I dunno, maybe Kanada has a higher ratio of uninhibited hotties per capita or something.
BTW I did notice the last time I was up in Hongcouver there were fewer 'supersized' individuals than down here in Washington and we've got one of the lower rates of obesity in the US. Of course in the case of the lower BC mainland it might be something to do with all the heroin and not that Kanadians don't let themselves become big fatties like USians.
Hey, that is an easy one. I suppose if I want to make it more authentic I could put FEMA in big white letters on the back of a black windbreaker or t-shirt.
Well murder is illegal too. Why don't we call copyright (or patent, or trademark) infringement 'murder' or 'killing'?
For that matter breaking a contract is 'illegal' too (and EULAs fall under contract law to close the circle), why not call breaking a contract 'stealing' or 'murder'?
Intellectual property law has been primarily enforced via the civil court system. Violating it is no more of a 'crime' than doing anything else I can potentially be sued for.
Most people would agree you should be responsible for your bills, however we don't throw people who don't pay their bills in jail. For the most part we don't say this is 'stealing' or call deadbeats 'thieves'. Infringing on someone's copyright, trademark, or patent is a much grayer area. If nothing else than one persons 'fair use' is another persons 'infringement'. There is no reason to treat it any more severely than we do a bad debt.
You are so full of it. Right and wrong are black and white. Stealing is stealing. It does not matter how it is looked upon by someone else. It does not matter whether it is punished or not. If the speed limit is 30 and you go 31, you are wrong. If you take anything that does not belong to you, you are wrong. Whatever the law is, it is. It defines right and wrong.
Nope, even the law is not that much of an ass. This is why we have judges and juries rather than just using computers to decide cases.
For example say there is a natural disaster and say I run across someone in need of first aid. If I break into somewhere in order to get first aid supplies I've stolen them, however it is unlikely I would get convicted if charged as long as I can show there was no other reasonable way to procure first aid supplies.
To take another example say I'm doing 50 in a 30 mph speed zone, however I happen to be rushing my child to the hospital as he has just severely burned himself. Furthermore lets say I live in a fairly rural area where I can drive to the hospital quicker than an ambulance can get to me. Am I morally or legally wrong for speeding?
Furthermore sometimes the law is just plain wrong. Either from a moral standpoint or from a legal standpoint. Racial segregation was wrong even if it was the law at the time. Flag burning or having political signs in your yard is constitutionally protected even though there have been laws passed against it.
27W:m^2 isn't so low when there's lots of square meters. I'd like to see those 10% efficient plants grown in mats on the seas around the US, which would produce the energy to make petro fuels cheap enough that we'd have lots of energy to build the space platforms, while net-sequestering carbon. But those are just low efficiency systems - I've seen PV paint that's much cheaper and cleaner than PV panels, with 25%+ efficiency. Which means American rooftops would generate 100W:m^2, or 50m^2 for the 5KW high end consumption of most American houses - only 10x5m, which is smaller than most American roofs.
Covering oceans with large mats of introduced biomass has all sorts of potential ecological problems.
I'm not that familiar with PV paint, but 25% sounds really high. Also what is the energy cost to make PV paint and how much toxic waste is generated in the process? You still have the problem of where to get power when it is dark.
Even so, those are just the efficiencies today. We can boost them with more tech - why not get to 80%+ efficiency? The fact is that 1KW falls on every m^2 in America most days. The average, counting night, weather etc is something like 2-300W:m^2. That's plenty, especially when we're not actually looking at totally replacing the petro fuels immediately, just making them manageable and affordable.
I'm not sure what the theoretical maximum on PV is but I know it is far less than 100%. 60% is probably more realistic. As for averages that is all good and well, but you still have the problem of energy storage for night or other times when demand exceeds supply.
