I'd suggest that there should be a ramped approach. First, we should acknowledge that dangerous climate change has come early and we are already suffering damages. The growth in Federal crop and flood insurance payouts is owing to the effects of climate change. Instead of increasing premiums, we should use climate damage tariffs to cover this increase. That amounts to a pretty small tariff, but it firmly establishes the liability connection. Non-Annex I countries (as listed in the Kyoto Protocol) are becoming the main contributors to cumulative emissions just as climate change has turned dangerous, that makes their emissions the cause of dangerous climate change. An accident of timing? Yes. But deliberately increasing emissions, as China is doing, eliminates safe harbor as well.
This small tariff could be used as a stepping stone to larger tariffs imposed cooperatively with other Annex I countries if China does not turn around. The larger tariffs could be used to assist with adaptation costs in countries with low per capita emissions where vulnerability to dangerous climate change is high. Lack of a clear funding mechanism for this sort of thing has been a sticking point at climate negotiations. This would essentially get funds from those who are causing the damage."
The prize is in honor of Nobel since Nobel did not institute a prize in economics. It was awarded in 2008 for Integrating the previously disparate research fields into a new, international trade and economic geography. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe...
My kids' school finally got to an enrollment where classes won't be held in trailers. But, the trailers will still be used. The school district is thinking that expulsion and suspension do more harm than good when students are left unsupervised, so they are switching to more in school retention. The trailers are going to be used for that.
Now, that is a good question. Read "Reinventing Fire" http://www.rmi.org/reinventing... You'll find that things are looking quite bright.
You've made some assumptions that demonstrate why you fall in love with broken technology. You take things uncritically. You assume I oppose nuclear power just because I am clear eyed about your favorite junk reactor. In fact. I'm a big supporter of fusion regardless of it lack of commercial potential and I think that naval propulsion reactors are hard to beat in their mission. Commercial nuclear power is a dog owing to cost, safety and waste disposal problems. It is also promoting nuclear arms proliferation, just the opposite of the intent of atoms for peace, since it is providing cover for uranium enrichment and plutonium production. And, rather obviously, leaving all that nuclear waste out is going to lead to a terrorist incident. Your blind passion is actually quite dangerous.
Being able to learn and transmit tradition has survival advantages for humans. A question that directly challenges a known tradition may not be the best test of how well someone learns in areas where tradition does not exist. School knowledge and parental lap knowledge may have different ways of registering for evolutionary reasons.
Starting over with multiple potential sites takes pressure off the process. Yucca was not selected scientifically so there was pressure to make the science fit the politics. There was an off chance Yucca might be suitable, even when it was chosen in haste by edict. But we'll never know for sure. We know of one falsification incident, but chances are we don't know of all of them.
You are so passionate for this failed technology that you can't help making excuses for it. But that is all they are, excuses. Had the thing worked, it would have progressed. But it didn't work, not even close.
The number of conspiracy theories expounded here is like a garden of skunk cabbage. There is one conspiracy in this matter, the effort to falsify quality assurance data at Yucca. Everyone's unstable and and cracked vessel reactors failed on their own lack of merit. We tried them, they were not any good. It is a matter of attrition. The next big accident in the US will kill the other reactors as well. Nuclear power is too expensive to survive in any case so maybe we'll be lucky and Fukushima will be the last tragedy.
You didn't bother to read this: "Sampling in 1994 revealed concentrations of uranium that created a potential for a nuclear criticality accident, as well as a potentially dangerous build-up of fluorine gas — the environment above the solidified salt was approximately one atmosphere of fluorine. The ensuing decontamination and decommissioning project was called "the most technically challenging" activity assigned to Bechtel Jacobs under its environmental management contract with the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Operations organization. In 2003, the MSRE cleanup project was estimated at about $130 million," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... You are just an ignorant fanboi. Don't embarrass yourself further.
Your link says: "Fly ash is generally captured by electrostatic precipitators or other particle filtration equipment before the flue gases reach the chimneys of coal-fired power plants." With which I obviously agree but on which make some ill informed objection.
No, it was a hot potato and Nevada got stuck with it owing to lack of seniority. The correct thing to do is to evaluate a large number of promising sites using science, find a few that could work and then find which place will take the lowest bribe to accept the site.
Wow, you are really really ignorant. Ash does not go out the stack, it's scrubbed, and if it did, nearly all the uranium stays at the bottom. Regardless, even if you blew it around with a leaf blower, it would be just the same as blowing dust around. The uranium is not concentrated more than in the original forest soil from which the coal came. Even less informed: fission is not the usual decay path, it has to be induced. Fission products are not naturally occurring and we are not evolved to deal with them.
Regardless of Reid, Yucca can't go forward. There was too much pressure to make it happen and the quality assurance measures broke. Now we don't know what else is wrong with the project. A new look at transmutation is what we really need. If transmutation is the policy, then shorter term storage is an interim option. That means that we can pull back from sea level rise and other power plant site specific problems.
You are quite mistaken. Natural uranium in coal ends up in the ash at a concentration no greater than low carbon soil. It does not add to background radiation since it is screened just as much as other natural sources. It is the unnatural isotopes in nuclear waste that cause problems.
On partial solution would be to stop making more waste until we know what we are doing. Mothballing the nuclear power plants for a couple decades would make sense.
We could even get people to pay to help build the thing as part of a theme vacation. Everyone put on an Egyptian kilt and eyeshadow and grab a rope. On three now: heave!
