What about water (or mud) under the berm? This flood seems like it wants to stay around all summer. Could be a problem if the soil saturates and then becomes soup.
The next nuke down the river is still operating at full capacity. But many roads have been cut by the flood and there may not be an adequate escape plan should there be an accident. Should we only be looking at what the flood does to the nuke or is the way it affects the surrounding infrastructure important as well?
soulskill posted this completely pro-nuke and idiotic thing about a thorium reactor: http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/02/1330245/Thorium-the-Next-Nuclear-Fuel The last one never worked right and had a hugely expensive clean up. You are just being silly complaining about the editors. Better to complain about the NYT paywall....
I wonder about the soil turning to soup and oozing up under the water berm if this goes on for months. Will they hoist the fire truck over there and attach a mud pump or what?
There is a mandate for ethanol content in fuel. Fuel prices and grain prices are high so a subsidy does not make much sense anymore. Repealing the tariff might bring in some efficiently produced Brazilian ethanol so grain prices can fall.
The government and police fear they are losing the battle to prevent crime syndicates from winning lucrative contracts to remove millions of tonnes of debris left in the tsunami's wake, including contaminated rubble near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant that many firms are reluctant to handle.
Seems to me that causality is provisional owing to quantum mechanics and Godel suggests logic is incomplete making it somewhat more provisional than it had been. And, since the whole thing is based on experience, which is incomplete, naturalism is either provisional or a tautology. It is not a matter of trying to prove assumptions. Rather, they need to be tested. We don't really prove anything in the empirical approach, we just boost our degree of confidence by attempting to disprove what we think might be true in a more and more rigorous manner. Einstein proposes that this is legitimate.
I can't speak for greenpeace, but I think dealing with nuclear waste could be much more of a priority it the problem were not made constantly worse by making more of it. End fission, and the problem becomes finite and perhaps tractable, continue with fission and it is just a fools game to try to deal with the waste.
Or, maybe some group would pay them for materials to make a dirty bomb. President Carter got a job in nuclear clean up because he had a security clearance. Now you need the opposite I guess.
I think that if one aspect of the nuclear power cycle is a criminal enterprise, then perhaps the whole thing is. And, certainly the disposal of waste is one of the most risk ladened parts of the whole dirty business.
Thermal tracking systems can collect more energy if there is direct sunlight. Clouds really cause them problems though. In the desert, these systems can make the most sense. Where there are clouds, such as in Germany, PV does better. It does not care all that much about the angle the light is coming from, including from all angles. It is not clear how much more costs can fall for thermal solar power plants. These sound like they may cost 4 or 5 dollars a Watt. PV will certainly cost less, much less, than this in the next ten years. You can get Evergreen panels for $1.60/W retail these days and if you want to set them up on old tires in your yard you can get a system in for $2.50/W including the inverter. Working on the roof will cost more. But, in new construction, the cost may be getting to $3/W quite soon.
As regards space, Euclidean postulates required reworking based on empirical evidence but they sat in assumption land for quite a long time. If we do not allow assumptions but rather test them all, then there may be grounds for reason to lead to truth. You assume that assumptions cannot be avoided. Einstein questions that position.
Where is your courage man? Grab that pot! Was the hope drunk,
Wherein you dress'd yourself? hath it slept since,
And wakes it now, to look so green and pale
At what it did so freely? From this time
Such I account thy honor.
The only justication for our concepts and system of concepts
is that they serve to represent the complex of our experiences;
beyond this they have no legitimacy. I am convinced that
the philosophers have had a harmful effect upon the progress
of scientfic thinking in removing certain fundamental concepts
from the domain of empiricism, where they are under our control,
to the intangible heights of the a priori. For even if it should
appear that the universe of ideas cannot be deduced from experience
by logical means, but is, in a sense, a creation of the
human mind, without which no science is possible, nevertheless
this universe of ideas is just as little independent of the nature
of our experiences as clothes are of the form of the human body.
This is particularly true of our concepts of time and space, which
physicists have been obliged by the facts to bring down from the
Olympus of the a priori in order to adjust them and put them
in a serviceable condition.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36276/36276-pdf.pdf
He sees empirical evidence as providing a ground from which reason can proceed legitimately.
As a meta discussion it might. I tried to get a complement to the crowd in at the beginning, a common rhetorical tradition. Let's see where that goes.
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.
Slashdot Mirror
You claimed soulskill would never post a pro-nuke article. You were wrong. Why do you want to censor slashdot?
What about water (or mud) under the berm? This flood seems like it wants to stay around all summer. Could be a problem if the soil saturates and then becomes soup.
I respond well to well reasoned arguments. Blind loyalty to nuclear power and crap about uranium in coal ash does not count as reasoning.