I also like the idea of Fischer-Tropsch processing our huge coal reserves, using some of their vast energy to process the CO2 and other pollution into useful products - maybe feeding biomass for bioreactors. But I don't like more nuke plants. They're dirty. I've lived "next door" to several in the NYC area my whole life, and I don't like it. Millions of us don't. We shouldn't have to accept it, even if millions like you do. Their total cost, especially when considering the security of the plants, the manufacturing, and the waste, is really high - just what you'd expect from some of the rarest substances on the planet. All kinds of solar power is ready right now to phase out petro and nuclear. And by the time the phaseout is (nearly) complete, we should have space solar working. Then the fun really begins.
I like Fischer-Tropsch as well. It is a good way to stop importing so much oil right away.
How exactly are nuke plants 'dirty'? I've only got direct experience with one. My aunt has lived across the river for one for years now. I've never seen anything terribly worrisome or dirty. Certainly nothing like the coal plants I have experience with or petrochemical plants, or even chip fabs for that matter.
You keep saying nuclear is 'expensive'. I will grant you that the upfront capital costs are high, but there are ways to lower them via standardized plant designs and whatnot. However when you look at total lifecycle costs nuclear actually looks pretty good, especially when you consider that fossil fuels don't really have to pay for the environmental damage they cause nor decomissioning, nor waste disposal.
What is the 'cost' of acid rain? Particulate pollution? Asthma deaths? Mountaintop removal mining? Coal bed methane?
FWIW Uranium isn't particularly rare. About as common as tin actually. Thorium is even more common and can be used to fuel reactors as well.
Note that supporting nuclear power doesn't mean that I don't support more research into renewable energy sources or conservation. Nor does it mean that I don't support programs to encourage the use of renewable energy or conservation.
However nuclear is ready today and can get rid of coal and natural gas fired plants now, especially the oldest and most polluting ones.
PV panels are energy intensive and come with toxic byproducts. That is also true of the other fuels they replace, especially nuclear. And PV panels aren't necessarily the way to harvest the energy. For example, plants and algae make up to 8-12% photosynthetic efficiency, and biomass -> biodiesel -> fuelcell -> electricity can produce up to 27W:m^2. With useful byproducts that include carbon sequestration. That is enough to replace all our other power generation without nuclear plants. Which are expensive, risky and dirty, especially when we look at their entire product lifecycle and costs.
Energy payback on a PV panel is roughly 10 times that of a nuclear plant. Net energy from nuclear really isn't that bad even using fairly pessimistic assumptions.
27W:m^2 is a *VERY* low power density. Take the energy usage of a car or house over 1 year and figure out how many square meters you will have to grow biomass in to supply energy with a biomass->biodiesel->fuel cell cycle. I bet you it ends up being a fairly large number.
Of the availible options nuclear is by far the most attractive, particularly compared to coal, natural gas, hydro, or solar PV.
Compared to gobal warming or 'freezing in the dark' nuclear isn't expensive. Compared to many other risks in modern life it isn't particularly risky. Compared to most other large-scale industry, particularly other forms of power generation or oil production it isn't very dirty.
And in case you wonder, yes I would live next door to a nuclear power plant.
This is wrong. Nuclear waste, if reprocessed and the actinides recycled, will decay down to the biohazard level of the original uranium in 600 to 1000 years. If you don't recycle the actinides, it takes much longer.
I admit my numbers might be off. However I was under the impression that the elements that make nuclear waste 'hot' were mostly short half-life products (which is why they are 'hot'). The uranium and transuranics aren't so much of a problem.
In any case you are correct, dry cask storage is probably more than enough for now until the economics of reprocessing are more attractive.
For ultimate disposal, dropping the waste into subduction zones is probably the way to go rather than launching it into space. (besides it helps keep the core nice and toasty warm)
More solar power falls on American roofs than Americans consume in other fuels. Why only 20%?
Lets see, first of all the conversion efficency is never going to be all that great. Second there is this little problem called 'nighttime'. Thrid there is the problem of heavily overcast days. Fourth making solar panels is very energy intensive and generates large quantities of toxic chemicals.
