keepthepace

joined 2 years ago
[–] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yes, it is not a problem for the power plants, it is a problem for the fauna and it only impacts reactors without cooling towers (which I repeat, can actually cool down rivers). And I may add, this is a problem for the fauna caused in big part by the global warming which nuclear plants help prevent.

From the (translated article)

The measures were intended to protect the ecosystem of the Aare River and comply with strict environmental regulations.

...

According to EDF, throttling or shutting down nuclear power plants during heat waves has led to an average reduction in annual electricity production of 0.3 percent since 2000.

[–] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Tu es déjà éligible au CIR si tu crées une startup de tourisme spatial.

[–] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

Its a type of energy that gets more expensive

We choose to make it so. Constantly adding security features and not financing research. It could have gone down as well if we had pushed for small reactors, helped the EPR more, not shut down the research into plutonium as a fuel...

Trash is not solved

It is inert and a lot of it has the potential to be a future fuel. "Put it in a hole below the water table" is pretty close to a solution.

A minor error can have a huge environmental impact, especially in densly populated areas like Europe

It will be hard to be as impactful as coal or thermal engines, which are considered to be responsible for about 48 000 premature deaths yearly here in France. If nuclear energy allowed a country to decarbonate, it could "afford" a Chernobyl per year and still save lives.

Plants need cooling, most use rivers and that does not mix well with rising temperatures, and have to be shut down in summer

That's simply not true. Every year journalists fall for it but here is a breakdown:

  • Every year some plants undergo planned maintenance in summer, not because it is too hot but because there is less consumption (winter heating is when the peak is)
  • Some plants do lower their outputs, the most they had to do it so far was by 0.2% of the total output of the country because of environmental regulations that basically forbid any heating of the water above certain temperatures.
  • It only touches plants that don't have the iconic cooling towers. Plants with cooling towers do not warm rivers, in some case they may even cool them down.

As long as there are liquid rivers, plants will be able to cool down. We will have much more serious problems before this becomes an issue.

Nuclear plants are not flexible and can’t react to energy availability

It can. As I am writing that, it is 1pm here, we are at 33GW of nuclear production, mostly because there is a lot of solar power and Germany is flooding us with electricity with negative price. At 4am, we were at 42GW of nuclear.

Most fuel is produced by less reliable states.

Minerals are fungible, therefore consumers go for the cheapest. It usually means countries where semi-slavery is the norm and environmental regulations are not a thing. They do tend to be shitty countries yes. Non-fossil mineral resources however are found pretty uniformly over the globe (having mountains helps). There are uranium mines in France that we shut down because of labor cost.

No public backing

That's the main problem. The above lies have been repeated ad nauseam and local opposition means that opening new nuclear plants is basically impossible. This is a policy and opinion problem mostly.

I am bitter about it. The sane plan was to go full nuclear in the 90s, double the electricity production, get rid of coal and thermal vehicles that way and slowly transition over 40 years into solar as we either get batteries costs down or develop space based solar power.

Now we are getting the transition but it was oil-fueled instead of nuclear-fueled and this choice was made by people misled into believing they defended the environment by fighting nuclear power.

Yes, wind/solar + batteries is the future (though I don't think these are cost competitive with nuclear yet. Solar alone is, batteries not) but opting out of nuclear was a very costly option for the climate.

[–] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, that kind of stuff. Any you’d recommend?

A bit dated but Cousteau's documentaries, while it mentions environmental problems, do that from a discovery point of view.

[–] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

There.

(just downscaled/upscaled with no interpolation)

[–] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 weeks ago

Yes: they train the model on 8 bit art with 8x8 pixels and then ask it to generate with a scale of 0.125 (1/8) and scale up with no interpolation.

[–] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 weeks ago

0.7 on the Kardashev scale. En route to 1.0!

[–] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 6 points 3 weeks ago

tl;dr:

sur 1939 affaires examinées, seules 22 de celles qui ont été résolues l’ont été grâce à des indices ou des preuves tirées d'images de vidéosurveillance. Ce qui fait 5,87 % des enquêtes élucidées.

