Interesting that you think training would not be up-to-date. Our other strategic capabilities have ongoing training. Odd also that you think that a harbor would be used for delivery.
The nuclear industry developed a flex plan in response to Fukushima, but some of it has extra equipment available to handle a single issue arising among one of many reactors. http://safetyfirst.nei.org/ind... In a wide scale grid failure, does that really help is several emergency generators fail a few weeks into aftermath?
Here's the difficulty: I give you the answer and you can't understand it. It is a matter of scale I think. You urge the LHC to do the work and you are off by three orders of magnitude in energy scale.
You should be done. You are very rude. Scale the bean luminosity up by a factor of fifty and set one up at each power station and you are done in a year. Really we only want to expend energy at about 600 MW so the leftover cooling system can dissipate it. Obviously we can get some energy back from the steam turbines too.
OK, we're done then. The last link I gave you has sufficient information to demonstrate that your objections were made out lack of understanding of nuclear physics. Small accelerators can have sufficiently luminous beams to use protons to break up the more tenacious fission products. Back of the envelope, that is about 10% of the radioactive fission products and perhaps 3% overall. Knocking these things down on the binding energy chart using protons probably does cost more in energy than the fissions originally provided given the elastic scattering of most of the protons. So, our conclusion is that fission, done responsibly, is likely endothermic and it is very fortunate that cheap renewables are on the way to cover the clean up cost of the poor energy decision that is commercial fission power.
As we agreed, we'll look up numbers first. It seems your main technical objection is being worked out with a 780 KW beam for spallation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... The question I'm looking into is switching tritium for the protons and switching the waste in for the spallation target for cesium. Might not pan out, but it is interesting. This is not an exam. If you want to pick up a pencil, do so.
Still not sure. Usually I'd look under cross sections of astrophysical interest but tritium is pretty fragile and these fission products, while long lived, are not really too astrophysically interesting. Technetium, for example, is suggests as a civilization marker though it is observed naturally in some AGB stars. .
The best estimate is that 110% of warming since the 1950's is owing to human activity. http://www.realclimate.org/ind... There are a lot of people out there trying to confuse you on that point. Don't be a chump.
I'm not sure I get you point then. Under normal conditions the tankers would not be used. So, they are not going to be blowing up. If they are used, it would be to stiffen the European backbone on sanctions by keeping their gas supply up without Russian imports. We avoid an arms race by keeping Russia in line. That saves on military costs.
I don't know what it costs to stop a nuclear cruise missile. India is working on it but Russian missiles are stealthy. Might be tough.
Tc-99 and I-129 appear to be covered so I'm still working on the remainder. Zirconium-93 looks tough so far. Caesium-135 might be interesting for tritium treatment owing to the zenon-133 neutron capture cross section, but that needs looking into. Palladium-107 might be enough like natural uranium to ignore it. There are a few others with smaller yields.
You just don't seem to have a point here. Midwest wind contracts go for 2.5 cents per kWh which is the fuel cost for natural gas in a good combined cycle plants. So, delivered wind is cheaper that using natural gas in that region. Apparently, manufacturing can continue to rebuild regardless of gas price in that region.
Slashdot Mirror
Fukushima discredits the Soviet system.
Interesting that you think training would not be up-to-date. Our other strategic capabilities have ongoing training. Odd also that you think that a harbor would be used for delivery.
The nuclear industry developed a flex plan in response to Fukushima, but some of it has extra equipment available to handle a single issue arising among one of many reactors. http://safetyfirst.nei.org/ind... In a wide scale grid failure, does that really help is several emergency generators fail a few weeks into aftermath?
In the case of a bad solar storm, recovery may be delayed by the need to manufacture replacement transformers. http://www.reuters.com/article...
Castro might not be able to repay Cuba for this economic loss. Maybe those missiles were a bad idea.
Nice link! looks like Spitzer Space Telescope is out of the line of fire.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com...
Here's the difficulty: I give you the answer and you can't understand it. It is a matter of scale I think. You urge the LHC to do the work and you are off by three orders of magnitude in energy scale.
You should be done. You are very rude. Scale the bean luminosity up by a factor of fifty and set one up at each power station and you are done in a year. Really we only want to expend energy at about 600 MW so the leftover cooling system can dissipate it. Obviously we can get some energy back from the steam turbines too.
OK, we're done then. The last link I gave you has sufficient information to demonstrate that your objections were made out lack of understanding of nuclear physics. Small accelerators can have sufficiently luminous beams to use protons to break up the more tenacious fission products. Back of the envelope, that is about 10% of the radioactive fission products and perhaps 3% overall. Knocking these things down on the binding energy chart using protons probably does cost more in energy than the fissions originally provided given the elastic scattering of most of the protons. So, our conclusion is that fission, done responsibly, is likely endothermic and it is very fortunate that cheap renewables are on the way to cover the clean up cost of the poor energy decision that is commercial fission power.
As we agreed, we'll look up numbers first. It seems your main technical objection is being worked out with a 780 KW beam for spallation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... The question I'm looking into is switching tritium for the protons and switching the waste in for the spallation target for cesium. Might not pan out, but it is interesting. This is not an exam. If you want to pick up a pencil, do so.
Very practical. Thanks.
Like this? http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar...
Perhaps you need to learn to count? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
Still not sure. Usually I'd look under cross sections of astrophysical interest but tritium is pretty fragile and these fission products, while long lived, are not really too astrophysically interesting. Technetium, for example, is suggests as a civilization marker though it is observed naturally in some AGB stars. .
It's not that rare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
No just math.
The best estimate is that 110% of warming since the 1950's is owing to human activity. http://www.realclimate.org/ind... There are a lot of people out there trying to confuse you on that point. Don't be a chump.
I didn't ask you a question. I just pointed out that were wrong again.
I'm not sure I get you point then. Under normal conditions the tankers would not be used. So, they are not going to be blowing up. If they are used, it would be to stiffen the European backbone on sanctions by keeping their gas supply up without Russian imports. We avoid an arms race by keeping Russia in line. That saves on military costs. I don't know what it costs to stop a nuclear cruise missile. India is working on it but Russian missiles are stealthy. Might be tough.
I guess I'd just repeat that your price spike scenario seems a little irrelevant to the present topic. The Rust Belt is a region in the Midwest.
Oddly, not misleading at all.
You do know what Rust Belt means?
Tc-99 and I-129 appear to be covered so I'm still working on the remainder. Zirconium-93 looks tough so far. Caesium-135 might be interesting for tritium treatment owing to the zenon-133 neutron capture cross section, but that needs looking into. Palladium-107 might be enough like natural uranium to ignore it. There are a few others with smaller yields.
You just don't seem to have a point here. Midwest wind contracts go for 2.5 cents per kWh which is the fuel cost for natural gas in a good combined cycle plants. So, delivered wind is cheaper that using natural gas in that region. Apparently, manufacturing can continue to rebuild regardless of gas price in that region.