Don't get me wrong solar is part of the answer. In most parts of the country solar hot water works just fine as do active and passive solar heating. However I don't see it ever meeting a majority of energy needs.
The 20% is somewhat arbitrary but I will note that countries with a big push for green power haven't been able to get past that point. Due to the low density of green power technology its hard to scale them up too much.
Build another 80 or so 1000 MWe nuclear plants and the US will be getting 40% of its electricity from nuclear. It isn't *that* hard from a technical standpoint to switch all of the current US baseload power over from fossil sources to nuclear.
We're screwed, unless an Internet-style surprise deployment in alternative energy upsets the entrenched chiefs and their industrial bribers^Wcontributors who keep us all in the dumps with their tired old approaches.
Given the laws of physics... unlikely. OTOH renewables (solar, wind, etc) should be able to supply 20% or so of the grid.
and it's another producing fuel of high enough purity in large quantities without burning more oil than you would use to generate the same quantity of electricity - more research has to be put into that before we can use a lot of nuclear power.
Actually it isn't such a problem. While it is true that gas diffusion enrichment uses massive quantities of electricity there is still less used in making a kilogram of fuel than it will generate over its lifetime. Switch to centerfuge enrichment and the energy requirement drops by a huge amount.
The decline curve is for light sweet crude and natural gas. Both of which are irreplaceable and critical for maintaining the world's 6.5 billion people. The green revolution in farming is based on pesticides and fertilizers made from those two resources.
There are a lot of things one can use to make feedstocks for petrochemicals such as pesticides, heavy oils, coal, agricultural waste, etc. It is mostly a matter of what is cheapest at the moment.
Same thing goes for fertilizer. Natural gas is used to make ammonia for fertilizer because it is the cheapest source, but you can make ammonia a number of different ways. Basicly all you need is a source of hydrogen.
Nuclear power yields little to no energy, once you consider the enourmous amounts of energy needed for mining, processing, enrichment, building a reacter, discommisioning the reactor etc. They looked great when oil was cheap.
Um, no wrong. No more so for nuclear than coal.
True that gas diffusion enrichment is horribly energy intensive, but modern centerfuge processes are much more efficent. The main reason many countries who make nuclear fuel aren't currently using centerfuge processes are due to large capital costs.
The rest of the energy consumpttion for building, operating, and decomissioning a reactor is similar to a fossil fuel plant.
As for decomissioning, it is clear that many plants have more than a 20 or 30 year useful lifetime. I suspect, depending on the specifics of the plant, the lifetime is probably more in line with coal plants (50-60 years).
Even when using low-grade ore and gas difussion enrichment a nuclear plant produces far more energy over its lifetime than is consumed by building, fueling, and decomissioning the plant.
One thing about the waste argument. Nuclear powerplant waste will decay down to the level of radioactivity in naturally occuring uranium in around 125 years or so. We can build stuff that lasts that long. Once the waste has cooled off how about using uranium mines to store it? We know those mines are geologicly stable for holding radionuclides over long periods of time. The waste would pose no more hazzard than the orginial uranium did.
Not to mention that fuel reprocessing greatly reduces the volume of waste that must be dealt with. Nuclear fuel is only about 5% used before a reactor is refueled.
Code Red is red Mountain Dew with a somewhat different flavor.
2. Mountain Dew and Code Red: sorry, I'm from Canuckistan (Canada to you'all:-) Our Mountain Dew is prohibited by law from containing caffeine (only allowed in colas). Cod Red? Never tried it, never will, thanks.
No caffeine in Mountain Dew?! What kind of totalitarian hellhole has Canada turned into?
I don't have an amateur licence either but I learned Morse while in the Boy Scouts.
I'm thinking of getting my license though. If nothing else than to help with the ARRL disaster and event communications groups. A decent handheld isn't that expensive and is enough to be a help.
