I switched from Comcast to Cricket because the Comcast service was so unreliable. In the end, they could not even get a TV signal through reliably. But that is another story. What I notice though is that even when Comcast was working up to advertised speed, the name server delays were really bad. So, even with lower bandwidth, Cricket seems faster because their name servers work. Hope this move by Comcast makes an improvement.
No, you've got that wrong. It is not a matter of one reactor, it is some reactor to which inevitability applies. And the chain of events need not follow another accident either. There are severe problems with defense in depth. There are problems with other methods of risk management too. You should probably drop the adjective modern in the present discussion.
I already pointed out that NRC generic studies indicate a problem with containment structures in the US. They can make the big one even bigger. TMI could have been much worse and we are just lucky that it wasn't. So, it was a silly question from a rude person. Interestingly, electric cars, washing machines and vacuum cleaners don't have unstable nuclear fuel ready to melt down as an intrinsic part of their design.
A large deadly accident appears to have a frequency of once every 40 years or so. Interestingly, NRC generic studies indicate that a big one for us would likely be worse than Chernobyl owing to the large dispersal if containment does fail.
If I understand you, you are mistaken. As people build more near nuclear power plants, the potential losses increase until the inevitable happens. It has gotten so bad that in the current economic conditions, an accident at Indian Point, which seems to become worse run with time, would force the US Government into receivership if it attempted to meet its Price-Anderson commitment. NRC generic loss models don't account for this unfortunately.
Don't know about that. Got TMI, Chernobyl, lots of covered up accidents in Japan and elsewhere. And, no place to store the waste. Sounds like the opposite of success.
Water tanks have interesting radiological properties. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/03/lux-lucis-tepida.html They are above ground source radiation and shielded by air and the bottom of a water tank is pretty well shielded from cosmic rays which might help with data integrity.
Interesting. Have you considered offshore wind production and rated capacity? There seems to be news about that. You can read about the cost of power from various sources here: http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly Wind appears to be much cheaper than nuclear power on or offshore.
The Price-Anderson subsidy for nuclear power is much higher than that. Check your homeowners policy for exclusions and then draw a Chernobyl exclusion zone size patch around the poorly run Indian Point reactor and start adding up property value. You'll see that an accident every 40 years comes to about $0.08/kWh.
Here is my report on our action. http://www.350.org/en/oct10/reports/25953 As you can see, the effort is an analogy rather than a direct climate effort. We cleaned up a government groomed trail to make the point that is it government action which will be needed to tackle climate.
France is not building a lot of new nuclear power though she is trying to flog it around elsewhere. Growth is pretty much limited to the nasty-brutish-short parts of the world where safety takes a back seat. Nasty thing about nuclear accidents is that they lliinnggeerr.
Nuclear power is doing fairly well in China where 20,000 coal mining deaths a year make the risk of a nuclear accident http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary seem comparable. Skimping on safety to compete with coal seems like a poor game to play elsewhere so nuclear power is uneconomical in many other places. Fortunately, solar has much father to fall in price so electricity will be getting cheaper fairly soon and we may see only a few more nuclear power meltdowns since existing plants will be closing as uneconomical as well.
It seems to me that any permit in the Gulf that mentioned protecting walruses should be declared defective and fraudulent and canceled immediately without compensation with criminal prosecution to follow. Enjoin that.
I dropped Comcast for broadcast TV last week because the signal quality was better. The DB4 antenna really pulls the stations in steady while comcast was always dropping out. I seem to be able to get all the cable content on the web that I care about but for HDTV I think broadcast is best where I live.
Slashdot Mirror
I switched from Comcast to Cricket because the Comcast service was so unreliable. In the end, they could not even get a TV signal through reliably. But that is another story. What I notice though is that even when Comcast was working up to advertised speed, the name server delays were really bad. So, even with lower bandwidth, Cricket seems faster because their name servers work. Hope this move by Comcast makes an improvement.
No, you've got that wrong. It is not a matter of one reactor, it is some reactor to which inevitability applies. And the chain of events need not follow another accident either. There are severe problems with defense in depth. There are problems with other methods of risk management too. You should probably drop the adjective modern in the present discussion.
