Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6772283" data-attributes="member: 16814">Yes, it did.  Mostly between 2010 and the end of 2012.  Since then the drop in price has drastically slowed.  This is the expected curve of any fringe technology that gets pushed forward -- it rapidly declines in price as it gets ramped up and then goes into a much shallower cost curve as efficiencies in manufacturing and scale are achieved.  Solar's already had it's big price drop.  Absent an unforseen breakthough (which is possible in any field, even oil), solar will only maginally reduce in cost in the future.The actual waste produced by modern designs is 1) very small and 2) not as radioactively dangerous.  The really bad waste comes from older designs no one would use anymore (HWRs) and breeder reactors who's point was to create large amounts of refined fissiles which results in a lot of waste.  The Hanford site and the Savannah site, both used to create bomb material, are great examples of this.  Modern thorium salt models have much longer lifespans, dramatically improved safety profiles, and produce much less and much less dangerous waste.  Plus it's easier to get thorium than uranium.In short, you can't put wind farms against the dinosaurs of the reactors we have to today as a solid point against pursuing a comprehensive nuclear strategy.Also, as a side point, the production of wind turbines involves rare earth processing, which is an environmental nightmare.  There are lakes so toxic in China right now to provide the magnets in wind turbines that it makes Chernobyl look clean.Again, the reduction is price is expected engineering economics.  That reduction is at an end.  And they're still to expensive to compete without direct and massive subsidies. The Tesla powerwall, like much of Tesla's offerings, isn't quite as pretty as the press releases would have you believe.  There's no new technology in there, and you can't build them at the scale necessary.  Like, cannot build them.  There's not enough resources to do so.The IPCC, maybe, which indicated that there is no discernible increase in severe weather or drought in the world?  Multiple other studies that do not find such connections?  The study most cited used an uncertain model to diagnose that the drought was only more likely, but still could be naturally caused?Severe weather has not increased worldwide.  It hasn't gotten worse.  These are facts.  It's impossible to separate out attribution for weather right now.Ha!  Okay, Pot, I can see that it as a mistaken usage.But there's no evidence of increased climate disasters, so....None of the predicted outcomes from 20 years ago hold today.  Severe weather and drought are flat.  None from 10 years ago hold.  The arctic still has ice (more than it did 10 years ago, even).  There are no skillful projections of changes.  Sea level rise has been constant for more than 100 years, with no evidence of acceleration.  All of those things might happen, sure, but they also might not.  There's zero evidence of catastrophic impacts as of now.Wow.  Sarcastic dismissal without rebuttal.  Great.Whelp, there isn't any less energy intensive method of polymerization, so unless you have a matter converter hidden away somewhere....Sure it does -- I buy more plastic bottles to replace the ones I've thrown away, thereby buying more oil.  Think globally, act locally, right?</blockquote>

Verification