Much of that is probably due to more and more channels and towers being turned over to GSM service. The same thing was likely to happen even if ATTWS didn't get bought out.
Should I switch and to who?
Yes, I'd go with T-Mobile if you only need service in urban areas. If you need service way out in the boonies, check the coverage maps to make sure the areas you need to go to have coverage.
The Red Cross needs communications gear to co-ordinate it's own relief efforts as well as to help out Federal, State, and Local governments (FEMA and the Military is bringing in gear too).
By all reports local police and fire are having problems due to poor communications as well. In many cases all of the base stations and repeaters are probably offline.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno, maybe Kanada has a higher ratio of uninhibited hotties per capita or something.
BTW I did notice the last time I was up in Hongcouver there were fewer 'supersized' individuals than down here in Washington and we've got one of the lower rates of obesity in the US. Of course in the case of the lower BC mainland it might be something to do with all the heroin and not that Kanadians don't let themselves become big fatties like USians.
Hey, that is an easy one. I suppose if I want to make it more authentic I could put FEMA in big white letters on the back of a black windbreaker or t-shirt.
Developers! Developers! Developers!
So I wonder if there is someone working in Redmond who's job it is to make sure Balmer takes his meds?
Last time I checked the people owned the government.
You poor deluded fool. It hasn't been that way since at least the Eisenhower administration.
I'm still trying to figure out what a 'FEMA' costume would look like.
Ok, let's try another track here.
Say I buy the 'daredevil' DVD. Say I loan it to a friend once I've watched it. Is that unfair because my friend never paid to see the movie?
There are tons of movies I would never pay to see that I've watched at friends houses or borrowed from their DVD collection.
Say I buy the latest Harry Potter novel. Say I loan that copy to a friend after I'm done reading it. Is this 'stealing' as well?
I've borrowed (and loaned) a lot of books in my life. Am I a trafficer in stolen goods?
Well murder is illegal too. Why don't we call copyright (or patent, or trademark) infringement 'murder' or 'killing'?
For that matter breaking a contract is 'illegal' too (and EULAs fall under contract law to close the circle), why not call breaking a contract 'stealing' or 'murder'?
Intellectual property law has been primarily enforced via the civil court system. Violating it is no more of a 'crime' than doing anything else I can potentially be sued for.
Most people would agree you should be responsible for your bills, however we don't throw people who don't pay their bills in jail. For the most part we don't say this is 'stealing' or call deadbeats 'thieves'. Infringing on someone's copyright, trademark, or patent is a much grayer area. If nothing else than one persons 'fair use' is another persons 'infringement'. There is no reason to treat it any more severely than we do a bad debt.
You are so full of it. Right and wrong are black and white. Stealing is stealing. It does not matter how it is looked upon by someone else. It does not matter whether it is punished or not. If the speed limit is 30 and you go 31, you are wrong. If you take anything that does not belong to you, you are wrong. Whatever the law is, it is. It defines right and wrong.
Nope, even the law is not that much of an ass. This is why we have judges and juries rather than just using computers to decide cases.
For example say there is a natural disaster and say I run across someone in need of first aid. If I break into somewhere in order to get first aid supplies I've stolen them, however it is unlikely I would get convicted if charged as long as I can show there was no other reasonable way to procure first aid supplies.
To take another example say I'm doing 50 in a 30 mph speed zone, however I happen to be rushing my child to the hospital as he has just severely burned himself. Furthermore lets say I live in a fairly rural area where I can drive to the hospital quicker than an ambulance can get to me. Am I morally or legally wrong for speeding?
Furthermore sometimes the law is just plain wrong. Either from a moral standpoint or from a legal standpoint. Racial segregation was wrong even if it was the law at the time. Flag burning or having political signs in your yard is constitutionally protected even though there have been laws passed against it.