I already pointed out that NRC generic studies indicate a problem with containment structures in the US. They can make the big one even bigger. TMI could have been much worse and we are just lucky that it wasn't. So, it was a silly question from a rude person. Interestingly, electric cars, washing machines and vacuum cleaners don't have unstable nuclear fuel ready to melt down as an intrinsic part of their design.
Actually, the trends are in the wrong direction. The reactors are getting old and unreliable so one expects accident frequency to increase.
A large deadly accident appears to have a frequency of once every 40 years or so. Interestingly, NRC generic studies indicate that a big one for us would likely be worse than Chernobyl owing to the large dispersal if containment does fail.
If I understand you, you are mistaken. As people build more near nuclear power plants, the potential losses increase until the inevitable happens. It has gotten so bad that in the current economic conditions, an accident at Indian Point, which seems to become worse run with time, would force the US Government into receivership if it attempted to meet its Price-Anderson commitment. NRC generic loss models don't account for this unfortunately.
That's a funny little definition of harm. I further claim that no asteroids struck during the accident. That should keep you quiet.
You seem to be a denier as well.
I'm sure it was profitable for both rate payers and investors. Nice for the overexposed workers too.
Nuclear accident deniers always seemed silly to me.
Don't know about that. Got TMI, Chernobyl, lots of covered up accidents in Japan and elsewhere. And, no place to store the waste. Sounds like the opposite of success.
Well then, more than 50 years of wheel spinning seems like more than enough. Time to shut them down.
When was nuclear power invented?
I'm not sure that sitting with the big boys makes a lot of sense. They can't seem to get back up again. Constellation Energy and Exelon both seem to be stuck in their chairs. http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/12/exelon-john-rowe-nuclear-renaissance-constellation-energy/ I'm sorry you don't like math. Wishful thinking about new nuclear power does seem to require innumeracy though.
Water tanks have interesting radiological properties. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/03/lux-lucis-tepida.html They are above ground source radiation and shielded by air and the bottom of a water tank is pretty well shielded from cosmic rays which might help with data integrity.
Interesting. Have you considered offshore wind production and rated capacity? There seems to be news about that. You can read about the cost of power from various sources here: http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly Wind appears to be much cheaper than nuclear power on or offshore.
The Price-Anderson subsidy for nuclear power is much higher than that. Check your homeowners policy for exclusions and then draw a Chernobyl exclusion zone size patch around the poorly run Indian Point reactor and start adding up property value. You'll see that an accident every 40 years comes to about $0.08/kWh.
Nuclear power is an expensive frivolity: http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly I doubt that economic hard times could be a help in pushing it along.
Here is my report on our action. http://www.350.org/en/oct10/reports/25953 As you can see, the effort is an analogy rather than a direct climate effort. We cleaned up a government groomed trail to make the point that is it government action which will be needed to tackle climate.
Also, http://www.350.org/en has 7347 events in 188 countries going on today. Probably the largest climate action effort ever.
Actually, it is not just workers. There could be much more disease over time: http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary
France is not building a lot of new nuclear power though she is trying to flog it around elsewhere. Growth is pretty much limited to the nasty-brutish-short parts of the world where safety takes a back seat. Nasty thing about nuclear accidents is that they lliinnggeerr.
Nuclear power is doing fairly well in China where 20,000 coal mining deaths a year make the risk of a nuclear accident http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary seem comparable. Skimping on safety to compete with coal seems like a poor game to play elsewhere so nuclear power is uneconomical in many other places. Fortunately, solar has much father to fall in price so electricity will be getting cheaper fairly soon and we may see only a few more nuclear power meltdowns since existing plants will be closing as uneconomical as well.
It seems to me that any permit in the Gulf that mentioned protecting walruses should be declared defective and fraudulent and canceled immediately without compensation with criminal prosecution to follow. Enjoin that.
I dropped Comcast for broadcast TV last week because the signal quality was better. The DB4 antenna really pulls the stations in steady while comcast was always dropping out. I seem to be able to get all the cable content on the web that I care about but for HDTV I think broadcast is best where I live.