Could help minimize legal fees and judge's salaries. Perhaps they'll be too ethical to prevent it.

If you like cities, live there.

Me, and many like me, view cities as nice to visit maybe twice in a decade, but we have no desire to live like that.

Share it and talk about it!

How about the fact that they’re all corporate shills? It’s all political theatre at this point.

Also per the thread below, oversight != direction, cabinet receives direction from the president, oversight from congress. This is Biden’s team’s doing albeit not a decision that the Republican would disagree with except to score political points.

All relationships are linear! - Shitty financial and science journalism

You'll need a ton of mining just to get there, for many decades.

Plus if it's 95% of lithium recovered (idk), for 1 billion cars that's still effectively needing lithium for 50 million cars every turnover (however long the avg battery car lasts).

I get why people are skeptical about switching vehicles to electric. There are a lot of negatives that people tend to over look just because they want to look cool in a Tesla and brag about helping the environment. But the fact is we can solve most of the problems electric vehicles have with some good old fashioned R&D. As much as oil companies try to look like they can do the same, it's just not possible. Gas cars just can't fix any of their remaining issues.

This is getting a disappointing lack of attention, given it's a good idea on multiple levels given how much potential this technology has and how this actually addresses potential issues.

its still not the not-neutered version. Microsoft had GPT-4 tell how to hack into a network with specifics and it answered. So a lot of the fun stuff you can't ask it.

I believe you don't visit restaurants frequently enough to realize that errors are uncommon.

Some creativity needed here. Glass could help server see which tables have been waited and when they last ordered. Chefs could see incoming orders and see the time when it came in. Algorithms could help with suggestions on what activity to do next for max efficiency etc.

I would argue AR would effectively be able to be more productive and faster with minimal effort. Once form factors are fixed at least

You have plenty of chefs working in massive kitchens serving huge amounts of people (cruise ships, hotels, …)

Its happening with the Salton sea in California. Its rich in minerals and already polluted a long while back so not much animal life around.

AI has been going crazy and pushing basically every industry in existence. It's like all I see on Twitter. The stock market is a personal interest of mine and most openly available AI solutions actively block off the ability for financial advice. What do you think the future looks like with AI ramping up? Will the markets have any room for human interaction?

[removed]

Large car batteries are made of tiny cells. Its a matter of connecting them together and putting them in a protective case.

It should be significantly cheaper to recycle than dig it up.

Even your weird conservative fantasy, taken as absolute truth, would mot make sense in this context.

>I didn't say anthing about nuclear waste. Renewable energy needs non-renewable minerals just like nuclear.

​But the article I brought up did. The claim being made isn't that nuclear needs non-renewable "minerals" while renewables don't. The issue is that "minerals" used in renewables are actually recoverable because they aren't irradiated.

>If you would reduce consentration by 0.01 % (30 years/ 300000 years) you would need to process 7,60076 x 10^6 m3/s of seawater after 30 years. Not 7x10^15 as the study claims.

Please actually read and at least try to comprehend the paper:

>This tells us that, for example, in as little as T ¼ 30 years, a volume of seawater of 7x10^15 m3 would need to be processed - this is clearly impractical as it is over six times larger than the volume of total river outflow in the same time.

This is the total volume of water that needs to be processed at that point, not volume per second. As stated, this would be six times the volume river global river input would be able to provide in the same timeframe, meaning this would be inherently unsustainable.

"Seawater" contains ~3 ppb Uranium, i.e. 3/1000000000, i.e. 0.0000003% of which 0.7% are actually fissile. Your initial concentration isn't 100%, it's 0.0000000021 %.

If we assume that 1 l of seawater has an approx mass of 1 kg (seawater is actually denser but let's ignore that) and assuming that the process was 100% efficient in recovering all the fissile Uranium (it wouldn't be, but let's also ignore that), filtering 7.6*10^6 m³/s of seawater would yield

7.6*10^9 kg/s * 0.0000000021% = 0.1596 kg

The energy contained in 1 kg of U235 (if the conversion was 100% efficient which is isn't but let's ignore that) is 83.15 TJ - ergo the energy you could extract from 0.1596 kg is 13.27074 TJ or ~1.33*10^13 J. Let's just ignore that the thermal efficiency of nuclear plants is ~33% to begin with.

Extraction probably requires pumping all that seawater through a filtration plant, chemical treatment, whatever. Let's assume that all we have is water and U235 - no additional impurities, no uranium compounds that need to be purified and extracted etc. Let's assume we could simply separate water and uranium via reverse osmosis and ignore all the additional steps and energy that would actually be required to use it in a nuclear reactor.

Filtration via reverse osmosis of 1 m³ of water requires 3 - 5.5 kWh. Let's be optimistic and go with 3 kWh/m³ - that's 10800000 J/m³.

Ergo we would need 8.21*10^13 J to filter all of that U235 from the 7600000 m³ we need to process.

Or in other words, extracting uranium from sea water has a negative energy yield, even if we assume that we could somehow seperate it via simple reverse osmosis and the energy conversion was 100% efficient. Which it is not.

>I didn't say anything about the feasibility of using nuclear to replace all fossil fuels, so please do not argue against this strawman.

Even providing global base load would not be feasible let alone economically viable or possible on any meaningful timescale. Given that nuclear isn't a solution for anything, not actually needed and provides no meaningful benefit, what exactely is the point of wasting money and resources on this?

There is a reason why nuclear has been stagnating for the last decades and will play an ever diminishing role in the coming decades:

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/installed-power-generation-capacity-by-source-in-the-stated-policies-scenario-2000-2040

Nuclear is a dead-end for terrestial utility scale power generation. Renewables are the only feasible way to decarbonize our energy sector.

Its very likely, and probably within 10 years, not nearly as much lithium will be in batteries at all. There are so many interesting alternatives coming out that actually seem to have a lot of potential.

Even things like adding iron to reduce the amount of lithium is already a thing.

As opposed to not recovering any?

We are producing things faster than ever, food is more abundant than ever yet the price of groceries are increasing exponentially in the last few years. I dont see how producing more things could lead to cheaper things when the last few years has proven otherwise.

[removed]

Greenhouse factor of 1 (by definition), which is much better than current fluids (propane is coming up, which has a factor of 3 which is very good compared to the other fluids).

It is non-flammable and can be used indoors (unlike the above mentioned propane).

Interesting. Recycling, I feel, is going to be big business in the decades to come.

As someone who was recently ripped to shreds for suggesting children > missiles, I’d keep that commie “feeding children” stuff to yourself. /s