this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
1029 points (96.8% liked)

Science Memes

11440 readers
996 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 111 points 1 week ago (5 children)
[–] Hupf@feddit.org 2 points 4 days ago

The infamous elephant's foot

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 44 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So. When I was in my junior year of college, the dorm I lived in was built more like a high occupancy apartment rather than a college dorm room, it had a living room and a kitchenette. No built-in stove but we were allowed to have a hot plate, so I went to K-Mart and bought a double burner one.

For some reason, one of my roommates had a cereal bowl that was in the shape of a saucepan. It was made of plastic, but it was black and had a handle. One day I walk into the apartment to an ungodly chemical smell and exactly the image above.

[–] higgsboson@dubvee.org 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Probably the plastic "pan" was a children's toy that made its way into an alternate use. I probably still have a few lying around from the toddler days.

This was bigger than most children's toy pans I've seen; it could probably have held a quart of water. It was used as a cereal bowl at least once.

[–] lettruthout@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Yup meltdowns happen sometimes. AND there’s the century-long legacy of radioactive waste!

[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Oh joy, I get to bust out these bad boys again! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU

There's also that one guy who touched the hot part and is now using that tiny blister to conduct a decades-long smear campaign against the kinds of pots used at Three Mile Island.

[–] luce@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

kyle hill is interesting to me because when he is making videos about nuclear it is either the most terrifying nuclear horror story yet or facts and statistics about how safe nuclear is. I personally believe nuclear to be a super safe and efficient way to create energy, its just something I noticed. Makes me think about how common coal accidents are and how little they are covered compared to something supposedly scary like nuclear.

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago

Nuclear has the same problem as aviation, by average it's many many times safer than most alternatives, but any time something goes wrong it has a high chance of going extremely wrong and making an international scene. So it's generally safer but every accident makes world news.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I agree. We should deal with nuclear waste in the same way we handle the waste from other fossil fuels: by spreading it over the entire planet in a thin, even coating so that everyone is equally affected!

[–] renzev@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Back in middle school, our science teacher decided to make the class do a debate about different types of energy sources in order to learn about their advantages and disadvantages. I was on the pro-nuclear team, and we were wracking our brains trying to come up with a rebuttal to "but what about the waste?" until some madlad basically came up with this great argument:

We can just dump all of the nuclear waste on Belgium. It will take a really long time before it fills up, and nobody cares about Belgium anyway

The anti-nuclear team had no good response, and we actually got a point for that argument because we looked up the relevant statistics (nuclear waste output, belgium surface area, etc.) and calculated exactly how long it would take to turn belgium into a radioactive wasteland.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

There's a really simple answer to the waste problem though. And it's super, blatantly obvious.

All nuclear material is basically ground up rocks that we dug out of a hole and then filtered the spicy bits out of. So grind it back up, pour it into concrete and stuff it back down the same hole it came from. Of course, you can't legally do that, but that's only because we have a ton of rules what constitutes safe disposal, etc. Recreating the original conditions basically meant you're (re)creating something unsafe, but we do that in a LOT of places.

EDIT: For example there are regions in Belgium and the Netherlands where there is so much naturally occuring arsenic in the ground, that if you scoop a bucket full of dirt, walk 50 meters across the provincial border and put pour it out, you're comitting (at least) three different crimes. That's legally valid, after all, the bucket contains polluted material, but practically nonsense since you literally just picked it up, and it's been like that long before people ever got there.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)

century-long legacy

At least millenia, might be epochs (million years) ...

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago

Though if Chernobyl is any indication in a few decades nature works its way around it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago (7 children)

You’re so right - we should just pump all our crap out into the biosphere instead and keep burning coal.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

How’d you get a photo of my stove top from tonight?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 71 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Most of our power generations comes from "make water hot, hot water boils into steam, steam spins magnet"

Nuclear power is just a different source of heat.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

It's all variations of "make things spin."

Either by heating up water so steam makes thing spin, using wind to make thing spin, or moving water to make thing spin.

I am willing to bet if you watched photo cells on solar panels under a microscope, the light would make something spin.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Only alternatives that I'm aware of:

  • solar cells (converting photon energy into electricity)
  • acid batteries (converting chemical energy into electricity)
  • peltier devices (converting heat differential energy into electricity)
  • induction (converting electrical energy into electricity on a different circuit)
  • bioelectricity (using biochemical energy to produce electricity)
  • static buildup (using friction between various materials to produce a voltage differential)

I think there's a way to use lasers to generate electricity, too.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 week ago

Piezo converting pressure or vibration to electricity

I think it's note-worthy that while the list is long, only 3 of them are practical to supply/regulate electricity on a large/industrial scale: solar, spinny things, and acid batteries.

We use all three of them in today's and in the future's electricity network.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We've had this discussion here on lemmy a few days ago: practically all electricity generation is by making turbines spin.

Hydropower means river makes turbine spin. Wind power means wind makes turbine spin. Coal/gas power means combustion makes turbine spin. Nuclear means hot steam makes turbine spin.

However, that doesn't mean that all electricity sources are spinny things.

  • solar cells have no mechanically moving parts
  • batteries utilize chemical energy directly
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago (5 children)

solar cells have no mechanically moving parts

ironically, large grid tie systems are starting to "emulate" the spinning mass behavior of turbine generators, since there's an exponential failure issue waiting to crop up if you aren't careful, as texas has already learned, a very significant part of your solar generation can just, go offline, if it decides grid conditions aren't suitable, which can lead to LARGE drops in power production and frequency, which is likely to kill even more generation.

So the solution is to make it emulate the physical mass tied to a turbine, or at least, more generously provide power in fault like conditions, to prevent this sort of exponential breakdown of the grid. You could of course, use a large spinning flywheel to regulate grid frequency, as is being used in a few places right now. I'm not sure how popular that is, outside of wind energy. It's likely to get more popular though.

weird little side tangent, but the frequency of electricity on the grid is essentially directly tied to the rotational speed of all turbines currently on the grid, meaning there is a very large inertia in the grid frequency, it's weird to think about, but makes perfect sense, and it provides for an interesting problem to solve at large scales like this.

Batteries are really fucking cool btw, the fact that you can just chemically store electricity, and then use it, is really fucking crazy. The fact that it's the most accessible technology is also insane to me. But maybe it's just the adoption being the way it is.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] 4oreman@lemy.lol 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 week ago (67 children)

It is not the top one in the typical usage of the word "nuclear energy." Sure, it is nuclear energy, but that normally refers to electrical infrastructure, not nuclear weapons. Nuclear electricity is pretty much always just heating water up in a safe and controlled manner, and using that to spin a turbine.

load more comments (67 replies)
[–] recklessengagement@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] joseandres42@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

That's just another way to turn heat into electricity. Those thermocouples could also be used on a campfire.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] voodooattack@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Water is last year’s news. Helium is the new water now.

[–] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 1 week ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Rubisco@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 week ago
[–] grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 week ago

Spicy rocks make water hot.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

Humans only have one good way to turn hot into lightning.

[–] M33@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 week ago
load more comments
view more: next ›