Oh, as for the 95%, it's an economist's report and tries to calculate price for new sources. IAEA gets average from all the countries (Soviet Union) and all the reactors that exist at the time (1990 meant ancient Magnoxes, not-yet-refurbished RBMKs and other engineering offenses still merrily grinding away). I've seen the 95% for the new plants quoted often, even from relatively respectable sources and can imagine how it got there, but still seems excessive, 93% is actually promoted by vendors (if you operate it right etc. and after the first few years of breaking the new plant in) for AP1000 and several others, real performance evaluation will have to wait after those new types are built and operated for several years.
Some useful stats for the past and current performances.
2012 was indeed a bad year for Swedish nuclear with Oskarhamn 1 being out and reaching 0.7 % load factor but the yearly average was 70 %. Check your math, either you misplaced decimal somewhere or you are mixing up the load factor of your turbines with the nuclear's share of Sweden's electricity production for 2012 - 38.5%, understandable brain fart, but still completely different metrics.
Typical modern wind turbines have diameters of 40 to 90 metres (130 to 300 ft) and are rated between 500 kW and 2 MW. As of 2014 the most powerful turbine, the Vestas V-164, is rated at 8 MW and has a rotor diameter of 164m.
That from the wiki and which also has other numbers for that biggest piece, which clearly show that diesel still wins.
You haven't even bothered to read the abstract, did you? BTW. Amory Lovins' bussiness is consulting for fossil fuel companies, he stopped advertising it, but if you use Google and Wayback Machine, you can still find him saying so. And of course the old, zombie canard of oil wars. Truthers should finally get together and explain why US didn't invade Canada and Nigeria in the first place (and possibly Mexico, it's close), check out the actual oil imports figures from those times, you might be surprised.
Maybe Amazon or some other provider could take a page from some local utilities and let users signal their own preferences with a (surcharged) "clean energy" option.
Meh, I'd like them more, if they started a better trend - ignore Greenpeace altogether. What's next? We're gonna have posts about Westboro Baptist Church's stance on computers, presented as a valid opinion? Fuck you, Jason, your submission is lamer than your hockey mask.
Sorry, I'm not gonna google von Hippel, Jacobson or other concern trolls/pressure group activists/outright quacks. I've already read enough stupid, flawed shit based on their work and of course, enough about the methodology they used. This methodology is questionable (that's the accepted scientific term for bullshit, right?).
A bit of light reading for those interested in the amount of conservative assumptions, posited improbable scenarios, rounding up and Fermi estimates necessary to claims of actual radiation-induced health consequences to the public.
Those homes would have to be made of carefully chosen materials not to emit radiation themselves (no granite countertops, too) and, of course, no sleeping with a spouse or a baby in the same bed - human body is naturally radioactive, which brings us to the last point - we would have to be fed with isotopically purified food to get rid of all the K-40 and in the long run, maybe replace all the carbon in our bodies with a purified carbon than doesn't consist partially of radioactive C-14.
Also, you missed a decimal, it's 2.4 mSv, not that the average means much, it's counted from about half mSv in some places and tens in others.
Haven't found his dose, but abstract of a Health Physics Journal's article mentioned between 1 to 5 curies deposited (for the whole room?), which would make it 37 to 185 GBq in SI units.
There are more "hardcore/weird/idiosyncratic/expressive/niche/unintelligible" languages for geniuses than just C, I've just recently ran into this nice 18 byte cunt-generating tidbit:
' *'{~4=+/~ 4<.|i:5
Ha, got "Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.", when trying to post both code and result, Slashdot apparently can't stomach rhombus made of asterisks, thus inadvertently giving unplanned example of expression and power being too limited for something relatively simple, yet unexpected. Unless it's just protection from pasting heaps of ASCII art?
Anyway, result's here, proper Slavic cunt symbol should have vertical line in the center, but the shape is generally recognized as simplified substitute, as in, say, Renault logo ("One cunt on the grill, the other behind the wheel." as somebody mean, probably me, remarked when homeroom teacher passed us in her car).
