🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@ravenclaw Look forward to seeing you there :)

@ravenclaw Nothign to be worthy of, dont worry it costs me nothing. Gitlab gives it to us for free since we are an open source project, since your part of the QOTO project by being here you have access to it, and no harm if your a noob, signup and enjoy.

We also let you host custom domains liek the one on gitlab you posted by the way.

@ravenclaw thats 100$ per user per month usually. so the qoto gitlab is quite a perk :)

@ravenclaw By the way yo uknow we offer a GitLab instance on QOTO and it provides a ultimate license to the users for free (which costs 100$ per user on gitlab).

A reminder to democrats, who managed to recently elect our very first segregationist president in living history. Here is a quote from your glorious leader when talking about obama...

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." - Joe Biden, Jan 31 2007

#USPol

We just going to forget this very important part of that wikipedia article just a few sentences before your quote:

> The Trump administration delivered a letter to Congress in August 2019 urging them to make permanent three surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act.

@SirSpencer @ned

@L29Ah

I think perhaps your client ignores the notification settings? You can try capitalized and non capitalized for everything you filter and should catch it all just to check if its case sensitive but I highly doubt it.

If that doesnt work let me know I can always just make it a point to use the same casing as your filter just so it works for you.

@funny

@MikeCarbine Sure, there are four currently running in Japan, France and Russia. Two are Generation two, two are generation three. There is a fifth being built in india.

The reason there arent many built right now isnt because they are experimental, its because they arent needed. We have plenty of excess nuclear material and it is so easy to mine more, and we need so little of it to begin with, there simply isnt much need. That and the fact that a single breeder reactor can supply fuel for many other normal reactors. So even if you are getting your fuel from a breeder you only need one breeder to support several normal nuclear plants.

The point here being since we are talking about it as a renewable for electric cars should our supply ever become an issue (which honestly is unlikely) we can always make more fissile material from existing fissile material. So it is an abundant renewable resource, so abundant we dont **need** to renew it, but we **can**.

@funny

This is so accurate

#Funny #Meme #Joke #Jokes #Humor #humour

@MikeCarbine

So for starters they arent theoretical. We have had about 20 fully operating breeder reactors. They have all successfully produced surplus fuel, and they all have generated surplus power for energy generation.

They are also considered Generation 3 tech right now.. so they are past expertimental, protype, which was their status in the 70,s and through three whole generations of improvements. They are fully functional and currently in use in several places as power plants, no issues.

As for the USa sentiment on nuclear.. I do agree it gets a worst rap than it deserves, that is unfortunate,. You are right we are likely to see expansion of other renewable sources like wind or solar rather than investment in nuclear, sad as this is. However lets not detract from the original discussion which was electric cars. Nuclear is still 25% of power generation in the USA, so it is quite significant and no matter how you slice it is renewable energy and should we rely on nuclear energy we can always create more.

By the way side note, it wouldnt really help us WRT turning nuclear waste to fuel. If you arent consuming the fuel it isnt going to be any better than the waste, so you still need to invest in nuclear for that to make sense. However breeder reactors CAN be used as burners. Where they basically convert weapons grade plutonium (plutonium is not usually suitable for reactors) into reactor fuel. This is in fact what one breeder reactor is used for, disposing of nuclear weapons and turning it into energy grid power.

@cy @bonifartius

@cy

Please try to educate yourself on a topic before you start asserting things as facts...

> Breeder reactors can’t break the laws of physics. The fuel they produce is always less than the fuel they consume.

They **do** produce more fuel than they consume, this does not break the laws of physics.

There is no violation of the laws of physics, it isnt creating free energy, nuclear reactions derive energy from mass energy equivalence, the conversion of mass into energy. Because they convert non-nuclear material into nuclear material due to an excess neutron economy they are able to turn non-fisible material into fisible material. Since the energy in nuclear reactors is derrived from conversion of mass into energy it does not violate the laws of physics, it turns ordinary inert rocks into nuclear material and a fuel source.

Yes it is renewable, yes it is effectively infinite (so long as you have any matter/mass to convert at least, which is effectively infinite considering how little is needed)... and no it doesnt break laws of physics. Here is a quote from wikipedia confirming what I just said

> A breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor that generates more fissile material than it consumes.[1] Breeder reactors achieve this because their neutron economy is high enough to create more fissile fuel than they use...

@bonifartius

@ravenclaw in the future any account like that, especially if its trying to sell something or adds links in an attempt to promote a website repeatidly please report it. If you are unsure, report it. Either way it will alert me even quicker in the future. Thanks.

@realcaseyrollins @ravenclaw peer reviewed papers

@cy

Actually nuclear fuel does last forever and is renewable. So again this is a failure if fact. Breeder reactors are capable of generating energy and actually produce fuel as thry go rather than consume it. They start with a seed amount of fuel and then never need nuclear fuel again as it produces its own fuel as it generates energy. Thus nuclear fuel is both able to last forever and renewable by definition. We currently have 21 breeder reactors in operation around the world whose excess fuel is them capable of being used in nonbreeder reactora.

@bonifartius

@ravenclaw Account is now suspended @xiaomiviet01

@bonifartius No that is completely and absolutely false in the USA and most countries.

In new england for example only 7% of the energy comes from fossil fuels. Moreover the fossil fuels used to generate energy for the grid isn't even gasoline or similar. It is other things such as natural gas and coal, neither of which do we have any production cars that run off either. So again, not sure how that is relevant. Even if we look across the USA as a whole fossil fuel generation for the power grid is less than other sources.

@ravenclaw Do you mean Arxiv?

@pony While this is deplorable I'd be curious to know how/why they were able to determine their political affiliation as far-right as opposed to being racist or nazi?

@bonifartius Well I did describe the loss in a conventional car, its ~ 80% loss within the car compared to the electric which was ~20%

What you describe is **not** the loss in the car its the loss in the energy generation process, as you point out. Thats fine and its relevance and worth talking about, but lets be clear we just moved the goal post, thats fine goal posts should be adjusted, but just saying.

As you seem to recognize when we talk about effiency and energy it all depends on scope. The largest scope we have on the earth for almost all forms of energy is the sun. The sun is our source for solar, wind (heating of the air), petroleum/gasoline (which comes from plants that got their energy from the sun), hell even nuclear energy is technically fissile material that comes from the sun.

We can at any point pick a scope to consider and evaluate effiency to absurdity of course and even start talking about the effiency of the sun itself, or the effiency in generating stars from other stars through super nova, you can go on forever. So the question we need to ask ourselves is simply what is the proper scope for the problem we are discussing.

Take solar panels as you brought up as a prime example of this. they are indeed only 20% effiency at converting EM radiation (light) into electricity. thats true, but is it relevant? Plants are half as efficient converting only 10% of light into energy. They also use a lot of that energy and only about 0.25% to 0.5% gets stored into the crop. An even smaller portion of crops and their energy make it in the ground to turn into oil. So we could safely say the process of converting light into petrol/gas is far less efficient at <0.1%... but again does this matter, why does evoking effiency this far up the chain matter in our discussions at all? What effect makes this useful and relevant to the discussion?

@mewmew ::rubs his feet on the carpet and zaps you with static electricity::