Technically, tattos are basically drops of poison encapsulated within cells.

If you laser a tattoo to remove it, you’re destroying the encapsulating cells, allowing the poison to roam freely in your body and then likely accumulating elsewhere rather than being discharged.

Fwiw, not to diminish this feat but rather as context: A significant part of the (calculated) wins in the early/mid 2010s came from moving from coal to fossil gas. Unfortunately, fossil gas tends to be much more polluting than (usually) assumed, because of flaring and pipeline losses. Thus some of earlier CO2e wins may be due to number fiddling rather than real reductions.

However, recent years do show massive wind power growth and that’s fantastic.

Side note 2: The UK has a lot of work ahead on electrifying heating and installing heat pumps.

It’s in the article:

The move comes amid growing protests in Italy’s prisons over the poor state of the facilities, which are run-down and overcrowded (61,840 inmates for 46,929 places). So far this year, 72 inmates have killed themselves.

I see. Your words seemed to imply that chemical castration makes violent urges worse. But instead it generally worsens people’s health (which incidentally, the DW article mentioned as well).

How do you come to the conclusion that it’s “making it worse”?

Chemical castration has been found to be effective in reducing sex drive and the seminal fluid in a male. But this does not prevent sexual violence or aggressive behavior.

Even reducing the testosterone level to zero does not eliminate chances of reoffending. “One doesn’t need to have an erection to be able to molest a child or rape a person,”

– DW

Fascinating mindset.

Our prisons are overflowing! Let’s make sure more people end up there for light offenses! (paraphrased)

(Although maybe they plan to apply their new laws selectively. In fact, that’s the only way this begins to make sense.)

Wind turbines shredding birds is almost the definition of concern-trolling whereas the issues with hydro impacting aquatic life are at a much larger scale.

Weird how fossil fuel companies also managed to instrumentalize solar PV too. Iirc, both Shell and BP created solar departments which they then allowed to generate a low single-digit percentage of revenue. Thus, a) generating positive media coverage and b) not endangering their fossil core business.

It’s certainly not just a German failure, though. Stellantis (i.e. at the time, PSA and especially the Marchionne-led FCA) fucked up too, as did Renault-Nissan (despite their head start with Zoe/Leaf)

If you’re generating electricity primarily from fossil fuels in the first place, their price will be linked (but higher) by design. If you’re using a merit order system, then that’s true even if just a fraction of your electricity comes from said fossil fuels. That of course ignores possibly different sets of taxes being applied to retail fuels vs. the fuels utilities are buying and taxes on electric power.

I didn’t count but the headlines seem dominated by negatives “Nein zu …”, “Kein(e) …”, “Stopp der …”, “Weg mit …”, “Kampf dem …”

Afaik, German reactors were designed to be throttled to 60% capacity, within around a week. And doing that too often wasn’t safe either. And there was no economic incentive to do so because a reactor throttled is not a reactor earning—although you have to do a bunch of extra work to throttle the reactor and you’re only conserving negligible amounts of fuel.

I am not deep enough in the topic to know whether that’s a limitation due to all the German reactors being particularly outdated. But “30 min” and “20%” sounds more like an emergency protocol to me rather than any kind of srandard procedure.

The only way to generate short-term profits from nuclear power is to take over a running reactor. But building these things takes a close-to-prohibitive amount of money in all Western countries. There must be motivations other than cost effectiveness.

“SMR” just means “small” and implies nothing about the technology used. But the quote specifically mentioned a “large-scale” reactor.

That said, if Sweden were willing to buy molten salt tech from China, it might happen sooner.

deleted by creator

I guess on the whole none of this is particularly surprising: Demented lifelong nazi sympathizer sings along to Nazi songs. I am a bit unclear what the lawsuit is supposed to prove though. It’s not like the RN’s past is a secret.

If Marine Le Pen was a reasonable person, I guess she might have denounced him a while ago rather than taking over the family business and sanding off some of the rougher edges.

The title says “neo-nazi band” …

And yet, China is still building out solar, wind, and coal faster.

That’s despite nuclear having a lot of advantages in China:

• high level of centralization (even SMRs produce 0.5TW)
• high level of governmental involvement in economy (which means huge investments can be a lot easier)
• low level of governmental transparency (which means you don’t have to deal with NGOs or Nimbys)
• rapidly increasing demand for electricity (which creates an incentive to build as much supply as possible)
• first-class universities (for independent R&D)
• large land mass (which is useful both for mining and disposal)
• lax environmental policy (same)

For every country that is moving to a solar/wind-dominated future, “base load” definitely is outdated. “Base load” was always artificially propped up economically through night-time power tariffs, and propped up practically through night shifts in factories (thus continually running processes) and things like night storage heaters.

You certainly don’t need base load to keep the grid stable, you just need to be able to quickly match production and consumption.