Well I'll be damned, I lived with the notion that he's already dead. Guess no-one just gives a fuck about him, once apartheid and Soviet bloc kicked the bucket. Hopefully, he'll crawl back under whatever stone he's been hiding since then.
All he did was getting job with access to classified materials with intent to steal them (his admission, not my insinuation) and then he grabbed more than he could read in a lifetime and got lost. Whistleblowing looks different, try reading about others who did it, you'll spot glaring differences. Word for Snowdens of this world is "traitor."
That heavily depends on "to whom?" For example, in my eyes it doesn't hurt his reputation at all. Granted, while "useful idiot" comes to my mind as a handy association when thinking of Snowden, "loser", "traitor" or "defector" come before, so there's simply nothing to be hurt.
I watched Tim Minchin's Storm after a long time before going to sleep and as I wake up, there's this article on homeopathy, that must be THE PROOF! Just don't ask "Of what?"
I've always enjoyed the bracketed indication of target domain behind links in discussion, I think it would be nice to implement this also for the main page. In some cases, wording indicates some inconspicous page and people tend to click links that actually lead to the pages like Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which no self-respecting nerd should read (hint: If you can't include actual levels or link to the data you're not an Atomic Scientist but Alarmed Shill).
Well, the question "how much" led to my skimming of both articles (I've clicked the link to The Bullshit already, so what), but strangely enough, neither "scientists" nor "investigative reporters" could be bothered with such trifles. In absence of evidence, let's feel free to call it morons' nonsense until someone is able to produce actual data.
Slashdot Mirror
Requiescat In Pace, FLIF.
So I am free to be left with GIF/JPG/PNG until about 2040? Swell.
Don't trust Greenwald's claims.
shocked that there's incompetence and coverup in government run bussiness.
Oh, as for the 95%, it's an economist's report and tries to calculate price for new sources. IAEA gets average from all the countries (Soviet Union) and all the reactors that exist at the time (1990 meant ancient Magnoxes, not-yet-refurbished RBMKs and other engineering offenses still merrily grinding away). I've seen the 95% for the new plants quoted often, even from relatively respectable sources and can imagine how it got there, but still seems excessive, 93% is actually promoted by vendors (if you operate it right etc. and after the first few years of breaking the new plant in) for AP1000 and several others, real performance evaluation will have to wait after those new types are built and operated for several years.
Some useful stats for the past and current performances.
2012 was indeed a bad year for Swedish nuclear with Oskarhamn 1 being out and reaching 0.7 % load factor but the yearly average was 70 %. Check your math, either you misplaced decimal somewhere or you are mixing up the load factor of your turbines with the nuclear's share of Sweden's electricity production for 2012 - 38.5%, understandable brain fart, but still completely different metrics.
Typical modern wind turbines have diameters of 40 to 90 metres (130 to 300 ft) and are rated between 500 kW and 2 MW. As of 2014 the most powerful turbine, the Vestas V-164, is rated at 8 MW and has a rotor diameter of 164m.
That from the wiki and which also has other numbers for that biggest piece, which clearly show that diesel still wins.
You haven't even bothered to read the abstract, did you? BTW. Amory Lovins' bussiness is consulting for fossil fuel companies, he stopped advertising it, but if you use Google and Wayback Machine, you can still find him saying so. And of course the old, zombie canard of oil wars. Truthers should finally get together and explain why US didn't invade Canada and Nigeria in the first place (and possibly Mexico, it's close), check out the actual oil imports figures from those times, you might be surprised.
Maybe Amazon or some other provider could take a page from some local utilities and let users signal their own preferences with a (surcharged) "clean energy" option.
Meh, I'd like them more, if they started a better trend - ignore Greenpeace altogether. What's next? We're gonna have posts about Westboro Baptist Church's stance on computers, presented as a valid opinion? Fuck you, Jason, your submission is lamer than your hockey mask.
