And, you are mistaken about the release as well. The radioactive components remain in the ash and are not released to the atmosphere. And, since the ash has the same radioactivity as the soil that it originally was, with the same naturally occurring elements, there is no increase in exposure by piling coal ash on the dirt that surrounds the plant. It is the same stuff as that dirt in terms of its radioactivity.
Properly working nuclear plants do leak quite a lot of tritium, something that is quite bio-available. But, as we see, they spread a huge radioactive mess of bio-available fission products from time to time as well when they are not properly working.
Mercury and sulfur, (sulfur also for some oil) are problems with coal, but not over a 6000 year timescale, that of the reduced cancer risk timescale from dilution of carbon-14. And, carbon itself is a problem with all fossil fuels, but the reduced cancer risk remains even as we clean up that mess.
This seems like a strange post for slashdot. But, I will say that HDTV does make a difference for baseball, so he's wrong and I still like my 30 inch Sony CRT HDTV better than any plasma or led screen I've seen. Being immersed in a pixelated view is distracting.
Growing up during the first energy crisis, fusion was a pretty frequent topic of conversation at my house. My father got his Ph.D. in nuclear physics at U.C. Berkeley and took an interest in fusion. At that time, I remember, the path to fusion was considered to be a long road. And, the important timescale for completing the effort was when the coal would run out. 2070 might see substantial fusion power implemented given the level of effort put towards developing fusion. And, because developing fusion required bringing along new students in several generations, once the level of effort was set, there would not be much of an opportunity to speed things up in a later crash program. So, now, nearly half way along the path that was set out 40 years ago, Is it going OK? Is fusion on track? It seems like it, but how do you feel?
Sorry I did not respond earlier. The solar business I was involved in was a rental model. It had a large growth potential but needed a prosperous economy to work because retaining ownership of the equipment led to certain tax offsets that investment banks could use against other business interests. When tax liabilities fell generally across the economy owing to low profits, the business model fell apart. The company is still going, but in a very limited area, not nationally as planned.
My son enjoys programming his TI 83 and has programmed the game hangman into it. He does not seem to want to consult online manuals but would rather figure out string operations by trial and error.
Those lego robots have a visual programming language that both he and his sister have used at times as well.
Then, when every last cent of their money was spent,
the Fix-It-Up-Chappie packed up and he went.
And he laughed as he drove in his car up the beach,
“They never will learn; no, you can’t teach a Sneetch!”
The energy returned on energy invested is pretty low for nuclear power even ignoring the waste clean up. Using centrifuges in the fuel processing can help, but with only about 75 years of uranium left, the whole slug of gas diffusion processed materials from weapons production makes the overall process low quality in energy terms.
Accelerators can break down plutonium so that is a zeroth order approach. We can expect an overshoot in solar panel production and excess energy available after fossil fuels and nuclear power are eliminated. Already nanosolar has an energy payback time of under eight months. http://www.nanosolar.com/company/about-us so repaying the nuclear energy debt should not be too difficult.
Actually, storage may not be the best option. Transportation of spent fuel to a central site is sure to lead to accidents. A mobile transmutation facility may be a better option. If we think of nuclear energy as energy that must be repaid to unmake the waste, a sort of deficit spending situation, then the picture of what nuclear energy is may be clearer.
A little under 13% of my submissions are accepted and there are many that are highly ranked on firehose that are rejected (declined these days). You have a higher acceptance rate. So, do you have more friends on staff than I? Is that fair? This piece is a follow up to the one about the NRC email. It is informational. Most of the important points were made in the prior discussion, namely that the NRC should have done the simulations it claims it has done so that it would know before an accident happens what to do.
Tyson forgot a bunch republican censorship in his description, but I have to say that on budgets he has a point. It was democrats who killed the SSC for the most part.
Slashdot Mirror
Already posted on slashdot: http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/01/21/0354238/endoscopic-exam-of-fukushima-reactor
And, you are mistaken about the release as well. The radioactive components remain in the ash and are not released to the atmosphere. And, since the ash has the same radioactivity as the soil that it originally was, with the same naturally occurring elements, there is no increase in exposure by piling coal ash on the dirt that surrounds the plant. It is the same stuff as that dirt in terms of its radioactivity.
Properly working nuclear plants do leak quite a lot of tritium, something that is quite bio-available. But, as we see, they spread a huge radioactive mess of bio-available fission products from time to time as well when they are not properly working.
