly don't need a super duper level 100 charger to top them off in 8 minutes. I need chargers that are reliable and actually work when I pull up to them first and foremost. Beyond that I just want a charger that can get me a good chunk back while a grab milk and eggs at the grocery, or a fast and convenient plug and play while I stop at a gas station to use the bathroom and grab a coffee

I'm just dropping in and didn't really read the rest of the back and forth between you two. But fusion and fission reactors result in neutron Flux. In fission energy and neutrons are released when atoms of fissile material in the fuel matrix split apart. In fusion reactions, hydrogen atoms fuse into helium, and energy and a neutron are released. When there are neutrons passing through a measure of space, you have a Flux. And high energy neutron Flux can activate certain materials when they pass through said Flux

Please help me understand why arguments for the viability of renewable energies can rely so heavily on "its possible to make the tech better, the tech gets better over time" but this phenomenon is never afforded to something like fission.

For the record I support both. It's just so bizarre to me to see people list out numerous problems with fission and say see that? See all the problems this tech has?

Theb when all the challenges associated with renewable energy are raised, the resounding response is "the tech will get better, just give it more time"

There is none.

There are multiple academic outlets that address the trends seen due to covid, including Nature and - as luck would have it - NOAA. Perhaps you should find and read them.

Good point. I'll look into them

How are there prices though? My aunt used them recently and the price was..uh...not amazing

The point I'm making is all these studies use very surface level analysis. For price comparison, the majority refer to and use lcoe only, and neglect to mention that Battery storage is an additional cost not included in those calculations. When those storage methods are included, the price comparison begins to balance. And when you are talking about a battery system with a large enough capacity that it is capable of reliably replacing a gas plant (by which I don't just mean matching capacity, but with a surrounding generating system able to meet normal demand and recharge the battery for when it's electricity is needed). When you consider a battery system with that much capacity, the lcos starts to increase dramatically, and given that neither can be implemented without the other is a carbon free future grid, you have to address both costs.

Having said all that, do I know if that price tag is higher? I don't. But ultimately I support renewable energy. Wind solar batteries other methods of storage nuclear etc. I think these direct price comparisons are flawed at best and disingenuous at worst and are generally bad arguments.

My argument for renewable energy and for nuclear more and other green tech is the same - i think the initial price tag for these things is higher than the fossil fuel status quo but it doesn't matter how much it costs to implement these new technologies, it much be done as quickly as possible and by any means possible and damn the price tag.

These articles often ignore thing like LCOS and the overcapacity that would be necessary to build out for solar to replace current gas plants.

Lots of the very expensive gas plant arr as expensive as they are because they are peaker plants. Meaning they kick on and sell to the grid very quickly, on demand, and when demand is very high.

In order for solar and wind to be directly compared to these plants, you need to compare a set up that could directly replace these plants, and continue performing their same function.

This means enough storage capacity to reliably provide the mwhr needed for peak usage hours. This means building out capacity to reliably recharge that storage method even during peak use hours in the winter during a cold snap.

That's what should be compared price wise if the economics is concerned. 1mwhr of solar and wind is the same are 1mwhr from a battery is the same as 1mwhr from a lng plant, but the operating methods, the infrastructure, and the dispatchability and recharge times are very very different

Edit: and to be clear to anyone else reading this comment, I am pro solar and wind and batteries. I just think these surface level comparisons of gas versus solar costs lack the nuance to be useful and are ultimately disingenuous.

Yes. Also remember that chernobyl had no proper containment in place, so even a steam explosion and meltdown today wouldn't result in an event like that.

This is the point that always gets me. So many people in the solar and wind for some reason also support fusion. But when it comes to conversations about fission, it's too time consuming to build, it's too expensive, the supply chain isn't there, it's too complicated, etc.

But then in the next breath it's all about how.excited they are for fusion.

Its like, friend, how fast and cheap do you think think massive centralized fusion plants are going to be when they are commercially viable (in 2075. Or 2100)

Your language sounds like you think one fusion reactor without shielding will result in neutron escaping and killing everyone is some kind of apocalyptic scenario. Neutrons do not work like that lol

>In fission, a radioactive isotope (such as uranium or plutonium) is constantly shedding particles and melting down. And the reactor uses graphite rods and heavy water cooling to moderate and manage how much of a chain reaction can take place. Without the rods and water, you could have a runaway chain reaction which could lead to reactor core meltdown… and if there’s more than critical mass of nuclear fuel… an A-bomb explosion to go with the meltdown.

Formerly in the industry. Most of this is a pretty OK explanation, but that last bit is very wrong and I fear you've been* exposed to some disinformation or are repeating misinformation. You may want to read up on the definition and usage of 'critical mass', but more importantly, there are no fission plants that could accidently result in a nuclear explosion. nuclear accidents can result in meltdown, as you stated correctly, and there are - in extreme and sometime unprecedented circumstances - risks of gas explosions or explosive pressure events... But not nuclear explosions or spontaneous nuclear bombs made from reactor cores. That exists purely in the realm of propaganda and cinema

>stop like neutrons from flying everywhere and destroying us all.

What the hell are you talking about