- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
That’s so fucking stupid. The human body generates more bio-electricity than a 120-volt battery and over 25,000 BTUs of body heat. Combine that shit with a form of fusion and bam! You’ve got all the energy all the machines would ever need.
New nukes to stop global warming: I sleep.
New nukes to power ChatGPT spam bots: real sh*t.
Nukes for helping resolve grid stability and energy availability: nah
Nukes for powering Google’s latest bullshit: sure!So what happens when Google abandons this project like everything else?
Don’t worry about it. Skynet is just ensuring its birth.
Do you think Google just wouldn’t use that energy?
Google should pay out the ass for that energy. They’re not trying to ensure additional capacity… They’re building it to save money.
We’re deploying nuclear everywhere! 🥳
For the sole purpose of powering a business! 🤨
that generates rule34 porn on the fly and infects people with Duning Kruger! 🤦🏽♂️
I’ve got a great idea for a new game. It’s called a “Jump to Conclusions” Mat. It’s powered by AI, and its energy source is unexploded WWII ordinance. I am extremely sleep deprived right now.
The Keeper of the Destiny Scrolls and Oracle of Tzeetch has made a solemn pledge with the librarians of knowledge to empower a fell warpstone and bring energetic change to Mallus.
All hail the Fateweaver.
Question: why aren’t the sort of nuclear power generators we seem to have no problem strapping on to rockets and shooting into space for our probes scalable for larger projects?
i.e. with the Cassini Probe?
NASA used a radioisotope thermoelectric generator for Cassini, which is more of a battery and does not use nuclear fission to heat a liquid.
But it generates electricity, right? So couldn’t we scale it up? I admit this is way out of my sphere of knowledge, which is why I’m asking.
I’m no expert but did some quick googling. Seems they are very expensive and don’t produce much power, making them useful only for nich situations.
Thanks!
I haven’t looked at the numbers, but I expext that while RTGs are simple and reliable, that they aren’t cost-competitive with nuclear reactors per unit of energy generated.
From memory, we have actually used them on Earth in a few situations where we need a very long-lasting, albeit very limited in quantity, source of power, like remote, unmanned lighthouses that aren’t connected to anything.
Also, I don’t believe that, at least with the ones I’ve read about, one can control their power output. It’s just a container of some material that’s got enough passive radioactivity to stay warm enough to generate some electricity.
