Also not native, but I don't think you can't use the word queue or line for hair. You can use braids, you can use tail or you can say tied back.
I get it though cause in Italian we too have the same word for line of people and hair tail (coda)
Does it count as DIY or professionally installed if you are a professional doing it yourself?
I’m loyal and respectful enough with the people I care. Isn’t that enough?
Nope, you need to actually meet people, do stuff, talk, go places etc. Simply existing and "being nice" is not enough.
Then you need some friends. On the how to acquire one, there are a few ways. One of the most effective outside of school or work is to join some club, some class or some sport activity. For instance, I joined a latin dance class lately (salsa, bachata) and I've met lots of very friendly people. Every Friday they also organize a night out to some local clubs to dance, and there you can meet lots of other people with a similar interest. It's just an example though, pick something interesting, join a group of people etc.
You just need to be proactive. Staying all day in your room commiserating yourself is definitely not sexy
Frankly, those are just local problems and thus negligible (compared to greenhouse gas emissions).
Tell that to those dying because of those toxic emissions.
So don’t be stupid about it: make as much of them as you can out of waste fats and oils, then stop. Easy-peasy!
Sure, I agree, but if you want biofuels to be a significant enough part of the fuel mix, you need to make them at scale, which means you need incentives and by incentives I mean making them profitable enough so that it makes sense to invest billions into making them. At that point it becomes a race towards who can make the most at the lowest price to make the most money, and guess where that brings you. Otherwise, if you limit fuel crops, you'll get a very small production at a high price, since the scalability and possibility for growth will be limited.
Biofuels are best used for filling the gaps left over after cities are fixed for bikeability and everything reasonable to electrify is electrified
This is really what I'd like to see, using the massive taxes on fuels to finance sustainable mobility like trams, rail, bikes etc
Biofuels are great and all to fill that gap, but the moment they become more profitable or cheaper than fossil fuels, it's the moment you're gonna have massive problems.
So you spend your entire day either working/studying or staring at a blank wall?
Btw, it doesn't really matter if you do something actually interesting, it's the attitude that counts. I've tried doing the same thing/going to the same event with different people, some very positive and outgoing, and some very negative, and the experience has been very very different.
If your attitude is "I'm not interesting, and I don't do anything interesting" then guess what, you won't be interesting to anyone around you. Btw, going to the pub for a beer can be very interesting. Walking somewhere can be interesting.
I mean, Zola Larson wouldn't even be such a bad name (zola is how Gorgonzola is abbreviated in Italy)
Not really. Biofuels are better than normal oil-derived fuels in terms of excess CO2 being dispersed in the environment, but they are still overall bad. They still release harmful particulates, they still release lots of NOx, and they are doubly bad in terms of land utilization, where you use huge swaths of land to cultivate plants with the sole goal of making them into fuel, rather than using that land to make food. Moreover, in a lot of places the cultivation of biofuel plants is being done by burning down forests and using that land for farming.
Biofuels are definitely better than normal petrol or diesel, but they are still overall bad, and I'd also argue that if we 100% switched to biofuels we'd have massive issues in terms of land, farming-related emissions, deforesting etc.
So Justin Bieber circa 2014, i.e. dropcrotch pants, aka diaper pants.
I think those are some of the most hideous pants ever. Or do you mean like Swiss Guard pants?
Tbf "from the river to the sea" and "Israel destruction" are pretty much the same thing.
No, it's not about inclusivity or lack-thereof, it's about you needing to at least KNOW the language before proposing changes to it. I don't need your ignorant opinion. No one needs it. We have enough people talking about shit they know nothing about from their smug high horse, as if their opinion is just as valid as truly knowledgeable people. Learn Spanish, speak it fluently, and then come back.
Or maybe you are one of those people that are flabbergasted when they hear the word "negro" in Spanish?
Are you sure it was actually created in the Latin American world by Spanish speakers and not in the USA by English speakers with Mexican ancestors that keep saying they're Mexican even though they've never been to the country, can't speak the language and the last person in the family to do so was their grandpa?
Because this seems 100% an American invention by people who can't speak the language but still need to feel superior by pretending to do "something" for the queer community.
I don't think I've ever heard any of this outside of English speaking forums comprised mainly of Americans. Not in real life, not in Europe, not in Latin America.
Do you even speak the language? Because I'd argue that before trying to change something, you first need to have a deep understanding of that thing, especially for languages.
I’m not sure why you are spending so much time comparing nuclear to coal based plants. If you wanted to make a compelling argument there you’d need to compare it to renewable energy sources. I totally agree that we need to phase our coal based plants as fast as possible.
Because Germany decommissioned their Nuclear plants before they did so with coal plants (or gas plants, which they keep building)
The price for the fuel isn’t so much the issue but availability or rather dependency on outside powers.
Sure, but price is a function of availability and demand. The price is low because it's pretty available and the demand is nothing like that of oil, LNG or coal. Plus Canada and Australia have some of the biggest reserves in the world (3rd, 4th) and they are western democracies we can rely on. Also, Uranium isn't bought JIT, but it's bought years in advanced so that it can be enriched and stockpiled, this means that it doesn't feel the price fluctuations that much.