27W:m^2 isn't so low when there's lots of square meters. I'd like to see those 10% efficient plants grown in mats on the seas around the US, which would produce the energy to make petro fuels cheap enough that we'd have lots of energy to build the space platforms, while net-sequestering carbon. But those are just low efficiency systems - I've seen PV paint that's much cheaper and cleaner than PV panels, with 25%+ efficiency. Which means American rooftops would generate 100W:m^2, or 50m^2 for the 5KW high end consumption of most American houses - only 10x5m, which is smaller than most American roofs.
Covering oceans with large mats of introduced biomass has all sorts of potential ecological problems.
I'm not that familiar with PV paint, but 25% sounds really high. Also what is the energy cost to make PV paint and how much toxic waste is generated in the process? You still have the problem of where to get power when it is dark.
Even so, those are just the efficiencies today. We can boost them with more tech - why not get to 80%+ efficiency? The fact is that 1KW falls on every m^2 in America most days. The average, counting night, weather etc is something like 2-300W:m^2. That's plenty, especially when we're not actually looking at totally replacing the petro fuels immediately, just making them manageable and affordable.
I'm not sure what the theoretical maximum on PV is but I know it is far less than 100%. 60% is probably more realistic. As for averages that is all good and well, but you still have the problem of energy storage for night or other times when demand exceeds supply.
I also like the idea of Fischer-Tropsch processing our huge coal reserves, using some of their vast energy to process the CO2 and other pollution into useful products - maybe feeding biomass for bioreactors. But I don't like more nuke plants. They're dirty. I've lived "next door" to several in the NYC area my whole life, and I don't like it. Millions of us don't. We shouldn't have to accept it, even if millions like you do. Their total cost, especially when considering the security of the plants, the manufacturing, and the waste, is really high - just what you'd expect from some of the rarest substances on the planet. All kinds of solar power is ready right now to phase out petro and nuclear. And by the time the phaseout is (nearly) complete, we should have space solar working. Then the fun really begins.
I like Fischer-Tropsch as well. It is a good way to stop importing so much oil right away.
How exactly are nuke plants 'dirty'? I've only got direct experience with one. My aunt has lived across the river for one for years now. I've never seen anything terribly worrisome or dirty. Certainly nothing like the coal plants I have experience with or petrochemical plants, or even chip fabs for that matter.
You keep saying nuclear is 'expensive'. I will grant you that the upfront capital costs are high, but there are ways to lower them via standardized plant designs and whatnot. However when you look at total lifecycle costs nuclear actually looks pretty good, especially when you consider that fossil fuels don't really have to pay for the environmental damage they cause nor decomissioning, nor waste disposal.
What is the 'cost' of acid rain? Particulate pollution? Asthma deaths? Mountaintop removal mining? Coal bed methane?
FWIW Uranium isn't particularly rare. About as common as tin actually. Thorium is even more common and can be used to fuel reactors as well.
Note that supporting nuclear power doesn't mean that I don't support more research into renewable energy sources or conservation. Nor does it mean that I don't support programs to encourage the use of renewable energy or conservation.
However nuclear is ready today and can get rid of coal and natural gas fired plants now, especially the oldest and most polluting ones.
PV panels are energy intensive and come with toxic byproducts. That is also true of the other fuels they replace, especially nuclear. And PV panels aren't necessarily the way to harvest the energy. For example, plants and algae make up to 8-12% photosynthetic efficiency, and biomass -> biodiesel -> fuelcell -> electricity can produce up to 27W:m^2. With useful byproducts that include carbon sequestration. That is enough to replace all our other power generation without nuclear plants. Which are expensive, risky and dirty, especially when we look at their entire product lifecycle and costs.
Energy payback on a PV panel is roughly 10 times that of a nuclear plant. Net energy from nuclear really isn't that bad even using fairly pessimistic assumptions.
27W:m^2 is a *VERY* low power density. Take the energy usage of a car or house over 1 year and figure out how many square meters you will have to grow biomass in to supply energy with a biomass->biodiesel->fuel cell cycle. I bet you it ends up being a fairly large number.