I don't think you understand. Redoing one part was not enough. You have go back all the way to site selection to get a clean slate. That is what we are doing now.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd suggest that there should be a ramped approach. First, we should acknowledge that dangerous climate change has come early and we are already suffering damages. The growth in Federal crop and flood insurance payouts is owing to the effects of climate change. Instead of increasing premiums, we should use climate damage tariffs to cover this increase. That amounts to a pretty small tariff, but it firmly establishes the liability connection. Non-Annex I countries (as listed in the Kyoto Protocol) are becoming the main contributors to cumulative emissions just as climate change has turned dangerous, that makes their emissions the cause of dangerous climate change. An accident of timing? Yes. But deliberately increasing emissions, as China is doing, eliminates safe harbor as well.
This small tariff could be used as a stepping stone to larger tariffs imposed cooperatively with other Annex I countries if China does not turn around. The larger tariffs could be used to assist with adaptation costs in countries with low per capita emissions where vulnerability to dangerous climate change is high. Lack of a clear funding mechanism for this sort of thing has been a sticking point at climate negotiations. This would essentially get funds from those who are causing the damage."
The prize is in honor of Nobel since Nobel did not institute a prize in economics. It was awarded in 2008 for Integrating the previously disparate research fields into a new, international trade and economic geography. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe...
Do read it. You'll see your assumptions expressed here are quite off base.
The district has some zero tolerance policies, no weapons for example. Sending kids home to an empty house may not get the behavioral issue addressed.
My kids' school finally got to an enrollment where classes won't be held in trailers. But, the trailers will still be used. The school district is thinking that expulsion and suspension do more harm than good when students are left unsupervised, so they are switching to more in school retention. The trailers are going to be used for that.
Now, that is a good question. Read "Reinventing Fire" http://www.rmi.org/reinventing... You'll find that things are looking quite bright.
You've made some assumptions that demonstrate why you fall in love with broken technology. You take things uncritically. You assume I oppose nuclear power just because I am clear eyed about your favorite junk reactor. In fact. I'm a big supporter of fusion regardless of it lack of commercial potential and I think that naval propulsion reactors are hard to beat in their mission. Commercial nuclear power is a dog owing to cost, safety and waste disposal problems. It is also promoting nuclear arms proliferation, just the opposite of the intent of atoms for peace, since it is providing cover for uranium enrichment and plutonium production. And, rather obviously, leaving all that nuclear waste out is going to lead to a terrorist incident. Your blind passion is actually quite dangerous.
Being able to learn and transmit tradition has survival advantages for humans. A question that directly challenges a known tradition may not be the best test of how well someone learns in areas where tradition does not exist. School knowledge and parental lap knowledge may have different ways of registering for evolutionary reasons.
Starting over with multiple potential sites takes pressure off the process. Yucca was not selected scientifically so there was pressure to make the science fit the politics. There was an off chance Yucca might be suitable, even when it was chosen in haste by edict. But we'll never know for sure. We know of one falsification incident, but chances are we don't know of all of them.
You are so passionate for this failed technology that you can't help making excuses for it. But that is all they are, excuses. Had the thing worked, it would have progressed. But it didn't work, not even close.
When trust is broken, you can not get it back. Nevada won't accept the project anymore.
You are making excuses. There we're lots of other problems as well. You like it because you have not studied it.
The number of conspiracy theories expounded here is like a garden of skunk cabbage. There is one conspiracy in this matter, the effort to falsify quality assurance data at Yucca. Everyone's unstable and and cracked vessel reactors failed on their own lack of merit. We tried them, they were not any good. It is a matter of attrition. The next big accident in the US will kill the other reactors as well. Nuclear power is too expensive to survive in any case so maybe we'll be lucky and Fukushima will be the last tragedy.
You didn't bother to read this: "Sampling in 1994 revealed concentrations of uranium that created a potential for a nuclear criticality accident, as well as a potentially dangerous build-up of fluorine gas — the environment above the solidified salt was approximately one atmosphere of fluorine. The ensuing decontamination and decommissioning project was called "the most technically challenging" activity assigned to Bechtel Jacobs under its environmental management contract with the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Operations organization. In 2003, the MSRE cleanup project was estimated at about $130 million," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... You are just an ignorant fanboi. Don't embarrass yourself further.
Your link says: "Fly ash is generally captured by electrostatic precipitators or other particle filtration equipment before the flue gases reach the chimneys of coal-fired power plants." With which I obviously agree but on which make some ill informed objection.
No, it was a hot potato and Nevada got stuck with it owing to lack of seniority. The correct thing to do is to evaluate a large number of promising sites using science, find a few that could work and then find which place will take the lowest bribe to accept the site.
Keep that tinfoil hat shiny.
Read again.
Wow, you are really really ignorant. Ash does not go out the stack, it's scrubbed, and if it did, nearly all the uranium stays at the bottom. Regardless, even if you blew it around with a leaf blower, it would be just the same as blowing dust around. The uranium is not concentrated more than in the original forest soil from which the coal came. Even less informed: fission is not the usual decay path, it has to be induced. Fission products are not naturally occurring and we are not evolved to deal with them.
Regardless of Reid, Yucca can't go forward. There was too much pressure to make it happen and the quality assurance measures broke. Now we don't know what else is wrong with the project. A new look at transmutation is what we really need. If transmutation is the policy, then shorter term storage is an interim option. That means that we can pull back from sea level rise and other power plant site specific problems.
Fission event produce more waste, not less.
You are quite mistaken. Natural uranium in coal ends up in the ash at a concentration no greater than low carbon soil. It does not add to background radiation since it is screened just as much as other natural sources. It is the unnatural isotopes in nuclear waste that cause problems.
On partial solution would be to stop making more waste until we know what we are doing. Mothballing the nuclear power plants for a couple decades would make sense.
We could even get people to pay to help build the thing as part of a theme vacation. Everyone put on an Egyptian kilt and eyeshadow and grab a rope. On three now: heave!
I don't think you understand. Redoing one part was not enough. You have go back all the way to site selection to get a clean slate. That is what we are doing now.
Not necessarily in a safe manner.