The next nuke down the river is still operating at full capacity. But many roads have been cut by the flood and there may not be an adequate escape plan should there be an accident. Should we only be looking at what the flood does to the nuke or is the way it affects the surrounding infrastructure important as well?
soulskill posted this completely pro-nuke and idiotic thing about a thorium reactor: http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/02/1330245/Thorium-the-Next-Nuclear-Fuel The last one never worked right and had a hugely expensive clean up. You are just being silly complaining about the editors. Better to complain about the NYT paywall....
I wonder about the soil turning to soup and oozing up under the water berm if this goes on for months. Will they hoist the fire truck over there and attach a mud pump or what?
There is a mandate for ethanol content in fuel. Fuel prices and grain prices are high so a subsidy does not make much sense anymore. Repealing the tariff might bring in some efficiently produced Brazilian ethanol so grain prices can fall.
I think his problem is with a priori assumptions. Those cannot be allowed. Working provisional assumptions are fine while one is working.
More than one ship. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090915/world-news/mafia-sank-boat-with-radioactive-waste.273437
An offer they can't refuse.
No problems with understanding thermodynamics there. If you think so, perhaps you should study up a little.
And, since a Beacon Power commercial sale hit slashdot recently, http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/06/01/1549209/Using-Flywheels-to-Meet-Peak-Power-Grid-Demands I'd say these things are much closer than conventional fusion, in fact, they are here now.
From the fine article:
RTFA
Seems to me that causality is provisional owing to quantum mechanics and Godel suggests logic is incomplete making it somewhat more provisional than it had been. And, since the whole thing is based on experience, which is incomplete, naturalism is either provisional or a tautology. It is not a matter of trying to prove assumptions. Rather, they need to be tested. We don't really prove anything in the empirical approach, we just boost our degree of confidence by attempting to disprove what we think might be true in a more and more rigorous manner. Einstein proposes that this is legitimate.
I can't speak for greenpeace, but I think dealing with nuclear waste could be much more of a priority it the problem were not made constantly worse by making more of it. End fission, and the problem becomes finite and perhaps tractable, continue with fission and it is just a fools game to try to deal with the waste.
Or, maybe some group would pay them for materials to make a dirty bomb. President Carter got a job in nuclear clean up because he had a security clearance. Now you need the opposite I guess.
Seems it is also the company it attracts.
Hard to make dirty bombs from any of that.
Besides, the Yakuza shed real tears when they attend the opera so they must be OK.
I have not done in myself so I can't make a list of don't do's. I found this site which talks about things I've heard are important. http://www.solarexpert.com/instroof5.html I'd suggest getting several estimates now. Pick the lowest one, take 30% off and then let each contractor know that you would be ready to go forward when the price falls that far. Here are your incentives: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?getRE=1?re=undefined&ee=1&spv=0&st=0&srp=1&state=IA Doesn't look like anything important is expiring but check yourself.
I think that if one aspect of the nuclear power cycle is a criminal enterprise, then perhaps the whole thing is. And, certainly the disposal of waste is one of the most risk ladened parts of the whole dirty business.
Thermal tracking systems can collect more energy if there is direct sunlight. Clouds really cause them problems though. In the desert, these systems can make the most sense. Where there are clouds, such as in Germany, PV does better. It does not care all that much about the angle the light is coming from, including from all angles. It is not clear how much more costs can fall for thermal solar power plants. These sound like they may cost 4 or 5 dollars a Watt. PV will certainly cost less, much less, than this in the next ten years. You can get Evergreen panels for $1.60/W retail these days and if you want to set them up on old tires in your yard you can get a system in for $2.50/W including the inverter. Working on the roof will cost more. But, in new construction, the cost may be getting to $3/W quite soon.
As regards space, Euclidean postulates required reworking based on empirical evidence but they sat in assumption land for quite a long time. If we do not allow assumptions but rather test them all, then there may be grounds for reason to lead to truth. You assume that assumptions cannot be avoided. Einstein questions that position.
Where is your courage man? Grab that pot! Was the hope drunk, Wherein you dress'd yourself? hath it slept since, And wakes it now, to look so green and pale At what it did so freely? From this time Such I account thy honor.
The only justication for our concepts and system of concepts is that they serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have no legitimacy. I am convinced that the philosophers have had a harmful effect upon the progress of scientfic thinking in removing certain fundamental concepts from the domain of empiricism, where they are under our control, to the intangible heights of the a priori. For even if it should appear that the universe of ideas cannot be deduced from experience by logical means, but is, in a sense, a creation of the human mind, without which no science is possible, nevertheless this universe of ideas is just as little independent of the nature of our experiences as clothes are of the form of the human body. This is particularly true of our concepts of time and space, which physicists have been obliged by the facts to bring down from the Olympus of the a priori in order to adjust them and put them in a serviceable condition. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36276/36276-pdf.pdf
He sees empirical evidence as providing a ground from which reason can proceed legitimately.
The article appears in the Arts Section, not the Science Section. Time for another submission to Social Text? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair