fungussa

fungussa t1_iwds45k wrote

Nuclear is necessary but wholly insufficient, as nuclear:

  • has very long commissioning time

  • more expensive than renewables and the costs are divergent. Solar is halving in cost every 5 years.

  • proliferation risks

  • spent fuel containment

  • very poor horizontal scalability

  • it's carbon footprint is no better than wind and only fractionally better than solar

1

fungussa OP t1_itosh8z wrote

SS: Scientists can now 'decode' people's thoughts without even touching their heads. By its nature, this scanning method cannot capture real-time brain activity, since the electrical signals released by brain cells move much more quickly than blood moves through the brain. In additional tests, the algorithm could fairly accurately explain the plot of a silent movie that the participants watched in the scanner.

77

fungussa t1_is19lof wrote

Isn't a black hole only able to emit Hawking radiation and not able to eject matter?

 

EDIT: I've just seen this comment, by the paper's lead author:

> What we think happened is this material was in an accretion disc surrounding the black hole after it was unbound. In 20% of cases you then see a radio outflow at the part where it’s torn apart, but in this case we have really good radio limits that this didn’t happen then (ie, didn’t see anything). Then after ~750 days for whatever reason this outflow began…

18

fungussa t1_irsxkk4 wrote

It's low, on both counts. But all environmental impacts from renewable tech is entirely irrelevant when one considers that the continued use of fossil fuels risks the collapse of modern civilisation.

6

fungussa t1_irslsjl wrote

Not at all. Tech has already been developed to fully recycle lithium and solar tech is being developed that won't use any toxic / rare materials. Though more importantly, unlike fossil fuels, renewable tech is not undermining the Earth's capacity to sustain life.

7