Mercury and sulfur, (sulfur also for some oil) are problems with coal, but not over a 6000 year timescale, that of the reduced cancer risk timescale from dilution of carbon-14. And, carbon itself is a problem with all fossil fuels, but the reduced cancer risk remains even as we clean up that mess.
Kool-aid taste? You sure have gulped it.
Mentions a new leak of radiation into the ocean as well. You know, burning fossil fuels actually reduces radiation exposure. Maybe this nuclear stuff is just kind of stupid. http://slashdot.org/journal/279815/fossil-fuel-use-cuts-bodys-internal-radiation-burden
This seems like a strange post for slashdot. But, I will say that HDTV does make a difference for baseball, so he's wrong and I still like my 30 inch Sony CRT HDTV better than any plasma or led screen I've seen. Being immersed in a pixelated view is distracting.
Growing up during the first energy crisis, fusion was a pretty frequent topic of conversation at my house. My father got his Ph.D. in nuclear physics at U.C. Berkeley and took an interest in fusion. At that time, I remember, the path to fusion was considered to be a long road. And, the important timescale for completing the effort was when the coal would run out. 2070 might see substantial fusion power implemented given the level of effort put towards developing fusion. And, because developing fusion required bringing along new students in several generations, once the level of effort was set, there would not be much of an opportunity to speed things up in a later crash program. So, now, nearly half way along the path that was set out 40 years ago, Is it going OK? Is fusion on track? It seems like it, but how do you feel?
voted against Pi Day.
Old guys love to jaw about the weather. Be sure to read this one when you write: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120105_PerceptionsAndDice.pdf
Got to walk that green mile first.
It's not in the dictionary. Look it up.
Are from Long Island.
He voted against Pi Day. http://teachpi.org/stories/2009housebill.htm
Teach music for the soul and gymnastics for the body. Start with music. Once these are strong, the rest will come along out of student curiosity.
3-14 at 3 pm?
Sorry I did not respond earlier. The solar business I was involved in was a rental model. It had a large growth potential but needed a prosperous economy to work because retaining ownership of the equipment led to certain tax offsets that investment banks could use against other business interests. When tax liabilities fell generally across the economy owing to low profits, the business model fell apart. The company is still going, but in a very limited area, not nationally as planned.
My son enjoys programming his TI 83 and has programmed the game hangman into it. He does not seem to want to consult online manuals but would rather figure out string operations by trial and error. Those lego robots have a visual programming language that both he and his sister have used at times as well.
"You know Billy, what worries me is how your mother is going to take this."
Then, when every last cent of their money was spent,
the Fix-It-Up-Chappie packed up and he went.
And he laughed as he drove in his car up the beach,
“They never will learn; no, you can’t teach a Sneetch!”
The energy returned on energy invested is pretty low for nuclear power even ignoring the waste clean up. Using centrifuges in the fuel processing can help, but with only about 75 years of uranium left, the whole slug of gas diffusion processed materials from weapons production makes the overall process low quality in energy terms.
Accelerators can break down plutonium so that is a zeroth order approach. We can expect an overshoot in solar panel production and excess energy available after fossil fuels and nuclear power are eliminated. Already nanosolar has an energy payback time of under eight months. http://www.nanosolar.com/company/about-us so repaying the nuclear energy debt should not be too difficult.
Actually, storage may not be the best option. Transportation of spent fuel to a central site is sure to lead to accidents. A mobile transmutation facility may be a better option. If we think of nuclear energy as energy that must be repaid to unmake the waste, a sort of deficit spending situation, then the picture of what nuclear energy is may be clearer.
A little under 13% of my submissions are accepted and there are many that are highly ranked on firehose that are rejected (declined these days). You have a higher acceptance rate. So, do you have more friends on staff than I? Is that fair? This piece is a follow up to the one about the NRC email. It is informational. Most of the important points were made in the prior discussion, namely that the NRC should have done the simulations it claims it has done so that it would know before an accident happens what to do.
Tyson forgot a bunch republican censorship in his description, but I have to say that on budgets he has a point. It was democrats who killed the SSC for the most part.
You can get 100% efficiency from city based solar because it can be easy to use the waste heat. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/03/lux-lucis-tepida.html
Molten salt solar is safer and cheaper.
Maybe after mutation you couldn't see straight. http://simpsonswiki.net/wiki/Multi-eyed_squirrel