I totally want one, but they're expensive AF. I think I'm gonna go with a Cane Creek Thudbuster seatpost after reading some reviews, the LT looks like it could soak up a good amount of bumps for a seatpost.
They neglected road maintenance for decades in a climate with hot summers and cold winters so large cracks developed across the roadways every 10 feet. If I stood for every bump, i would never sit down. I bought a suspension seatpost.
It's a great way of smoothing out the smaller bumps, or the rumble of crumbling asphault. That's about what I paid for mine. Unlike a suspension that will suck away my power, once I stand up, the bike is as rigid and connected as ever. When I sit down it's like I'm floating on a pillow a few inches above my speeding bike. I set it per their suggestion but when I have some time I want to see if I can get it tuned in even better for me.
Do you prefer the praying mantis bars, or the under-seat steering? I hear you on the price, I've been eying the Hase Pino Tandem for a while now. The driver is upright in the back, while another rider can pedal along recumbent in front. It's a marvel. Test rode it 2-3 times and I just can't bring myself to fork over that much dough unless I have to (which is why most of the recumbent riders in my life did it). Also knowing I'll have ongoing maintenance costs the whole time I have it and some of those parts may not be off the shelf.
The guys who ride the recumbent trikes have it made though, they can pull up their wheeled lawnchairs in a circle and reach behind them into the attached cooler for some snacks.
I've seen opinions very strongly in both directions on here. I'm very pro-nuclear, but the largest issues they face is always bureaucracy. It sucks that an artificial thing is what's stopping then usually, but it is true. We need some protections to keep things safe, but it seems too harsh for nuclear compared to the dangers it presents opposed to the dangers of other power sources.
Absolutely, and it's by design by candid admission of environmentalist organizations and green parties. Their objective was over regulating the industry beyond any rationality and they succeeded.
Maybe you should spend more time outside. Every flavor of nuclear has worse approval ratings than most dirtbag politicians.
I'm seeing reports by antinuclear think tank grifters shoved in my face almost daily...
Why do you think you need to PAY people to oppose nuclear? After seven decades of cockamamie “this time it’s different” schemes most people just moved on.
They are still going for big building size reactors that have site specific details even if the core is built in a "factory". This still doesn't scale well.
I wonder if it can be economical to go smaller still and ship a reactor and power generation (TRG maybe or a small turbine) that then doesn't require much other than connecting wiring and plumbing and its encased in at least one security layer covered in sensors if something goes wrong its all contained. Then its just a single lorry with a box you wire in. That has a chance of being scalable and easy to deploy and I can't help but think there is a market for ~0.5-10 KW reactors if they can get the lowest end down to about $20,000, it would compete OK with solar and wind price wise.
I suspect no one has bothered because the regulatory overhead means it has to be big enough to be worth it and like Wind power scales enormously with the size of the plant. But what I want is a tiny reactor in my basement, add a few batteries for dealing with the duck curve and you have something that will sit there producing power for 25 years and a contract for it be repaired and ultimately collected at end of life.
You can sort of do this today using the Tritium glow sticks and solar cells but it doesn't last long enough and the price is not competitive. Going more directly to the band gap in a silicon or something else semi-conductive and a long lived nuclear material could maybe get a little closer price wise.
I sympathized with your statement immediately, but then after thinking about it for a bit, most people basically have controlled pressure bombs (gas-water boilers) and buildings filled with gas pipes that can (and have) wiped out whole city blocks.
It's still not a good idea, obviously, but localized fossil fuels are also ridiculous when you think about it.
Edit: Changed introductory wording to be less belligerent. I am sorry if I have caused a significant level of offense.
Just wait for the nuclear shills to flood in and claim that nuclear fission is a sustainable and necessary form of power generation. Some people claim that nuclear fission is a sustainable and necessary form of power generation. It is not. Uranium extraction devastates entire landscapes, the construction of nuclear power plants is too expensive (even for SMRs, as the article explains), ergo electricity prices will climb, it is a hugely wasteful use of so many tonnes of concrete (concrete manufacturing is heavy on the environment too), it creates waste that will still haunt us for hundreds of thousands of years (finding geological structures that are guaranteed to be stable that long is difficult), and relative to the initial construction and set-up effort, they don't provide that much energy. We already have methods that can provide us plenty enough electricity that are entirely sustainable by leveraging large-scale atmospheric aerodynamics as well as the largest nuclear fusion reactor at our disposal (the sun). There's simply no need to go nuclear.
I hate that the conversation is happening on these terms. I hate that we have a bunch of opinionated online "teams" on this issue.
Hey, you know what we need? All of it. Any sort of energy generation that lowers atmospheric emissions in any way we do need. The concept of "nuclear shills" shouldn't exist, the concept of "solar shills" or "hydrogen shills" or "fossil fuel shills" shouldn't exist. The entire conversation is a PR battle by energy corps to get people to buy into marketing so they can get governments to back popular choices so they can get expensive contracts for large infrastructure work.
I hate that we have online keyboard warriors overrepresenting the challenges of one of the contributors to lowering emissions while underrepresenting the challenges of others. Hey, do you think nighttime generation and storage is an issue? Maybe installation costs for domestic solar generation, the state of the grid or the uneven distribution of solar power yields on different territories? Because I do.
And I do think cost and build times for nuclear generators are a problem (which makes it confusing that some countries are dismantling plants that seem to be working safely and are within their expected lifespan, but I digress).
And I do think the impact of hydroelectric power in nearby areas is a problem.
And I do think the open questions for geothermal are a problem.
And I do think the issues with cost, storage and dirty generation of hydrogen are a problem.
And I do think we should be working on all of that. At once. This isn't kids arguing about which game console is better on the backyard, this is a massive existential issue, and would be even if we weren't dealing with a climate change ticking bomb. This report? It's bad news. Any report that tells us any of the ideas we have for weaning off fossil fuels is not working as well as we expected is bad news. Can we all get with that program?
The problem is that "both" isn't a valid option unless a country has unlimited finances.
Otherwise you have to decide on what's the most feasible option and then renewables win big time
I sometimes feel as if the current push for atomic is from the fossil-lobby as they are aware that it either works and they get 10-20 more years to sell oil until the reactors are built - and even if it doesn't work out it still will slow down rollout of renewables
If you have 100 billion to spend on energy producing you have to choose if you want to go all-in with one source or split it up which would move the end of fossil fuels Back further
Not to mention having to buy the radioactive materials from dictatorships and having problems to cool down the reactors with rising temperatures and rivers running dry
I just don't see how atomic isn't a huge gamble that can backfire hard (and I'm not even talking about catastrophic events like Fukushima)
Most countries have unlimited finances. They only have limited real resources like labor, concrete, copper, glass, etc. The fact that we still don't understand this and behave as if the metadata of the economy accurately describes reality puts artificial brakes on the solutions of many problems, climate being one of them.
The problem is that if a country treats money as unlimited and without a cost then inflation will mirror that and people in that country will lose their savings, their job will not pay for their bills anymore and so on
Inflation is a symptom of the lack of some real resource. There are many parts of the economies of many countries where there's unused production capacity which simply "turns more natural resources into more stuff" if more money enters that part of the economy, without producing inflation. It's not "just spend more", it's "spend as much as you can on things that you want done, which aren't limited by real resources."
I found Randall Wray's lectures on the topic to be eye-opening. If what I wrote sounds strange, and it might, I highly recommend watching some of them. There are a few recordings on YouTube.
All good points, and I’m all for pretty much any technological research, but
And I do think cost and build times for nuclear generators are a problem
Thorium is another form of fission generation that has not been commercialized yet. In the real world, maybe it will be better, or maybe it won’t. But fission generation already takes too long to build out, so why switch lanes to a different form of fission generation that also needs more time and money to be commercialized? Nuclear uranium fission generation had its growing pains over the years, as the technology found challenges to address and areas to improve, but thorium has not yet gotten far enough to run into those so there will be additional challenges requiring time, money, further development
If those were decades ago when the future was bright for fission technology, I’d be all over this. However the future is dark and cloudy for fission generation, nightfall may be approaching. The advantages of thorium are not enough to shine a new light, there’s not enough room for improvement to save fission generation, this is just an expensive detour.
This is nonsense. Like someone else said we will need some kind of nuclear power for future space exploration. There are parts of the world that are dark for six months of the year, and plenty of places that don't get enough light for solar to be practical.
Most renewable sources are not consistent enough to be used by themselves, and battery storage isn't practical with current technology. Then there are the concerns with hydro power and biomass and how that affects the environment. I have even been told by leftists that biomass shouldn't be installed as it destroys too many native forests.
Of course the actual best solution is one we don't have the technology for yet: things like nuclear fusion or neutrino capture.
For the record, I disagree with you both and this narrative is also part of the problem in my book. Screw the futurism and longermism of "we need nuclear power for space exploration". We're not talking about that. We're talking about mitigating runaway climate effects and filling the blanks of an alternate energy mix by using complementary tech.