Sorry, I'm not gonna google von Hippel, Jacobson or other concern trolls/pressure group activists/outright quacks. I've already read enough stupid, flawed shit based on their work and of course, enough about the methodology they used. This methodology is questionable (that's the accepted scientific term for bullshit, right?).
http://www.unscear.org/docs/re...
A bit of light reading for those interested in the amount of conservative assumptions, posited improbable scenarios, rounding up and Fermi estimates necessary to claims of actual radiation-induced health consequences to the public.
Those homes would have to be made of carefully chosen materials not to emit radiation themselves (no granite countertops, too) and, of course, no sleeping with a spouse or a baby in the same bed - human body is naturally radioactive, which brings us to the last point - we would have to be fed with isotopically purified food to get rid of all the K-40 and in the long run, maybe replace all the carbon in our bodies with a purified carbon than doesn't consist partially of radioactive C-14.
Also, you missed a decimal, it's 2.4 mSv, not that the average means much, it's counted from about half mSv in some places and tens in others.
Haven't found his dose, but abstract of a Health Physics Journal's article mentioned between 1 to 5 curies deposited (for the whole room?), which would make it 37 to 185 GBq in SI units.
There are more "hardcore/weird/idiosyncratic/expressive/niche/unintelligible" languages for geniuses than just C, I've just recently ran into this nice 18 byte cunt-generating tidbit:
' *'{~4=+/~ 4<.|i:5
Ha, got "Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.", when trying to post both code and result, Slashdot apparently can't stomach rhombus made of asterisks, thus inadvertently giving unplanned example of expression and power being too limited for something relatively simple, yet unexpected. Unless it's just protection from pasting heaps of ASCII art?
Anyway, result's here, proper Slavic cunt symbol should have vertical line in the center, but the shape is generally recognized as simplified substitute, as in, say, Renault logo ("One cunt on the grill, the other behind the wheel." as somebody mean, probably me, remarked when homeroom teacher passed us in her car).
Well I'll be damned, I lived with the notion that he's already dead. Guess no-one just gives a fuck about him, once apartheid and Soviet bloc kicked the bucket. Hopefully, he'll crawl back under whatever stone he's been hiding since then.
Mauser G98, AK-47, Dakota, M-14, TI calculators, Willys Jeep, B-52, CZ 75, Lee-Enfield, Bren. Sadly, I don't own any of them.
All he did was getting job with access to classified materials with intent to steal them (his admission, not my insinuation) and then he grabbed more than he could read in a lifetime and got lost. Whistleblowing looks different, try reading about others who did it, you'll spot glaring differences. Word for Snowdens of this world is "traitor."
That heavily depends on "to whom?" For example, in my eyes it doesn't hurt his reputation at all. Granted, while "useful idiot" comes to my mind as a handy association when thinking of Snowden, "loser", "traitor" or "defector" come before, so there's simply nothing to be hurt.
Their letter seems to be missing emphatic denial of war atrocities, but at least they got the number of signatories right.
I watched Tim Minchin's Storm after a long time before going to sleep and as I wake up, there's this article on homeopathy, that must be THE PROOF! Just don't ask "Of what?"
I'd guess as enjoyable as when you're poor, but with more quality control in production.
I've always enjoyed the bracketed indication of target domain behind links in discussion, I think it would be nice to implement this also for the main page. In some cases, wording indicates some inconspicous page and people tend to click links that actually lead to the pages like Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which no self-respecting nerd should read (hint: If you can't include actual levels or link to the data you're not an Atomic Scientist but Alarmed Shill).
The question is, how much? What are the numbers?
Well, the question "how much" led to my skimming of both articles (I've clicked the link to The Bullshit already, so what), but strangely enough, neither "scientists" nor "investigative reporters" could be bothered with such trifles. In absence of evidence, let's feel free to call it morons' nonsense until someone is able to produce actual data.
Umm, how exactly are planning to catch him in your ever-so-lazily accelerating douchemobile? enema>
Citation needed, genius. And no, Weekly World News doesn't count.
The Mediterranean countries are our own domestic third world
Lose the rest of the sentence and I'll agree.