this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
113 points (98.3% liked)

technology

23210 readers
127 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net 57 points 2 months ago (3 children)

It's kinda wild that there is a science that allows us to harness an almost limitless power of molecules for almost entirely clean energy, but the US just wants to literally burn ancient dinosaur fossils for energy despite it being a major cause for the total collapse of the environment.

Just barbarian level shit.

[–] VeganicTankie@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 2 months ago

"Human nature"

[–] booty@hexbear.net 17 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Remember when we first figured out how to do this and everyone though that by the 2020s we'd be running nuclear powered cars and vacuum cleaners and shit?

Yeah me neither cause I wasn't born yet but still, why couldn't I have been born into that world kitty-birthday-sad

[–] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago

I was born in the 90s but grew up reading Foundation books. I thought for sure we'd get nuclear powered everything

[–] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I get the sentiment but you definitely don't want nuclear powered vacuum cleaners.

[–] Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I get the sentiment but I definitely want a nuclear vacuum cleaner

As long as it's a Miele and not a fucking Dyson

[–] anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't know, my Dyson works great.

[–] Spongebobsquarejuche@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The cordless changed my life.

[–] anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago

That one is nice. My friend has it.

I have the corded, pet hair one. Damn, that shit is powerful.

[–] Diuretic_Materialism@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Honestly it's kind of a ridiculous concept. It's way more efficient to have one big plant generating power and then send that power to all the location it's needed then have a million tiny engines everywhere. That's why cars are so damn inefficient.

Early train engineers figured this out, before widespread use of electricity they were trying to make trains that were driven by long vacuum tubes powered by one big pump station cuz that was more efficient (on paper at least) than having a big fuck off steam engine dragging around all it's own water and coal.

So have one big nuke power plant and then just have all the cars run off pantographs.

[–] theturtlemoves@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

One big power plant is more efficient, but also a single point of failure. Having multiple medium-sized power plants is more reliable.

Anyone who gets most of their electricity from nukes already has a nuke powered vacuum.

[–] Hello_Kitty_enjoyer@hexbear.net 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah me neither cause I wasn't born yet but still, why couldn't I have been born into that world

zoomer?

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 39 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I don't believe it. You'd have to convince me that the capacity to build a nuclear reactor even exists in the us anymore.

[–] Black_Mald_Futures@hexbear.net 28 points 2 months ago (1 children)

can't wait until elon musk unveils the CyberReactor and it blows up and idk causes the yellowstone eruption

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 15 points 2 months ago

He's gonna watch that movie where people drill into the core of the earth and then "invent" geothermal energy and activate Yellowstone on purpose

[–] Teekeeus@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The US could probably still build maritime nuclear reactors for subs

[–] egg1918@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago

Yeah same with the carriers. They're currently replacing them all with new (slowly)

[–] Pili@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

Oh yeah, I think they were supposed to build a couple of those for Australia. I wonder how that's going.

[–] huf@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago

they could pay russia to build it :D

[–] JuanGLADIO@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago

tbs the article says the US is still the leader in nuclear production

[–] Antiwork@hexbear.net 32 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Besides bombing the global south, what isn't the US decades behind China in?

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 28 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] Hestia@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago

Communism kills 9 billion Americans a year.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 28 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The US is infinitely behind because the US does not have the political capability to build any nuclear power anymore.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago

good point, there's no path for US to actually catch up

[–] citrussy_capybara@hexbear.net 26 points 2 months ago (3 children)

they have to be more than 15 behind

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 months ago

lol wouldn't be surprised if this is a wildly optimistic estimate

[–] SwitchyWitchyandBitchy@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They have to write something that sounds plausible against the backdrop of american exceptionalism.

Looking at Wikipedia, the US has brought 2 new nuclear reactors online at a plant in Georgia this decade. Meanwhile, China, has brought 8 online in the same time span. Before those 2 reactors, the US only brought 1 other online since 1996, and that one began construction in 1973. If I counted correctly, China has brought 54 online and operational in that same period, all since 2002. Most have a capacity of at least a gigawatt like the most recently completed US reactors. China also has 25 reactors already under construction, while the US has none. Just 9 that are planned. Also, the US hasn't managed to get a reactor operational within 10 years of the start of construction since 1987, while most of China's recent new reactors have taken around 6 years from start of construction to operation.

Some of China's reactors are designs from US companies, so the US clearly has the ability to design competitive reactors. Building them is another story though.

[–] FloridaBoi@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago

you cant have a profitable nuclear reactor so the us doesn't make them

[–] Findom_DeLuise@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago

Rookie numbers

[–] supafuzz@hexbear.net 17 points 2 months ago

15 years behind, and counting

[–] Finger@hexbear.net 14 points 2 months ago

no more half measures walter

[–] Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net 13 points 2 months ago
[–] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 13 points 2 months ago

"Richest" country in the world btw