I had an extended warranty on a cell phone I bought from them which included free battery replacement. Well, they would not stock the part an insisted I turn in the old battery before they would order the part. Completely dishonest. I get my diy stuff on line from other vendors now and won't go into their stores.
Thanks. But there is only one accepted submission listed for you: http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/05/30/1211240/New-Ebola-Drug-100-Effective-In-Monkeys which does not seem all that retarded. It does have only 129 comments so it might be less interesting than the present article which happens to be news you can use. You know, stuff that matters, not FUD.
Usually reading the abstract helps with scientific papers:
We propose a simple relationship linking global sea-level variations
on time scales of decades to centuries to global mean
temperature. This relationship is tested on synthetic data from a
global climate model for the past millennium and the next century.
When applied to observed data of sea level and temperature for
1880–2000, and taking into account known anthropogenic hydrologic
contributions to sea level, the correlation is >0.99, explaining
98% of the variance. For future global temperature scenarios of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment
Report, the relationship projects a sea-level rise ranging from 75 to
190 cm for the period 1990–2100.
Nuclear waste gets a lot of bites at the apple so I doubt you can make a comparison of this type credibly. Chernobyl alone will likely result in 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths so the problems are just getting started. http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary
For the maximum possible sea level rise (expected under BAU carbon dioxide emissions eventually) 80 meters is calculated here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
I think you are considering sea level rise this century which will likely be less than six meters. But nuclear waste is a problem for much longer than 90 years. The number should be 80 meters for complete melting plus tsunami wash so 150 meters or higher above current see level would be needed for a nuclear dump.
Japan is a signatory to the London Dumping Convention which prohibits disposing of nuclear waste at sea (as is the US). Putting a dump site close to the ocean (like at Humboldt Bay Nuclear) means that the site will have to be moved, likely at great expense, owing to seal level rise.
For those who gather dung for heating and cooking, employment in the energy sector is very high, perhaps 30% of overall economic effort. Our success comes largely from reducing effort in energy production. You are mistaken in your economic theory.
I don't see any new coal plants going up in that market. And, I don't think new nuclear plants can come in at $0.03/kWh. The new one in Finland will cost more per average Watt capacity than the solar plant here.
True. I was kind of spoofing the politicians though who are ballyhooing the number of jobs created. More than any other economic sector, the fewer jobs involved in energy production, the better. A low level of effort in energy production supports the broader economy. If you need to devote a lot of effort to producing energy, you are living in the third world gathering dung and not going to school. Nukes are pretty close to dung gathering in the way they take so much more effort than natural gas or hydro or wind or solar. So, the calculation was just illustrative. I expect the solar power plant will end up with fewer than twenty permanent jobs in the end once they introduce some pretty obvious automation a few years down the road. That's all to the good.
Slashdot Mirror
They did not supply the battery immediately and without question as promised when they took my money in advance. It was fraud.
So I can't use my phone for two weeks while they order? No, it was a method to refuse to honor their contract.
I had an extended warranty on a cell phone I bought from them which included free battery replacement. Well, they would not stock the part an insisted I turn in the old battery before they would order the part. Completely dishonest. I get my diy stuff on line from other vendors now and won't go into their stores.
Thanks. But there is only one accepted submission listed for you: http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/05/30/1211240/New-Ebola-Drug-100-Effective-In-Monkeys which does not seem all that retarded. It does have only 129 comments so it might be less interesting than the present article which happens to be news you can use. You know, stuff that matters, not FUD.
That's why they are called estimates.
Usually reading the abstract helps with scientific papers:
We propose a simple relationship linking global sea-level variations on time scales of decades to centuries to global mean temperature. This relationship is tested on synthetic data from a global climate model for the past millennium and the next century. When applied to observed data of sea level and temperature for 1880–2000, and taking into account known anthropogenic hydrologic contributions to sea level, the correlation is >0.99, explaining 98% of the variance. For future global temperature scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, the relationship projects a sea-level rise ranging from 75 to 190 cm for the period 1990–2100.
Not at all. Within a few hundred years tens of meters is assured under BAU emissions. You should read up.
One of the main problems raised against the WHO report is that it did not consider all contaminated populations.
A meter is less than six but you should say possibly less than a meter since most current estimates come in over a meter. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21527.full.pdf
Did the anonymous whiner read the linked study?
Actually, nuclear power increases over all emissions owing to its high opportunity cost which displaces more effective technology. http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library%2FE09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly
Here is a calculation for maximum possible sea level rise: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
Dry cask storage does not involve vitrification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage
Nuclear waste gets a lot of bites at the apple so I doubt you can make a comparison of this type credibly. Chernobyl alone will likely result in 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths so the problems are just getting started. http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary
Some estimates for sea level rise this century come in at about two meters. An exponential process might lead to five meters: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/2/024002/fulltext
For the maximum possible sea level rise (expected under BAU carbon dioxide emissions eventually) 80 meters is calculated here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
Some of the old tsunami stones were washed away and some were not. Evidence of past seismic activity similar to this year's?
Be careful. The safest thing is to not create nuclear waste in the first place. That is only common sense.
Is that a baseball term?
Radioactive fish to feed the seals? http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/26/greenpeace-japan-nuclear-plant-radiation-accumulating-in-marine-life/
I think you are considering sea level rise this century which will likely be less than six meters. But nuclear waste is a problem for much longer than 90 years. The number should be 80 meters for complete melting plus tsunami wash so 150 meters or higher above current see level would be needed for a nuclear dump.
Japan is a signatory to the London Dumping Convention which prohibits disposing of nuclear waste at sea (as is the US). Putting a dump site close to the ocean (like at Humboldt Bay Nuclear) means that the site will have to be moved, likely at great expense, owing to seal level rise.
Just for the plant I think. http://www.nukefree.org/node/154
Oops. But check out the unbuilt Turkey Point at $8/kW which has not had its cost overruns yet.
For those who gather dung for heating and cooking, employment in the energy sector is very high, perhaps 30% of overall economic effort. Our success comes largely from reducing effort in energy production. You are mistaken in your economic theory.
I don't see any new coal plants going up in that market. And, I don't think new nuclear plants can come in at $0.03/kWh. The new one in Finland will cost more per average Watt capacity than the solar plant here.
True. I was kind of spoofing the politicians though who are ballyhooing the number of jobs created. More than any other economic sector, the fewer jobs involved in energy production, the better. A low level of effort in energy production supports the broader economy. If you need to devote a lot of effort to producing energy, you are living in the third world gathering dung and not going to school. Nukes are pretty close to dung gathering in the way they take so much more effort than natural gas or hydro or wind or solar. So, the calculation was just illustrative. I expect the solar power plant will end up with fewer than twenty permanent jobs in the end once they introduce some pretty obvious automation a few years down the road. That's all to the good.