• 0 Posts
  • 221 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle







  • Iron Lynx@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlNot cool
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    He’s right though.

    Mac & cheese really is unimpressive. Spaghetti Carbonara is way better, even with inaccurate ingredients (e.g. using bacon instead of guanciale or even pancetta).

    Though if you do insist on making it 'Murican style, try melting the cheese into a bechamel sauce and adding some diced ham or cubed bacon. The former makes it way creamier, even if it ends up standing for a while, and the latter just adds some neat flavour and texture. Stick with ham and/or bacon, or maybe very few other things, otherwise it stops being mac & cheese imo.

    I saw a story once of someone who asked internet strangers whether they were the asshole because they hated someone’s mac & cheese. When they described what went into the stuff, it was full of added things, a quarter of which would already stop it from being mac & cheese, and half of which either conflict with each other, or are stuff which if they were the sole additive would give me a reason to nope out of the dish.

    With both mac & cheese and spaghetti carbonara, I’d say less is more.







  • A step heavier. For the London example, think more like the Overground, the Purple Train or Thameslink. Or the many railways radiating out.

    For other examples, think systems like the LIRR in NYC, the RER in Paris or the S-bahn in most major German cities. (though the Berlin one functions more as a metro that’s just legally a train)



  • Even better: reprocess the fuel. The linear fuel life time decommissions nuclear fuel as useless while it still has 90-something percent of energy potential left. Having a more cyclical life cycle allows for the spent fuel to be reconstituted into new fuel, and to be used anew. All the waste that does end up being produced is only a fraction of the waste produced in a linear process, and only dangerous on a societal timescale instead of a geological one.



  • For one, even with disasters factored in, nuclear kills only 0.04 people per TWh of energy produced. Coal kills 160. That is four orders if magnitude more.
    Oil fares better, but with 36 fatalities per TWh, that’s still a thousand times more deadly than nuclear.

    For two, every milligram of emissions from nuclear power is accounted for, as someone in the other thread said. All the waste fits inside a football field, and is stored in ginormous casks which can stand being smashed by a train, and are so thick you can hug them with no consequences to health and safety.
    Meanwhile, emissions from coal and oil are vented to atmosphere. Including volatile radioactive trace contaminants. Which means that ironically, on top of the greater fatalities and the carbon emissions, fossil fuels have worse nuclear emissions.

    As for storage, for one, that’s hampered because the oblivious and the malicious get to contribute to the discussions. Fact is that there are sites for long term storage, which are in the process of being filled with spent fuel.
    For two, much less of that stuff is needed if spent nuclear fuel is recycled. Which Japan and France do.

    Finally, an electricity grid needs three things: capacity, stability and flexibility. Both nuclear and renewables offer stability, but only nuclear offers stability, while renewables offer flexibility.

    The solution is not nuclear XOR renewables.

    It is nuclear OR renewables.

    Or nuclear AND renewables.