À vous de voir si vous considérez ce nombre normal, haut ou bas.

Perso je crois clair que l'utilité de la visiosurveillance est avant tout du théatre électoral pour se positionner "contre les voyous" ou "contre les fachos".

[–] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

I love all the things unicode support by default but one should not be ashamed to refuse to support some features.

[–] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 weeks ago

Is there a legitimate use for vertical text? Japanese can be written horizontally as well, using vertical form is a literary choice but many japanese platforms opt out of it.

[–] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 weeks ago

The typical example given is Japanese text traditionally being written vertically, but I am doubtful that it has any uses in a forum. That's a bit like claiming that you need cursive fonts because it is traditional in western countries.

[–] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 weeks ago

Fini Tower Wizard, que j'avais acheté pendant les soldes.

Mon fils a voulu essayer Raft qu'il avait vu chez des streamers qu'il aime bien mais on a trouvé ça chiant.

On a recommencé une partie de Factorio avec le but de s'acheter Space Age si on reste motivés jusqu'à la fin (mais il se décourage à la tech nucléaire)

À cause e-penser, j'ai acheté Exographer, j'aime l'idée d'expliquer le modèle standard via un platformer. Je suis content de l'achat pour encourager la démarche, mais je trouve que le contenu éducatif est pas encore assez intégré au gameplay même si c'est bien mieux que ce que j'ai vu jusqu'à présent.

J'avais pas aimé Noita parce que je n'avais pas compris que c'était un roguelike (opinion impopulaire: je trouve que dire "c'est un roguelike" est trop souvent un gimmick un peu facile pour "j'ai que 4 heures de contenu mais on va augmenter la rejouabilité en enlevant les sauvegardes) mais je l'ai réessayé récemment en mode "osef, on speedrun et on fait exploser un max de trucs" et c'était assez fun en fait.

Et mon fils commence (enfin!) à se dire que jouer c'est bien mais que faire des jeux peut être fun aussi et on s'est pitché quelques concepts de game design qu'on va peut etre tenter de prototyper ensemble.

 

On le sait à cause d'une fuite hallucinante: un journaliste s'est retrouvé inclus par erreur dans une discussion opérationnelle alors que l'opération avait lieu. Via Signal.

“Whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes. Per the president’s request we are working with DOD and State to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans.”

17
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by keepthepace@slrpnk.net to c/solarpunk@jlai.lu
 

Contexte: je participe à un projet de l'ADEME, nommé eXtrème Défi (XD pour les intimes) qui vise à proposer des mobilités alternatives avec des véhicules légers, réparables, peu chers. Au bout de plusieurs années, de nombreux prototypes ont été crées par des acteurs de tout le spectre: boites industrielles, labos, fablabs.

Les véhicules roulent, il y en a plusieurs qui sont suffisamment matures pour passer à la production mais... la réglementation ne suit pas. Qu'il s'agisse des homologations tellement pas prévues pour le cas qu'ils nous recommandent de faire un dossier et des immatriculations à l'étranger, des contraintes de puissance qui nous forcent à être moins performants que ce qu'on va importer, ou des politiques d'aide à l'achat qui passent à coté de ces solution 10x plus écologiques que la première hybride venue, il y a vraiment urgence à faire évoluer la législation.

J'ai vu circuler cette pétition et je me suis dit que ça pourrait intéresser quelques un ici.

Post d'il y a plus d'un an pour visualiser de quoi on parle. Depuis, les véhicules sont passés à une étape beaucoup moins bricolage, j'ai malheureusement eu la flemme de poster les photos de l'événement de Laval en 2024

 

Dés que j'ai le temps, probablement fin mai-juin je vais m'en imprimer je pense

 

*Envahisseurs de la place

Appuie sur le numéro '4' de ton téléphone pour aller à gauche, '6' pour aller à droite!

 

Je voulais partager ma petite 🍒 de la semaine.

