I see a lot of elementary school students calculating mode and median and ranges with very little motivation. You may have some raw tools available just because of the way curriculum has taken the thread out of learning.
But that was your assumption. You wanted a past nuclear build up. That means same old reactors. You got it wrong. You'd have to stop the Gulf Stream to do the other thing. Crazy.
Looked at his website. Not bad on energy and education. Debt free college and this: "We can’t meet the climate challenge with an all-of-the-above energy strategy, or from drilling off our coasts, or from building pipelines that bring oil from tar sands in Canada.
Meeting the climate challenge requires a commitment to one simple concept: a full transition to clean, renewable energy and an end our reliance on fossil fuels altogether."
Having good people is part of, maybe the biggest part of being good at the job. Shrub was always praising Condi, but the stovepipe led to her and she dropped the ball on 9/11. Her ego got in the way. Letting through an attack on our military HQ is a monumental failure.
He has a pretty good record on the environment here in Maryland. I'm not a Democrat but I'm seen what dynasties have done to the Republicans and how it hurt the country so I do worry that Democrats could end up doing the same. Bill would not have missed this. Why did Hillary?
Is that the other two campaigns didn't notice. Vigilance is needed these days to be a good President. Look what happened when Condi played games ignoring Clarke.
Conspiracies do exist, and Yucca seems have a focus of coverups, sort of the basic pattern for a conspiracy.
I find the opposite to your view on government to be persuasive. This is attributed to Ralph Nader's sister by my mother: nuclear power begets a permanent security state to deal with the waste and is thus one of the most pernicious enemies of Liberty ever.
I just mean that scientists a devoted to truth. Once they start to lie, the whole thing must be rotten and can't be redeemed.
On waste, I think using accelerators to transmute to stable isotopes is best. There will be plenty of excess cheap solar power to get the job done safely on site.
Regarding fusion, the waste is not long lived so not such a headache.
I think it is useful to think of nuclear power as a battery. The energy must be paid back in transmuting the waste to stable isotopes on site. Luckily, solar energy will be available to run the accelerators to do this. No permanent storage needed.
Humboldt and Maine Yankee are also pretty much taken apart as well. I think the argument goes that the ones that have run a long time will be hotter. But I'm suspicious that it is more a matter of wanting to be dead and gone before it is obvious the decommissioning fund is inadequate: I got mine Jack....
Permanent storage was looking like would be in Texas until Congress intervened an selected a hydrologically porous site in Nevada. Congress actually gets in the way when it gets involved.
The effects of warming make nuclear power more expensive, be it having to plan for sea level rise owing to long planning horizons, or thermal pollution issues made worse by warming. Wind and solar power are already less expensive and cleaner and don't require fuel which will run out. Nuclear is a climate problem, not a solution.
Uranium mining and thermal pollution are daily disasters, solar just does its job passively and cleanly. You seem to be very confised. You do know that solar panels are made out of sand don't you?
Slashdot Mirror
A big advantage of decentralization is that mass disruption is hard to pull off. http://www.rmi.org/reinventing...
ITER https://www.iter.org/ quite detailed.
I see a lot of elementary school students calculating mode and median and ranges with very little motivation. You may have some raw tools available just because of the way curriculum has taken the thread out of learning.
The spectacle is over. Sander's campaign has access again.
But that was your assumption. You wanted a past nuclear build up. That means same old reactors. You got it wrong. You'd have to stop the Gulf Stream to do the other thing. Crazy.
Looked at his website. Not bad on energy and education. Debt free college and this: "We can’t meet the climate challenge with an all-of-the-above energy strategy, or from drilling off our coasts, or from building pipelines that bring oil from tar sands in Canada. Meeting the climate challenge requires a commitment to one simple concept: a full transition to clean, renewable energy and an end our reliance on fossil fuels altogether."
Gag.... Physics has been doing neutron experiments for some time now. Yes, fusion is cleaner than fission by far.
Having good people is part of, maybe the biggest part of being good at the job. Shrub was always praising Condi, but the stovepipe led to her and she dropped the ball on 9/11. Her ego got in the way. Letting through an attack on our military HQ is a monumental failure.
He has a pretty good record on the environment here in Maryland. I'm not a Democrat but I'm seen what dynasties have done to the Republicans and how it hurt the country so I do worry that Democrats could end up doing the same. Bill would not have missed this. Why did Hillary?
You can read the emails yourself. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...
Is that the other two campaigns didn't notice. Vigilance is needed these days to be a good President. Look what happened when Condi played games ignoring Clarke.
Thanks, I took a warm season Internet fast. Strangely, however, it is still warm.
It probably only makes up about a tenth of the mass locally in the disk of the Milky Way: http://m.phys.org/news/2012-06...
You might recognize yourself in this article: http://www.theguardian.com/com...
You can look at the firehose to see potential upcoming articles.
Conspiracies do exist, and Yucca seems have a focus of coverups, sort of the basic pattern for a conspiracy.
I find the opposite to your view on government to be persuasive. This is attributed to Ralph Nader's sister by my mother: nuclear power begets a permanent security state to deal with the waste and is thus one of the most pernicious enemies of Liberty ever.
I just mean that scientists a devoted to truth. Once they start to lie, the whole thing must be rotten and can't be redeemed.
On waste, I think using accelerators to transmute to stable isotopes is best. There will be plenty of excess cheap solar power to get the job done safely on site.
Regarding fusion, the waste is not long lived so not such a headache.
We'd be out of uranium already if your hypothetical were the case. At the present rate of use, there is only 80 years left.
I think it is useful to think of nuclear power as a battery. The energy must be paid back in transmuting the waste to stable isotopes on site. Luckily, solar energy will be available to run the accelerators to do this. No permanent storage needed.
Humboldt and Maine Yankee are also pretty much taken apart as well. I think the argument goes that the ones that have run a long time will be hotter. But I'm suspicious that it is more a matter of wanting to be dead and gone before it is obvious the decommissioning fund is inadequate: I got mine Jack....
Permanent storage was looking like would be in Texas until Congress intervened an selected a hydrologically porous site in Nevada. Congress actually gets in the way when it gets involved.
Citation?
The effects of warming make nuclear power more expensive, be it having to plan for sea level rise owing to long planning horizons, or thermal pollution issues made worse by warming. Wind and solar power are already less expensive and cleaner and don't require fuel which will run out. Nuclear is a climate problem, not a solution.
Uranium mining and thermal pollution are daily disasters, solar just does its job passively and cleanly. You seem to be very confised. You do know that solar panels are made out of sand don't you?
You should notice too that wind power purchase agreements under 3 cents a kwh http://energy.gov/eere/article... Nuclear energy is finished.