The lie: Nuclear fuel is so dense and we need to move on to the next level of density in the energy ladder because being dense is great. Just pick up a yellow rock and you get 80,620,000,000,000J like magic. Come be dense with me. Renewables aren't dense. Background -- There are some very high yield mines in Canada where you can find 20% ore. If you burnt the yellow rock in a breeder reactor it would do this. -- The only active large scale breeder reactor is the BN-800. It is configured to destroy plutonium, not create it. -- Most ore is not like this. Consider Inkai mine in Kazakhstan and Rossing in Namibia. They have Ore that is 0.04% and 0.03% concentrated. -- In Rossing, to get 1kg of Uranium (0.7% U235), 3 tonnes of ore is dug up, crushed, washed in several tonnes of water, soaked in about 50kg of sulfuric acid and further processed. In Inkai they just pour 100kg of Sulfuric acid down a hole into the ground (don't worry about heavy metal leaching, guys). -- Then 86-90% of that Uranium is discarded to bring the concentration of U235 up to 3.5%-5%. Then that is put into a nuclear reactor to get hot until that 3.5% of U235 is mostly gone. Some neutrons will hit some U238 on the way and turn it into Pu239 which produces a little extra energy. -- Reprocessing doesn't create any new fissile material. It is purely to retrieve the left over traces of Pu and U235 which adds another 15%. This produces 62GWd/MtU in a state of the art reactor. Don't worry about the weird units, it's about 5.3PJ/t or 5.3TJ/kg(already down to about 7% of the initial figure). But this has to go through a steam engine so you only get 1.7TJ/kg. But wait, you threw away 860g, so it's 230GJ/kg. But wait, you had to dig up 3t of ore. This was your fuel, so it's 77MJ/kg. A substantial increase in PWR production would require moving on to 0.01% ore which is about 23MJ/kg. Roughly on par with gas. Come be dense and build a PWR. SMRs are even less efficient so we can do that too! For reference: Black coal is about 36MJ/kg or 12MJ/kg of electricity after burning. A 400W bifacial solar panel weighs about 5 to 25kg, is almost entirely (high grade) sand and produces around 100GJ in its life. Depending on design it has 1-2kg of silicon in it (also sand, slightly higher grade). You can recycle it afterwards if you wish and make a slightly worse solar panel at a very small profit (and then again after that, making basically the same panel). [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/uninsurable/comments/yly25g/nuclear_lies_0000001_density/)

Many right-wing parties in other parts of the world are like them. They are dangerous.

lmao what an idiot

cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/427796 > This is the second try (original post: https://feddit.de/post/426890) of me trying to get an answer, this time I'll be more specific of what I am thinking to do. I thought a more generalized question would be enough. Sorry for that. > > A peertube server needs lots of storage. Many of the videos will hardly get any views. Storage space on a vps is pretty expensive, storage space in general isn't cheap. So my thought was to > > have a disk at home (maybe external disk on a raspberry pi) and a VPS. > > The VPS only has a very limited amount of storage, but is otherwise totally able to run peertube well. So why not have a virtual file system on the VPS, which looks like it has the size of the HDD and it uses a specified amount of the vps storage for caching. So if someone watches a popular part of a popular video, the vps can serve the video content from the local disk. If someone wants to watch the video that nobody ever watches, it's not a problem since the uplink from home can easily deliver that as well, without the video taking the precious storage. > Block caching would be best, since file caching wouldn't be ideal with video files being really big in some cases. So a very long video would fill the cache, even if only parts of it are needed. > > The remote storage doesn't need to be from home of course, could be cheap cloud storage. I know that peertube works with s3, but it will only move transcoded videos into a bucket and then serve them directly from there. I don't want that from home, it would also not use the upload performance of the VPS for popular videos. > > Any thoughts? Good idea or not? > > I have worked with bcache in the past and was always very impressed with the performance, I think my scenario could really work.

Oh weren't they one of the automakers who thought hydrogen was the fuel of the future?? xD

hey I am a genious I will simply make a social space (or social media website) without any rules. So everybody can do whatever they want. *Someone spamming horse porn everywhere* okay maybe let's have some rules, like no spamming or illegal stuff. *People keep posting my little pony content or gore to unrelated sub forums* Hmm let's just make a full CoC that basically only permits the kind of right-wing thought that we like. End result is a shithole that nobody likes using, since right-wingers don't even like their own people. genius