Pour rappel, la loi de Brandolini c'est ça: « la quantité d'énergie nécessaire pour réfuter des sottises […] est supérieure d'un ordre de grandeur à celle nécessaire pour les produire »

On l'a tous constatée dans des débats en ligne, et si elle s'applique en effet à un débat entre un conspiro et un sceptique, il y a un facteur en plus dans la propagande populiste qui rééquilibre le jeu et me donne personnellement un peu d'espoir.

Je me documente en ce moment un sur les usines à fake news, les mécanismes de la propagande populiste, comment les méthodes des études de marché sont recyclées pour faire des usines à mèmes nazis.

Et lors du process, j'ai réalisé que, certes, les mensonges ne coûtent pas beaucoup d'effort à produire, mais ils doivent en produire beaucoup pour savoir lesquels vont marcher. Vous ne voyez pas passer 99% des merdes et intox que ces réseaux inventent. Ce qui sort des boites de pétri idéologiques où elles naissent, c'est le haut du panier et ça leur a demandé 100x plus de travail pour en produire une "qui marche".

Donc mon message est de garder espoir et de continuer à debunker ce qui circule. Leur capacité de nuisance et de production sont limitées

 

I'm part of a group that promotes light electric vehicles (hybrids between electric bikes and cars) and I'm also a huge user of deep learning technologies. As a part of that I am also involved in a fablab, where we often use things that are weirdly cataloged as low-tech despite being high-tech, like DIY electronics. Discussions about what's beneficial, what's compromise, what's something to avoid crop daily and I would like to clear a few points out. I hope it will be useful, and I hope it will bring some interesting discussions here.

Our transition to a sustainable society requires us to make choices, often tech choices, in a way that's aligned with the final objective. There is a general misunderstanding about the different types of accounting you need to do at the individual level, organizational level, national level and global level in order to achieve true sustainability on a global scale.

CO2-equivalent accounting (which is by the way not the only metric that matters, but is still a crucial one) is generally divided into 3 scopes:

  • Scope 1 is the CO2 that's directly emitted by the subject. You burn fuel in a generator or in a thermal engine, that's scope 1 emissions.
  • Scope 2 is the CO2 that's emitted by the energy that you are using, mostly electricity, but can be heat and cooling.
  • Scope 3 is the CO2 that's emitted by your production chain. In other words, that's CO2 that you don't directly emit, but that through your activity, you make others emit. For instance, you're asking for the delivery of something. The CO2 emitted by the truck that brings it is scope 3.

Note that CO2 that's accounted in your scope 2 & 3 is actually somewhere in the scope 1 of someone.

If you on a personal level or on an organizational level you want to minimize your impact on global CO2 emissions you need to have all three into account and 1, 2, 3 is kind of a good priority order.

The tricky part is that as soon as you have a higher point of view, be it at the regional, national or global level, you should not add these different scopes because that makes you count emissions several times depending on the length of your supply chain.

Consider a paperclip factory. Let's say that extracting material to make one paperclip emits one gram of CO2, that the transport of the raw material to the factory emits another gram, and that the transformation uses electricity that emits one more gram. If we consider it's the same company that does the mining, the transport, the electricity production, and the transformation, it has a scope 1 of 3 grams of CO2. That is the actual real number of gas emitted.

Now imagine if the mining, the transport, the electricity production and the manufacturing factory are actually separated entities:

  • Mining: 1g CO2 in scope1
  • Transport: 1g CO2 in scope1
  • Electricity produciton: 1g CO2 in scope1
  • Transformation: 0g in scope1, 1g in scope2, 2g in scope3

Add all of this, through the magic of accounting, we have twice the amount of emissions! Now my point is not to debate whether this exists as a genuine tool to reach carbon neutrality or as a greenwashing tool to make fake savings easier. I think it has a purpose and a use but it needs to be used carefully, because a naive reading of that would be that we can cut CO2 total emissions by just concentrating companies into a few zaibatsus.

