If Walmart was displaying a special category “for use in the war with Iran” with tactical clothing and gear, then I would have been less sympathetic to be honest. In this scenario Walmart promote items to send to the soldiers that kill the victims of a military invasion.
Yes, unknown. You do not care about when the reactor went online, but when the reactor design was finalized. This happened with CP0 design in 1970, 4 years before the messmer plan.
We knew about climate change in 1970, but we lacked reliable models and computational power to create good predictions at that time. Climate change was an hot scientific debate, not an applied principle in civil engineering design.
The only reactor not part of the messmer plan (1974) that was throttled down is the Chooz B on the Meuse river. In this case it is more of a political issue: under 1998 treaty between Belgium and France, the plant must curtail power if the river flow drop. Not as safety measure, but to preserve downstream flow to Belgium. This was not taken into account in the reactor design. The operation of the plant was restricted retroactively. The Chooz B plant uses evaporative towers to minimize heat discharge.
False,
Reactor production is throttled down to preserve the river environment, not because they cannot cool themselves. Only 18% reduction on the worst event.
Dismissing the biggest low carbon energy producer because 1970 engineers did not account for the unknown temperature extremes 20 years after the predicted lifespan of the reactor is silly.
You say lot of things that are correct and some that are not:
We need to invest in renewable technologies, batteries technology, and nuclear technology. We want all of them to succeed in decarbonizing the grid, as those technologies insists on different industrial bottlenecks on their deployment. China knows this, and is building nuclear reactors at rate never seen before, while doing the same for solar, wind and batteries. Renewable will be the bulk of energy production because they are cheap. Nuclear role is not the same as renewable. Nuclear is to provide dependable baseload when wind and solar do not produce enough. Nuclear, renewable and batteries together are cheaper and faster to deploy then any other combination, so it is good to continue investing in all of them.
Nuclear is certainly ready for climate change ahead. Nuclear is one of the tool to use to solve climate change. There is no doubt from the technical prospective. 1970 nuclear is still a tool, given they continue to extend the usable lifespan of the plan. This is not a technology problem: Palo Verde nuclear power plant works in the desert, by evaporating sewage water. This is not a problem at all for power plants near the sea.
I will be explicit: we should use nuclear to fight climate change, we should not destroy local environment to cheap out on building more carbon free power generation.
Nuclear produce tons on stable carbon free electricity. This stabilize electrical grid. Without it, we have to use something else to compensate renewable instability. Hydropower (if you are lucky), batteries (still expensive but becoming more and more viable) or fossil fuel plants.
We are talking 1970. Scientists lacked the numerical models and the computing capacity to make these predictions. To accuse civilian engineers to not take into consideration recent hot topics of environmental science that lacked, at the time, rigorous models is disingenuous.
The design lifespan for those reactors was 40 years. We are extending those past lifetime because it is cheaper to do even if we need to shut them down more and more often.
The infrastructure have not adapted because it is cheaper to build a new power plant or to shutdown existing one occasionally then to adapt old existing design.
I do not understand what is your point here.
Of that I agree. This is also a problem on western platforms like X for sure.
What is bias in that sentence?
TikTok is Chinese -> true China is under an authoritarian regime-> true Freedom of expression is constitutionally guaranteed in Poland -> true
Is the bias in the implication that authoritarian regimes may exploit freedom of expression to promote propaganda? I think is safe to assume this is also true. Not exclusive to authoritarian regimes, but true nonetheless for authoritarian regimes.
It is not twisting it. It is exactly like that. The problem is not the water level. The nuclear power plant can work in these condition. The hot water discharge would raise the temperature too much on top of existing higher temperatures in the river for the flora and fauna to survive. We are doing this to protect nature. There is no twisting here.
Speed is relative to a frame of reference, so my understanding is that percentages of impulse are about power, not about speed. The 0.25c limit is a safety limit against a fix reference (maybe the center of the galaxy?) to reduce the relativistic effects, and does not require power to maintain. Effectively, with “full impulse” you are asking for the maximum power output until your speed relative to the galaxy center is 0.25c. Given in this example it is said we need to keep at 1/8 impulse because of power constraints I can only assume this is referring to power, not speed. With no reference frame and time component, none of these dialog make sense whatsoever, but we should be used to writer not understanding physics by now 😬
It is indeed good, but let’s not ignore that wind and solar is just 20% of electricity production, with coal being the absolute majority of electricity production in china at 60%. Furthermore china has a vast strategic petroleum reserve and a clear alternative in Russia.
Now Russia build Iranian drones by itself in local factories. But Iranian wars gave billions of dollars to Russia thanks to easing of sanctions and higher oil prices. For Russia the Iran war is good, not bad. The margins on oil production has skyrocketed.
Even when Putin kills American soldiers and Ukraine helps the US defend against Iranians drones retaliations, for Trump the enemy is still Europe and Ukraine. The only reason why he bombed Iran instead of Greenland is lobbying from Israel. He is stupid, irrational and manipulable like he always has been. The fact he is a Mamdani supporter against everything he believes in should add to the notion he is not a rational actor, but a spoiled senile brat that will do whatever he want against reality.
As an owner of both an n150 minipc with 16gb of ram and an m1 8g air I can assure you this statement is false. The first is a toy compared to the latter. You can use it as inexpensive home server, but not as a work machine.
I loved it pronounced so many time in this video: https://youtu.be/brZgN-DDtV8
No no, we did not! I simply were not sure what to use! I saw STSA, SA, SFA, STA. I wanted to be unambiguous 🤣
SA sound good to me if we use LD to be honest.
I never meant to imply otherwise. What I am saying is that we are discussing optics on the legitimacy or lack thereof of Israelite and Palestinian people to those land. Or at least we are discussing right to history representation for the Palestinian. And in my opinion there is no interpretation that gives credit to one claim or the other. The whole argument is idiotic. We should let historians focus on recovering the history of those land and keep modern politics outside ancient history museums.
The creation of the kingdom of Israel was 1100 years old when Roman emperor Hadrian renamed the Judaea province into Syria Palaestina. Before that Greek domination, Achaemenid domination, Babylonian domination and Assyrian domination. And before the Israelites, the Canaan, the Ghassulian and many others. The bible describe in details how that land was conquered with violence and genocide by the tribes of Israel. It makes no sense to make historical claim to that land.
I get what you say. The problem is that being inaccurate for protecting Palestinian claim to their land is exactly what give credit to Israel. The kingdom of Israel has a much older claim to that land. Nonetheless this is inconsequential. We do not see Norway claiming northern France, Germany claiming Poland, Poland claiming Russia or Italy claiming France and Croatia. This is just silly. Modern Israel has no more claim to that land than Germany claim to north Italy of Celtic heritage.
No, the article above is factual. Propaganda always contains facts (governement is weak) with falsehoods (the reason for the protests is immigration) to push credibly for a direction (vote le pen).