There don't seem to be other proposed solutions aside from shutting down old plants. Those who want to build new plants would just be creating future old plants that will leak in turn. Nuclear waste just does not seem to have any solutions except to stop making it even for stuff that is as short lived as tritium. One would think that the financial incentive would keep tritium bottled up but in the UK they just vent it, probably in contravention of the London Dumping Convention. The ground water leaks in the US probably face this issue as well if the ground water mixes with surface water. This will probably happen in Vermont. The links on effects of tritium poisoning are interesting. Those who discuss its safety and use outside the body are ignoring that the tritium in entering ground water which will be ingested.
Let's see. New nuclear power looks like it costs about $12/Watt so you need 2 hours of peak equivalent sunshine on average to have equivalence. Hard to find a place that does not have that.
Several companies are routinely producing at under $1/Watt so we'll be seeing these kinds of prices going forward. With a nuclear power plant, you also have to pay for the balance of the system and a lot of the cost is up front. Hard to see how nuclear can compete on price.
Greenpeace does propose solar as an alternative. You can get amorphous silicon panels for $0.98/Watt http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm These should last over 50 years since they are less affected by cosmic rays than crystalline panels. That comes to about a penny a kWh in a typical US location. Sounds like about the most cost effective new power available. Hum, it's even less expensive than existing power (i.e. hydro electric, coal, nuclear) so maybe they are on to something.
This probably does not help much but the cosmological redshift is not from velocity but rather from space stretching along the path of the photon, which stretches the photon, increasing its wavelength.
Actually, the warm background can interfere with gas clouds cooling enough to collapse to become stars since the gas needs to cool radiatively. So, the warmth of the universe is a hindrance to some extent.
There is a lot of recycling that goes on so most stars now are made of material that was in a previous generation of stars. But, there are stars in our galaxy from those early times. They are low enough mass (less than 0.7 times the mass of the Sun) so that they have lifetimes longer than the age of the universe. Certain globular clusters in the Milky Way appear to be from about that time.
In fact, they are spread out somewhat in appearance because there is no "vanishing point" as you might have in a drawing with a road or rail tracks. The smaller universe of that time has to be spread over the same amount of sky so there is some magnification to make this happen. Try putting different redshifts in here http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html and look at how the scale changes (kpc/" is kiloparsecs per arcsecond). You can plot it on some paper and see how it changes.
Slashdot Mirror
A not all that reliable source has suggested that stealing emails in the UK may have been done by China as well: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1238638/Chinese-hackers-linked-Warmergate-climate-change-leaked-emails-controversy.html
Hum, so tritium leaks are what kind of dream?
Sorry you don't like cheaper safer power.
The NRC has sent the projects section chief to Vermont Yankee in response to the toxic radioactive spill: http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100112/NEWS04/1120359/1003/NEWS02 Also, the plant spokesman is clueless about former violations.
There don't seem to be other proposed solutions aside from shutting down old plants. Those who want to build new plants would just be creating future old plants that will leak in turn. Nuclear waste just does not seem to have any solutions except to stop making it even for stuff that is as short lived as tritium. One would think that the financial incentive would keep tritium bottled up but in the UK they just vent it, probably in contravention of the London Dumping Convention. The ground water leaks in the US probably face this issue as well if the ground water mixes with surface water. This will probably happen in Vermont. The links on effects of tritium poisoning are interesting. Those who discuss its safety and use outside the body are ignoring that the tritium in entering ground water which will be ingested.
That is good that they are feeling better. It was about 90 people exposed though. http://www.prafulbidwai.org/index.php?post/2009/12/04/Kaiga%3A-Question-mark-over-nuclear-safety
Lucky you go when the guards are awake: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/02sirenswe.html
Let's see. New nuclear power looks like it costs about $12/Watt so you need 2 hours of peak equivalent sunshine on average to have equivalence. Hard to find a place that does not have that.
"Decrepit", "sprung" and "poorly run" are all loaded words. They make unsupported judgments about the reactor in question.
RTFA and the related stories and you'll find these words to be very well supported. This is news. Got to use the words that fit the situation.
Canada is ready to sell hydro power cheaper.
That means more opportunity to produce the power where it is used I guess. No need to waste riverside real estate for cooling either.
Several companies are routinely producing at under $1/Watt so we'll be seeing these kinds of prices going forward. With a nuclear power plant, you also have to pay for the balance of the system and a lot of the cost is up front. Hard to see how nuclear can compete on price.
Why not keep it? You'll get helium 3 eventually.
Your beer may be able to detect ionizing radiation: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201001/physicshistory.cfm This explains the fascination that physicists have with the liquid.
Is it well run if it is leaking radioactive waste into the ground water? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Nuclear_Generating_Station#Groundwater_contamination Maybe that is part of their mission statement?
Greenpeace does propose solar as an alternative. You can get amorphous silicon panels for $0.98/Watt http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm These should last over 50 years since they are less affected by cosmic rays than crystalline panels. That comes to about a penny a kWh in a typical US location. Sounds like about the most cost effective new power available. Hum, it's even less expensive than existing power (i.e. hydro electric, coal, nuclear) so maybe they are on to something.
There were 55 people made sick recently with tritium poisoning: http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Radiation-leak-at-Kaiga-nuke-plant-leaves-55-sick/547611/
That does not work out that well since the new high burn-up reactors have a problem with iodine-129 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/new-nuclear-reactor-s-waste-is and the electricity from new nuclear plants costs over $0.14/kWh http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly So, new nuclear does not look so good.
Actually, I've only had 10 of 63 submissions accepted over the years. http://slashdot.org/~mdsolar/submissions Editors could be kinder.
We've discussed Vermont Yankee before and it is a particularly sad case. http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/07/09/08/2036240/New-Legislation-Proposed-For-Nuclear-Safety
This probably does not help much but the cosmological redshift is not from velocity but rather from space stretching along the path of the photon, which stretches the photon, increasing its wavelength.
6000 is probably about right. I expect you can get the data from here: http://archive.stsci.edu/ Now there are 6001.
If the gas can't cool, then internal pressure can hold it up against collapse.
Actually, the warm background can interfere with gas clouds cooling enough to collapse to become stars since the gas needs to cool radiatively. So, the warmth of the universe is a hindrance to some extent.
There is a lot of recycling that goes on so most stars now are made of material that was in a previous generation of stars. But, there are stars in our galaxy from those early times. They are low enough mass (less than 0.7 times the mass of the Sun) so that they have lifetimes longer than the age of the universe. Certain globular clusters in the Milky Way appear to be from about that time.
In fact, they are spread out somewhat in appearance because there is no "vanishing point" as you might have in a drawing with a road or rail tracks. The smaller universe of that time has to be spread over the same amount of sky so there is some magnification to make this happen. Try putting different redshifts in here http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html and look at how the scale changes (kpc/" is kiloparsecs per arcsecond). You can plot it on some paper and see how it changes.