Especially when you are trying to decide if a specific technology could be part of a sustainable society on the longer term, only scope 1 actually matters: a sustainable society is a society where all scope 1 are at 0, which means it will automatically make all scope 2 and 3 at zero too. In a transitional period, sustainable tech will need to deploy with some scope 2 & 3 emissions, it is unavoidable but as long as it diminishes the total sum of scope 1 out there, it is a net benefit.

As an engineer, scope 1 is usually what I'm looking at. But it also often makes me blind to other paths of action. When I am looking at the above example, I'm thinking that the transformation step is non-problematic and that we should focus on the other three sectors (mining, transport, electricity) in order to have a sustainable society. Thing is, this example is an oversimplified reality. As a company or individual, you usually have a choice between several alternatives, especially when it comes to electricity production or transport. And you can decide to pay more for something that emits less. So there is a point into pressuring organizations to reduce their scope 2 and scope 3 levels as well.

However, when it comes to evaluate not a company, but a technology, one should only look at its scope 1. We can produce electricity, transport things and mine materials without emitting CO2. Therefore, if your production only uses electricity, raw materials and transport, it can be part of a sustainable society, at least from the CO2 point of view. It does not mean that the companies producing/deploying that tech will automatically be carbon-neutral (scope 1,2,3 = 0), especially if we demand them to optimize their costs in the current industrial ecosystem, but then it is the business/industrial practices that need to be attacked.

This is a paradox that is present in electric vehicles and basically anything that mostly consumes electricity for use or production. If you make the accounting on a personal or organizational level, you can't dismiss the fact that the production of your electric vehicles will have emitted a lot of CO2 during production (scope 2 and 3). However, it is often missed that the most important part of making an EV switch is that it brings down your own scope 1 dramatically. Your scope 2 and scope 3 emissions are usually more than offset by the savings your scope 1 brings into other people's scope 3.

30
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by keepthepace@slrpnk.net to c/imaginarywitches@lemmy.dbzer0.com
 

Je viens de rejoindre un groupe qui monte une liste citoyenne dans mon coin d'Isère (La Tour du Pin) et je me suis dit que ça valait le coup de parler un peu de ces initiatives.

Si vous êtes comme moi vous connaissiez juste Saillans qui a fait ça il y a 10 ans, mais depuis l'idée se répand. En 2020 aux municipales, 384 listes citoyennes et participatives se sont présentées partout en France, 66 d’entre-elles ont gagnée les mairies. Des centaines sont en train de s’organiser pour 2026. Il y a une carte ici mais elle est très incomplète

Et je réalise que c'est maintenant, d'ici à fin mars en gros, qu'il faut commencer un mouvement pour avoir une chance d'être prêts pour mars 2026, date du scrutin. Donc si ça vous intéresse mais qu'il n'y en a pas dans votre coin, bougez vous! C'est assez facile à démarrer: faut juste en parler, trouver des gens, se rencontrer et discuter des envies et possibilités.

Il y a des fiches outils ici si vous savez pas par quel bout vous y prendre: https://www.actionscommunes.org/boite-a-outils/fiches-outils/

mais aucun besoin de toutes les lire, juste picorer ce qui vous semble intéressant peut suffire.

C'est quoi une liste citoyenne participative? C'est une liste apartisane (= n'appartenant à aucun parti) qui se focalise sur la représentation du plus de personnes possibles de la commune. Elle ne se bâtit pas autour d'un ou d'une candidate mais autours de revendications construites petit à petit à force de concertations et in fine, plus loin dans le process, les candidat·es seront recrutés pour assembler la liste. Saillans avait choisi la tête de liste (le maire) par tirage au sort mais d'autres façons de faire existent.

Ça donne au final une liste qui va surtout parler des problèmes locaux et très peu des problèmes nationaux, qui va être pragmatique et étonnamment efficace pour ce qui est de la remontée de problèmes et la découverte de talents locaux pour les gérer.

90
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by keepthepace@slrpnk.net to c/imaginarywitches@lemmy.dbzer0.com
 

Source : David Revoy

 

Je me pose la question vu que je suis à un fablab bien équipé et que je dois à un moment changer mes lunettes.

view more: ‹ prev next ›