Yeah, they’re a burgers & spies joint.

really vibes with me

Just watch out for the ground resonance.

The Phénix reactor shut down in 2009 so I think that was the end of France’s breeder reactors. India, China and Russia still have operating breeder reactors.

Breeding from non-fissile material is different to reprocessing though. Reprocessing is a chemical process, not a nuclear one. The UK had an operational reprocessing capability - though it is being decommissioned now because it wasn’t cost effective with such a small fleet. Japan is still trying to bring its reprocessing plant online (after years of trouble). However France is doing it routinely for their domestic fleet and some foreign reactors IIRC. The USA made reprocessing illegal back in 1977 due to proliferation concerns. Despite that ban being repealed, they haven’t set up the regulatory infrastructure to be able to do it so no one has bothered. Maybe the new nuclear industry will shake that up a bit.

They’re over by a factor of 6 which would add up to 21 hours, not 24. I don’t know what they’ve done to get 2.5 million, it should be 417 thousand with those numbers.

Edit: Oh dear. They said each oven could completely cook 6 turkeys in a day so they rounded to that number. At least it no longer reads GW/day.
The source

1500 cubic meters

Did you really pick the figure from the RBMK reactor type?

For PWRs, 250 m³ of LILW per GW annum is 28.5 m³ of LILW per TWh.

2.5 million turkeys in a 2.4 kW oven for 3.5 hours uses 0.021 TWh.

So 2.5 million turkeys and 0.6 m³ total low and intermediate wastes generated. Most of this can be released after ~300 years with negligible activity over natural background. That is a long time but not “basically forever”.

They’re talking about recycling the fuel and putting it back into the reactors. Unfortunately it’s cheaper to mine fresh fuel than to reprocess used fuel … as long as you just ignore the waste problem.

No permanent storage location for the waste has been found, to date.

Onkalo

to burn the unburned fuel you would have to breed the material

France reprocesses spent fuel. With increased scale it would be cheaper and cut down on the volume of waste that must be dealt with regardless of if there’s a nuclear industry in the future.

Too right. They wanted to show off the design of the Apple I so much, they didn’t even put a case around it. It’s all about the aesthetics with Woz.

All the way through?

I expect (hope) it’s a small factor, but I wonder where pedestrian fatalities fit in. Several of the worst models seem to be large SUVs or sports cars - alongside these Teslas and some rather cheaper compact cars.

Go to the actual report. There is one table for the top fatalities by vehicle model and another for the top average fatalities by manufacturer.

As a note, it looks like the data they used is publicly available from the NHTSA. They mention that “models not in production as of the 2024 model year, and low-volume models were removed from further analysis.” I wonder where the Hummer and Rivian show up there since they are not mentioned in the report whatsoever.

Yeah the Rolling Stone article is written really weirdly. I don’t think it’s technically wrong anywhere but it reads really misleadingly when you compare it to the actual report.

Like it leads with “the group identified the Tesla Model S and Tesla Model Y as two of the most dangerous cars” - meaning they are in the list - at sixth and twenty first places respectively. The mix is really weird though. As you mention the top of the list is cars like the Chevy Corvette and Porsche 911, but also things like the Mitsubishi Mirage and a load of Kia models. So it seems like there’s a lot to interpret there.

Certainly it’s somewhat damning that despite the driver assistant technology, these models are not particularly safer. But I think other manufactures have a wide range of vehicles at different price points that also vary in safety, which brings their averages below Tesla’s in the final rankings.

Temperatures in Starship’s engines can reach up to 3,000 degrees Celsius, requiring batteries that can withstand intense heat without losing performance.

I’m no rocket scientist but I’d put the batteries somewhere other than in the engines.

Still, they presumably have to operate in vacuum so thermals will be a challenge. The vibration at launch must also be pretty gnarly.

For thin clients?

“abbabba”

“abbabba” doesn’t match the original regex but “abbaabba” does

It depends on whether it was a larvae or not.

Where are those numbers from? I don’t doubt them but it seems a bit weird that even the lowest outlier of these big aerospace companies is still above average for the industry. I guess this is just saying that smaller companies have even more difficulty hiring/retaining female workforce.

Looks like the first TRS-80 Pocket Computer: http://www.trs-80.org/pocket-computer-1/

Edit: Unless this is a joke about it being made by Sharp, not Tandy?