I’d much prefer the option with less reliance on other states for our power sources.
As for renewables, I don't know if you've noticed, but most solar cells right now come from China, if they were to stop selling tomorrow (for one reason or another) we'd be kind of screwed anyway. Maybe a good mix and diversification is the best answer here. And yes, I know that you don't need China to keep operating your solar cells, but they are kind of needed right now to make the transition, new cells will be needed to replace old ones, and we also need batteries, which they are now leading production of. Unless we move manufacturing back (which we should do, but that's a decades long process we can't possibly rely upon) we are still reliant on an external state to undergo the ecological transition.
I have yet to see a convincing strategy to explain humans in a few thousand years what we buried in these tombs. It just doesn’t seem plausible. And even if we find a few suitable places are we sure we will find more when those have filled up?
Maybe it won't really be necessary, some 4th gen nuclear reactors promise to be able to use spent fuel for their reaction (also Thorium, which is extremely more abundant than Uranium). These are now like fusion reactors, which are permanently 20 years away, but we are building them right now. Some of these plants will go online this decade afaik, and if they deliver, many more will surely follow next decade.
Using spent fuel should shorten the estimated containment time from tens of thousands of years to 300 years, which should be enough to just say, bury them and leave.
The delay and cost is definitely subject to policy and policy changes. But today no-one can guarantee that we wont do those and in effect have a delayed and very expensive project on our hands. I’ll remind you of Stuttgart 21 or the BER or any other bigger projects Germany has been dealing with as long as I can remember. I have no faith that a reactor would magically be built without any of the issues those projects have.
This is an issue we might be able to fix without hoping for magical technology. Also because it doesn't touch only this argument, but pretty much everything happening in the country. We can't just say "Germany can't make any big project" and leave.
ARM = Advanced RISC Machine
Originally Acorn RISC Machine before that
Fuel isn’t easy to source and will put us into a new dependency like gas did with russia. That’s not desirable.
Sure, but it's very little fuel when compared to coal, gas or oil. Raw Uranium is just 14% of the total energy price for nuclear energy, which means that doubling the price of uranium would add about 10% to the cost of electricity produced in existing nuclear plants, and about half that much to the cost of electricity in future power plants. For Coal/Gas plants, the fuel cost is the main cost by far.
Btw, Russia is not the main producer of Uranium. First is Kazakhstan, then Namibia, Canada, Australia and Uzbekistan
Building a reactor takes a lot of time that we don’t have right now. We need to build that capacity and we need to build it fast.
For sure, and likely they won't help or help marginally to reach 2035 goals, but they can definitely help to reach "net-0 by 2050". Modern nuclear power plants are planned for construction in five years or less (42 months for Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) ACR-1000, 60 months from order to operation for an AP1000, 48 months from first concrete to operation for a European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) and 45 months for an ESBWR)[47] as opposed to over a decade for some previous plants.
Look at France and their shit show of new and old nuclear projects. The company building new reactors went insolvent because it’s insanely expensive and last year they had to regularly power down the reactors because the rivers used for cooling got too hot
The cost of building new power plants is mostly impacted by delays and overruns, which are often caused by policy changes. For instance, Canada has cost overruns for the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, largely due to delays and policy changes, that are often cited by opponents of new reactors. Construction started in 1981 at an estimated cost of $7.4 Billion 1993-adjusted CAD, and finished in 1993 at a cost of $14.5 billion. 70% of the price increase was due to interest charges incurred due to delays imposed to postpone units 3 and 4, 46% inflation over a 4-year period and other changes in financial policy.
The costs of decommission are included by law in the price of the energy, and the Nuclear Power Plant owners are required to set aside that money in order to smoothly decommission the plant with no extra costs.
There is still no valid strategy for securely containing the waste produced for the needed amount of time
There are secure enough strategies to contain the, honestly small, amount of spent fuel we produce today. It's just that it's scary and no one wants a nuclear deposit in their backyard, but in reality it's still orders of magnitude safer than dumping millions of tons of pollutants in the air with coal power plants.
How many people do you think will die in 2025 due to Nuclear Energy? How many per MW/h? And I remind you that Germany closed all Nuclear Plants before closing all Coal Powered Plants.
Can storage technology reach 100% coverage by 2050? Because that's the target for net-0 afaik.
If not, we should invest in something else to help us reach that goal, and Nuclear seems the most promising medium-term solution.
It's a tricky thing, but renewables and nuclear fission plants are not two mutually exclusive things that can't coexist. The issue with renewables is that, right now, they are not consistent enough to be relied upon 24/7, and we don't have, right now, a good enough storage technology to solve the issue.
Without this, the only other option is to have renewables cover 30-50% of the production capacity, and another technology to provide a base capacity when renewables cannot be used. This can be hydro, if you have it, nuclear, gas or coal. Choose your poison.
for one specific brand (specific model too ?)
Probably one platform (used for several models, sometimes shared between brands. For instance VW Polo, Audi A1, Seat Ibiza and Skoda Fabia are all based on the same platform).
Unless you have cars with modular battery packs, which do not exist right now.