If the goal is reduced CO2, wouldn’t it be better to take aim at plants, rather than fungi?
Why? I am not sure photosynthesis plays a large role in the lower carbon footprint.
Readit Newskalessin commented on CRISPR fungus: Protein-packed, sustainable, and tastes like meat isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechu... · Posted by u/rguiscard
kalessin commented on Bikeshedding, or why I want to build a laptop geohot.github.io//blog/je... · Posted by u/cspags
Posting from a Thinkpad X61s laptop (Jan 2008) running Trisquel Linux 11.
(I take your point that I would not be able to participate in this discussion using the original operating system that came with this laptop).
Apple’s support for MacOS can been shorter than their laptops longevity (the longevity of their laptops got quite bad when then tried to make them as thin as an usb-c port). So Linux support is also important there imo, and as the original post pointed out because Apple makes it so hard to for Linux to support their hardware, long-term software support may be something to think about before buying a MacBook.
Deleted Comment
kalessin commented on An e-waste dumping ground npr.org/sections/goats-an... · Posted by u/andsoitis
I just replaced an electric stove top unit because the old one had a burner that wouldn’t turn off. I still haven’t figured out what to do with the old unit; a local e-waste recycling group doesn’t want it, I don’t know anyone that wants a partially functioning stovetop, I don’t want to fix it myself… but I guess I can pay to bring it to the local landfill.
Anyone claiming that “right to repair” fixes any of this is missing the part where people don’t want to spend their lives repairing everything they have. Also, the new stovetop is far more energy efficient than the old one with is yet another balancing aspect of replacing old tech.
I don't want to fix it myself either, and I don't see how a repair industry could exist without the right to repair.
kalessin commented on Solar power is changing life deep in the Amazon washingtonpost.com/climat... · Posted by u/taylorbuley
Here in the US, solar panels are cheapear per sqft than many building materials, in particular fences. In bulk, a 2.4m x 1.3m (roughly 8ft x 4pt) panel is < $100, or $3/sqft. If you make it operational with wiring and an inverter, I've heard it's $5/sqft, and then you get electricity too. That's before any tax credits or subsidies. (Comparing right now to Home Depot pre-fab panels, metal is ~$20/sqft, composite materials are ~$10/sqft, and vinyl is $2-$4/sqft.)
Combine that with LFP lithium batteries getting to consumers at roughly $200/kWh in many places, and the idea of running big transmission wires for many developing areas just simply won't make financial sense when compared to microgrids backed with batteries.
I don't really understand the idea of micro-grids, how do you account for redundancy, or long term storage if inclement weather goes on for a few days? Do you just keep big fossil gas generators as backup? Moreover residential is one thing, but industrial is another.
kalessin commented on Oxxcu, converting CO₂ into fuels, chemicals and plastics maddyness.com/uk/2024/01/... · Posted by u/PaulHoule
Creating synthetic fuels also seems like the only practical option in the table for seasonal storage. If solar energy is free in summer, even pathetic round trip efficiency could be worthwhile to provide winter reserves.
Seasonal storage for what kind of usage?
FYI, we have clean, and proven, energy sources in our toolbox that are not intermittent.
Nuclear is not working well for the French. Flamanville 3 is five times over budget and their fleet is nearing EOL.
Expecting hundreds of billions in subsidies to again try make nuclear economical is lunacy in a world where renewables are undercutting every single energy source available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
FLA3 is a first of a kind and is a bad example. Nuclear is working very well for France at the moment, we are back to high-availability and making a lot of money through exports.
There is bridges between military and civilian nuclear, however keep in mind that nuclear reactors like the EPRs being built in the UK are designed such that producing the necessary fission products to produce weapons is basically impossible. To produce those isotopes you generally want a reactor that allows online refueling.
OTOH, it is possible to "burn" nuclear weapons in civilian reactors, as done in the Megatons to Megawatts disarmament program.
kalessin commented on U.S. reenters the nuclear fuel game spectrum.ieee.org/nuclear... · Posted by u/beefman
It was an uncomfortably close call. I believe it was a near meltdown. Could have gone a different way.
It was a partial meltdown in a pressurized water reactor, it cannot be compared to Chernobyl, it's a completely different technology. PWRs can't explode like what happened in Chernobyl.
kalessin commented on U.S. reenters the nuclear fuel game spectrum.ieee.org/nuclear... · Posted by u/beefman
I argue: it goes back further than that - Chernobyl and 3-mile island[0]. Deeply ingrained in the collective psyche that nuclear - when it goes wrong goes _really_ wrong.
That really set the tone for where US was willing to go and even if it's overall a better solution people weren't willing to back it while it was too easy to kill politically. Jack Welch's book "Straight from the Gut" talks about how they shifted their entire business to nuclear servicing from development because they saw the changing winds - the correct bet.
I'm super excited by this latest development as we accept that we need to learn how to tame the beast that is nuclear fission because the benefits really do outweigh the drawbacks.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
What really went wrong at 3 mile island? No one died or was injured afaik.