Absolutely let's keep working on nuclear power. Absolutely let's keep working on battery storage, and potential energy storage and thermal storage and wind and geothermal and whatever else we can come up with. And absolutely let's abandon whatever doesn't work or is made obsolete, starting with no longer burning hydrocarbons as soon as we can stop.
There's this air of erudite dilettantism about this chatter that just pisses me off. People sitting by and idly projecting their sci-fi fantasies about colonizing planets or about a fully solar powered planet and feeling smart about it. Given the short-term, impending human cost of this issue, both for climate reasons and for energy scarcity reasons, that just feels gross at this point.
What do you disagree with me? I was trying to back you up up here saying that yes we need nuclear in addition to all the other technologies. I am not saying that you shouldn't use solar, just that it isn't applicable everywhere on earth.
Screw the futurism and longermism of “we need nuclear power for space exploration”. We’re not talking about that.
You should be talking about that. After all climate change is also a future problem. Staying on a single planet isn't safe even if you eradicate climate change, war, disease, and just about everything else. There is pretty much nothing stopping a gamma ray burst or stray blackhole, or any number of other things from killing everyone on this planet. Like yeah climate change is a high priority, but it doesn't make all other issues go away.
Look, I'm just trying to impress something very specific here and I can tell I'm not getting through.
I'm not here to call out people arguing for or against one or another type of energy generation. I'm complaining about the discourse about this being about long term hypotheticals and optimal solutions when we should be in emergency mode.
It's like we're in a burning building and people are having arguments about the cost per year of different types of fire extinguishers. But if I make this point about someone criticising nuclear power it comes across as me "siding" or "shilling" for nuclear power, same if I do it when someone argues against solar power.
But I'm neither. I'm arguing for practicality and immediate action. Because we need it now, not because I just finished reading the Dune books and have some really neat ideas about generation ships.
It seems like only missing teeth will regrow (at least in the tested animals), however, that should include both wisdom teeth or otherwise intentionally missing ones.
This probably isn't going to be available to you then, though it is possible it paves the way for a tooth-replacement treatment. This article seems like bad science communication. The video, tweet, and website they link to all state that they're researching congenital conditions, the inquiry form linked to on the website explicitly states in English they're not considering people who lost their teeth later in life and specifically calls out articles like this one as misinformation.
We are currently receiving a large number of inquiries that differ from the purpose of this research, which is very troubling.
This research is a study of therapeutic drugs for people who are missing teeth due to congenital (from birth) diseases (diseases, etc.).
This research is not aimed at restoring teeth to people who have lost their teeth due to acquired causes, as some news and social networking sites have reported.Additionally, we are not currently recruiting candidates for clinical trials (adult males).
I find it strange that many people here are against this when the alternative is a surgical treatment that often can't be easily reversed, and even when it is, often lowers the likelihood they will have a kid.
Chemical solutions are way better in that regard because if they are done right they don't damage any tissue and their affects are temporary.
Oh yeah, I'll just tell my wife that we're never having sex again because we've now got enough kids. I'm sure this will be a healthy and emotionally viable way of strengthening our relationship over the next 30 years or so until the menopause.
Fuck yes, sexual repression what a banger idea that is modern and haven't even been considered for literally thousands of years and proven abusive to exactly every human being on the planet
I'm not against it but you'd have to be crazy to trust a guy who doesn't want to use a condom because he swears he's on the pill. It seems like it opens up a wild new avenue for sexual assault.
The reality is that the consequences of sex are asymmetric. I suppose this is an interesting option for couples in a relationship though.
RISUG is a technique by which a polymer with specific electrical properties is injected into the vas
deferens. This polymer messes up the flagella on sperm that pass nearby. Since “nearby” is a distance larger than the radius of the vas deferens, this means all sperm passing through get their flagellum screwed up, can no longer swim, and is therefore immotile.
It makes the man essentially sterile, until he wants to reverse the effect at which point a second injection simply washes the original polymer layer off the inner lining.
Probably talking about RISUG, although the US equivalent is Vasagel.
Basically Vasagel plugs up the Vas Deferens so sperm can't get out, and RISUG rips sperm to shreds as they come out. It lasts for 10 years, and is reversible with a shot of baking soda.
RISUG is approved in India (where it was developed), and Vasagel is being developed by a foundation instead of a pharmaceutical company, so progress has been slow.
It does not plug up the vas deferens. One of the (many) advantages RISUG has over vasectomy is that it doesn’t block material from flowing through the vas
deferens, and hence avoids the complications from that aspect of vasectomy.
newatlas.com
Hot