Not sure this counts as stupid since the government has other interests (like preserving competition) but if the government is stupid, why would that not be our fault?
You seem most interested in the question of evil rather than the question of the existence of God. You might want to read "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis for some interesting thoughts on this.
Not sure I'm clear on this. You seem to be questioning God's goodness more than God's existence. You seem to think God exists in some manner or other though. That is a little different from where these guys stand I think.
Not really, my suggestion is to not pollute in the first place. Don't make the waste and there is no need to deal with it. The correct solution to the waste problem is to transmute it into stable isotopes, Implementing this may well bring the ratio of energy returned on energy invested for nuclear energy below one. Overall, one might view nuclear power simply as an overly complex, awkward and dangerous battery technology.
Technically recoverable resources don't become economically recoverable if there is no demand at the higher price. It is clear that substitution is already proceeding at the current price. http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/RenaissanceinReverse7.18.2013.pdf Thus, even the economically recoverable resource is dwindling faster than it is being used. Citing experts on a subject they did not address is an indication that your comprehension of the subject is weak.
How much of that fuel was done with centrifuges? The Soviets had it sooner, but these are also their older weapons. Nope, this was a battery for conventional power, not an energy gain.
Any argument that relies on higher prices for uranium needs to account for the falling cost of renewable energy which does not need fuel. Already wind power is helping to shut down existing reactors as uneconomical so demand for nuclear power is very unlikely to support higher uranium prices.
Early enrichment had a pretty low energy return on energy invested because of the large contribution of gaseous diffusion to the process. Enriching up to weapons grade and then diluting back down was also an extra energy draw. I can't count the number of complaints I've heard about solar energy payback time from nuke nuts on slashdot, yet all this time its been horrible to non-existent for US nukes. Mostly we've had imported soviet hydro and coal power with this program.
That seems to be experience based. There are few who point to evidence in these situations. There are mounds of witness testimony, but doing experiments on God would seem to lack prudence. St. Thomas got away with it though.
Some experiments with off-the-shelf hardware and redundancy have shown promise for space applications so perhaps that is the direction to go in any case. I do like the idea of limiting cosmic ray induced defects in solar panels though.
A yes, I was thinking about natural radiation. Well, you'd want to test the location in any case. So, some towers may be prewar or some may have been build from ship scrap. Find a few of those and there might be something to try.
It seems to me that an unexploited structure for a low radiation environment is the bottom side of a water tower. Steel has most radionuclides slagged off when it is produced while drinking water standards ensure the water in the tower will have low radioactivity. A meter or two of water forms a nice shield for cosmic rays from above while the air below the tower shields against lower energy ground radiation. And, you get a nice heat sink in the water for cooling electronic.
Slashdot Mirror
Check.
Not sure this counts as stupid since the government has other interests (like preserving competition) but if the government is stupid, why would that not be our fault?
Sales of the Chevy Volt don't look too shabby. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1088113_plug-in-electric-car-sales-for-oct-volt-leaf-hold-steady This is a move that carried quite a lot R&D investment and promises to get a battery industry going in the US. Intervention also seems to have brought about movement on CAFE standards. Possibly, we are getting a good deal on this.
So, I think you are a theist but draw no comfort from that perhaps.
That got funded, It was a failure.
You seem most interested in the question of evil rather than the question of the existence of God. You might want to read "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis for some interesting thoughts on this.
Not sure I'm clear on this. You seem to be questioning God's goodness more than God's existence. You seem to think God exists in some manner or other though. That is a little different from where these guys stand I think.
Sometimes the presence of a ram tangled in a bush is persuasive.
Not really, my suggestion is to not pollute in the first place. Don't make the waste and there is no need to deal with it. The correct solution to the waste problem is to transmute it into stable isotopes, Implementing this may well bring the ratio of energy returned on energy invested for nuclear energy below one. Overall, one might view nuclear power simply as an overly complex, awkward and dangerous battery technology.
Technically recoverable resources don't become economically recoverable if there is no demand at the higher price. It is clear that substitution is already proceeding at the current price. http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/RenaissanceinReverse7.18.2013.pdf Thus, even the economically recoverable resource is dwindling faster than it is being used. Citing experts on a subject they did not address is an indication that your comprehension of the subject is weak.
Except that now we have to deal with the waste. Better to just dilute it back down to natural uranium and not use it at all.
You seem to be completely unaware of what this program did.
We paid quite a bit for it, partly because there were other people who did want it.
How much of that fuel was done with centrifuges? The Soviets had it sooner, but these are also their older weapons. Nope, this was a battery for conventional power, not an energy gain.
Any argument that relies on higher prices for uranium needs to account for the falling cost of renewable energy which does not need fuel. Already wind power is helping to shut down existing reactors as uneconomical so demand for nuclear power is very unlikely to support higher uranium prices.
Early enrichment had a pretty low energy return on energy invested because of the large contribution of gaseous diffusion to the process. Enriching up to weapons grade and then diluting back down was also an extra energy draw. I can't count the number of complaints I've heard about solar energy payback time from nuke nuts on slashdot, yet all this time its been horrible to non-existent for US nukes. Mostly we've had imported soviet hydro and coal power with this program.
For some, it is a response to Holiness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis#Conversion_to_Christianity
That seems to be experience based. There are few who point to evidence in these situations. There are mounds of witness testimony, but doing experiments on God would seem to lack prudence. St. Thomas got away with it though.
I hope, for Dawkins' sake, if God speaks to him, he'll be prepared to listen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_nontheism
On the other hand, the brightness temperature of the sky is even lower so using mirrors might allow some passive condensation.
China is always just about one big flood away from revolution. I wonder if they are trying to set up a distraction.
Some experiments with off-the-shelf hardware and redundancy have shown promise for space applications so perhaps that is the direction to go in any case. I do like the idea of limiting cosmic ray induced defects in solar panels though.
A yes, I was thinking about natural radiation. Well, you'd want to test the location in any case. So, some towers may be prewar or some may have been build from ship scrap. Find a few of those and there might be something to try.
I came up with that about five years ago. Thanks. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/03/lux-lucis-tepida.html
It seems to me that an unexploited structure for a low radiation environment is the bottom side of a water tower. Steel has most radionuclides slagged off when it is produced while drinking water standards ensure the water in the tower will have low radioactivity. A meter or two of water forms a nice shield for cosmic rays from above while the air below the tower shields against lower energy ground radiation. And, you get a nice heat sink in the water for cooling electronic.
Amory Lovins sees fuel cell vehicles as being competitive well before 2050, so this is an interesting development. http://www.rmi.org/RFGraph-cost_reduction_potential_of_powertrains