sadly black holes go to something like 42% conversion (source: some minute physics video i think)
frankly for any of them (except pics@lw) there are no more than 5-6 main posters, so if a decision is taken, it would only affect people who are following
Well yes, but I have observed that posts on this community are more related to stuff around photography (either the photographer, or the camera, etc). This does have it's own charm.
Also one more thing, centralisation. There is !photography@lemmy.world !photography@discuss.online, and !photography@lemmy.ml. I do not know if other mods would be willing, can this be proposed to atleast archive one of them (maybe lemmy.ml, similar amount of posts as here in a week) so we can have atleast 2 big, and comparable communities.
And also, there is !pics@lemmy.world (probably most active among all these) and !pics@lemmy.ml (seemingly dead) for same-ish purpose. One can discuss with them too.
some more same-ish communities
https://lemmy.ml/c/analog (not same but similar)
there may be more, but these are all the ones i could find
you broke my heart, man
they are kinda a gender neutral.
Bro is fairly commonly used as gender neutral word.
Man (as in my man) does not have an equivalent (my person does not havve the ring) - but originally, man was the gender neutral term for persons, and we user mer (as in mermaid) / were (as in werewolf) for males. that is how man was used. But that very well could also be due to bias in writing and archiving of stuff, I don not know much about this.
And it came back after a few hours of working. Thhinking I may be hitting some rate limits, avoided using it for a day, and still does not work.
when you are thinking of carbon capture, i do not know what methods you are thinking off. so as a general rule, i wrote major methods of just energy generation - once you have energy, there are tons of ways to do tons of things. Basically, if you can write it in a reaction form, it would be doable, however much unfeasable it is. For example, metal extraction, is definitely thermodynamically unfavorable, but how do we do it - energy. Either by beurning stuff, or electrolytic, or chemically, as long as you are willing to give energy, reactions can happen.
This above passgae is mostly to answer your "relevancy" questions, to sum up basically - once you have the energy, it does not matter where it is generated how it is transported, we can just use it
you skipped wind power
I do not consider wind power to be a good source of energy. It is more available than hydro/geo thermal, but not less than solar or hydro (specifically gravitational hydro) power. They are huge and really expensive, and also not energy dense.
it’s clear you’re just being biased
yes i am, it is not something to shame about
Nuclear power plants require tons of rare materials built precisely or else disaster happens. Practically, they’re less clean than wind, water, geothermal, and the (for now inefficient) rare earth free solar panels. yes, technically.
Mining for nuclear ores is most definitely very destructive, but it has the extreme benefit of energy density. Consider it like this, 1 kg of coal, if converted to energy completely - maybe you can cook food for a meal or 2. 1 kg of Uranium (fissile) even at 10% conversion efficiency - you can cook for 100s if not 1000s of meals. Math is simple, chemical reactions just do not produce as much energy as fission. And this is considering very real fission of very common uranium. Think about when we can finally start doing thorium (more common than fissile U)(we can still do thorium, nothing is stopping us other than some big people trusting/investing in it). And if we ever get to fusion, increase the meal count by 2-3 orders. And fusion sources are relatively cleaner (if D2O, then basically infinite and free, and we take Berryilium, then not as energy intensive ("just" an order of 2 jump), rare, but not that much).
A nice way to reuse infrastructure
Exactly my point, instead of getting 100s of meals, we can get atleast 10s of meals, but without changing much about the plant (all the steam turbine part stays same) and this will allow to have smaller cities to also get nuclear, instead of just big cities. And also reduce the economical damage to avoid damaing working condition plants by just stopping their use.
You are always free to come back, but I do not want you to be tethered anywhere.
I think that is a little too agressive, my prefered way is to post to community, if it is the largest, or if the largest on lemmy.eorld, then second largest.
and for carbon capture, some semi succesfull ones are pumping it underground to form carbonate rocks, it is semi permanent, as long as as not leached.
There is sadly no "green energy source"
solar power - silicon is required - good quality, and we are running out of it fast, and also tons of metals required (and also battery materials) hydro power - disturbs the surrounding too much
and many more
2 are good, but not avaialable for different reason
geo/hydro thermal - not available evrrywhere or not enough mature
nuclear - one of the only sources which is realtively very clean, can be even retrofitted to some large coal plants, but either is not allowed to be implemented (people fear nuclear, some of it is reasonable, but the hate it gets is way more) or we just do not want to centralise all this power to some people (lets say some authoritarian govt)
Misinformation - the post title is not (just) K