Unfortunately we are out of Czechoslovakias at the moment. Our last one broke in two :(

Almost, yes. It should be close enough as an estimate.

If you want to be precise, one thing you want to be careful about is that not every fuel releases the same amount of energy per kg of CO2. So you should be comparing to the CO2 released by whatever is being replaced by the biofuel (most likely fossil fuel), not the biofuel itself.

Another consideration is how much CO2 is released by the production of the biofuel compared to what it is replacing. Since farming equipment, transportation etc. all could produce CO2.

A very good question.

It is a very common misconception that trees and plants just always absorb CO2. The Carbon © in CO2 does not just disappear when plants produce Oxygen (O2). Plants use it as material to grow themselves and their fruits. Once they are fully grown, they don’t really absorb any more. So if you burn a tree in a fireplace and grow a new tree in its place, the new tree will eventually re-capture all the CO2 burning the wood released as it grows. This works even better with fast growing plants used for biofuel. The CO2 released by burning biofuel is re-captured when you grow more plants to make more biofuel.

So chopping down a forest to create fields is bad in the short term since it releases and does not recapture the CO2 from the trees, but is sustainable in the long term since you “recycle” the same Carbon.

I think switching to a frequency that a different region uses could be dangerous, since then the airplanes near do border would receive the signal but the airport wouldn’t. This could lead to misscommunications.

Also, the airline pays for the jets.

PS: source is https://youtu.be/9qM-xN7Bgg8

PPS: They do try the emergency frequency, routing a message through the previous area controller as well as anything else they can think of first. I left it out for brevity. Of course, fighter jets are not the first choice.

They don’t command them, but they call them in like you call the police.

Fun fact: From time to time, a pilot forgets to change frequency when entering a new area. This means the plane looks like it is not communicating. This is the most common reason why jets are sent to intercept an airliner. Of course, I would pay to see a recording of the pilots as they see the jet in front of them and realize they messed up.

In the first place, looking at wealth is pointless. I could make a thousand dollars a day and as long as I spend them immediately on services, (e.g. permanently living in an expensive hotel, renting a supercar) I could have net worth of $0 while living like a king. On the other hand, a struggling business owner may have millions in equipment and still have trouble putting food on the table. “Wealth” is not a good indicator of anything.

Hmm, that is actually an interesting point. If it is negative, does it bring down the sum in this? If so, how much of the world is my net worth greater than? A billion? Two?

Yes, that is a much better way to make the same point :)

Not lives on, but net worth (total wealth).

The 8 richest people in the world according to investopedia have a combined net worth of about $1,369 billion. Divide that by 3.6 billion and it is about $380 per person. Idk what the average net worth of the poorest half of the world’s population is, but I doubt it is below $380.

TL;DR: I’m calling bullshit.

You made her title so convoluted I am now unsure if she is expert fact checker who combats disinformation or expert on spreading disinformation while pretending to be a fact checker. 🤔

Please be trolling or bot. How could a sentient being write something this nonsensical…

I agree, but on the other hand 12 years? This sounds more like a 12 days crime…

Could be social commentary on what passes as “science” on social media these days. 🤣 That’s what made me laugh.

Science is feelings

Typo? 🤣

It does not seem available on mobile. On desktop, it is an extension called “Temporary Containers”. You may also want the official “Firefox Multi-Account Containers” for managing sites where you want to stay logged in.

I use Firefox temporary containers. So not only are they deleted 5 mins after I close a tab, but different tabs don’t share cookies unless I explicitly allow it or the tabs are opened from one source (e.g. open link in new tab)

Then you factor in Germany and Japan going fully back to nuclear and rising demand for energy and realize you’re off by a factor of 20. Let’s be very conservative and say it’s a factor of 10. Since you either didn’t get that or tried to bury it in BS again:

What in the flying fuck are you talking about now. I was criticizing Germany taking offline already existing reactors, not saying to replace renewables with nuclear.

Your argument fell apart, can’t be always right. Move on. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Straw man again, really?

Right, comparing safety to the other source that is currently available is straw man, just like bringing up how many lives seatbelts save when discussing seatbelt safety. Cope much.

Sure because that one just ripped an iceberg-shaped hole into your HMS Nuclear Titanic. But keep on shilling.

Now who is strawmaning. Sure, 230 years is such a short time, that nuclear can’t even be a transitional source. Also, it is absolutely impossible that nuclear fusion, fuel reprocessing or thorium reactors would be developed to a usable state in such a short time.

Since you seem to have run out of actual safety related arguments other than calling research papers low quality while every source you provided was a wikipedia article, I am done here.

Go an be a fossil fuel shill without even realizing it.

Or do you realize it? Were you speaking from experience before? Have happy fossil fuel bosses of your own?

Published by team working for Bangladeshi Nuclear energy providers and reads a bit like a promotion piece. It is cited nowhere but I’m sure their employer/customer was happy.

Ok, never mind that the people with most expertise and practical experience will inevitably work in the nuclear sector. Lets give this one to you, since I really have no way of knowing if it is honest.

Way better than your 1st article but still drives on assumed probabilities.

Ok sure, its not perfect, but it is pretty good evidence without trying it in practice.

Please explain the relevance pertaining to this discussion.

Since I expected you would scoff at the theoretical papers, here is a practical one. The reactors left behind waste that was buried since before humans existed, yet there are no signs of leakage or discernible signs of health issues caused by it. Now again, sure. We did not exactly have Geiger counters around it to know there were no issues, but it is good evidence there are no catastrophic ones.

Given both theoretical and practical evidence, I would asses the dangers of sealed underground storage to be low.

If you’ll look at the corresponding Wikipedia page you’ll find these are mostly in developed countries or where they can be detected by developed countries. Surely this is just coincidence and not the tip of the proverbial iceberg…

Excellent, you brought articles with causality numbers yourself. Never mind that not many developing countries operate nuclear powerplant, maybe some countries dump their fuel there. Go ahead and multiply the casualties 5 times over. Add to it the low risk that underground disposal will not be perfectly safe and a relatively small area of land may become uninhabitable in the future.

Now compare that to the yearly deaths cause by air pollution that the coal and gas plants Germany had to reactivate to replace nuclear produce. Then add to it the certain future damage from climate change and tell me that was a reasonable trade-off.

At current (nuclear energy) consumption level the global stockpile of fissionable material is estimated to provide energy for another 230 years.

I never claimed nuclear should be a permanent solution and I really don’t want to start another long discussion.

PS: Oh right, almost forgot.

This article is by psychologists. Relevance?

This one might interest you if you intellectually understand nuclear is safer than fossil fuels yet you still feel afraid of it.