Of the availible options nuclear is by far the most attractive, particularly compared to coal, natural gas, hydro, or solar PV.
Compared to gobal warming or 'freezing in the dark' nuclear isn't expensive. Compared to many other risks in modern life it isn't particularly risky. Compared to most other large-scale industry, particularly other forms of power generation or oil production it isn't very dirty.
And in case you wonder, yes I would live next door to a nuclear power plant.
This is wrong. Nuclear waste, if reprocessed and the actinides recycled, will decay down to the biohazard level of the original uranium in 600 to 1000 years. If you don't recycle the actinides, it takes much longer.
I admit my numbers might be off. However I was under the impression that the elements that make nuclear waste 'hot' were mostly short half-life products (which is why they are 'hot'). The uranium and transuranics aren't so much of a problem.
In any case you are correct, dry cask storage is probably more than enough for now until the economics of reprocessing are more attractive.
For ultimate disposal, dropping the waste into subduction zones is probably the way to go rather than launching it into space. (besides it helps keep the core nice and toasty warm)
More solar power falls on American roofs than Americans consume in other fuels. Why only 20%?
Lets see, first of all the conversion efficency is never going to be all that great. Second there is this little problem called 'nighttime'. Thrid there is the problem of heavily overcast days. Fourth making solar panels is very energy intensive and generates large quantities of toxic chemicals.
Don't get me wrong solar is part of the answer. In most parts of the country solar hot water works just fine as do active and passive solar heating. However I don't see it ever meeting a majority of energy needs.
The 20% is somewhat arbitrary but I will note that countries with a big push for green power haven't been able to get past that point. Due to the low density of green power technology its hard to scale them up too much.
Build another 80 or so 1000 MWe nuclear plants and the US will be getting 40% of its electricity from nuclear. It isn't *that* hard from a technical standpoint to switch all of the current US baseload power over from fossil sources to nuclear.
We're screwed, unless an Internet-style surprise deployment in alternative energy upsets the entrenched chiefs and their industrial bribers^Wcontributors who keep us all in the dumps with their tired old approaches.
... unlikely. OTOH renewables (solar, wind, etc) should be able to supply 20% or so of the grid.
Given the laws of physics
and it's another producing fuel of high enough purity in large quantities without burning more oil than you would use to generate the same quantity of electricity - more research has to be put into that before we can use a lot of nuclear power.
Actually it isn't such a problem. While it is true that gas diffusion enrichment uses massive quantities of electricity there is still less used in making a kilogram of fuel than it will generate over its lifetime. Switch to centerfuge enrichment and the energy requirement drops by a huge amount.
The nuclear fuel cycle is already net-positive.
The decline curve is for light sweet crude and natural gas. Both of which are irreplaceable and critical for maintaining the world's 6.5 billion people. The green revolution in farming is based on pesticides and fertilizers made from those two resources.
There are a lot of things one can use to make feedstocks for petrochemicals such as pesticides, heavy oils, coal, agricultural waste, etc. It is mostly a matter of what is cheapest at the moment.
Same thing goes for fertilizer. Natural gas is used to make ammonia for fertilizer because it is the cheapest source, but you can make ammonia a number of different ways. Basicly all you need is a source of hydrogen.
Nuclear power yields little to no energy, once you consider the enourmous amounts of energy needed for mining, processing, enrichment, building a reacter, discommisioning the reactor etc. They looked great when oil was cheap.
Um, no wrong. No more so for nuclear than coal.
True that gas diffusion enrichment is horribly energy intensive, but modern centerfuge processes are much more efficent. The main reason many countries who make nuclear fuel aren't currently using centerfuge processes are due to large capital costs.
The rest of the energy consumpttion for building, operating, and decomissioning a reactor is similar to a fossil fuel plant.
As for decomissioning, it is clear that many plants have more than a 20 or 30 year useful lifetime. I suspect, depending on the specifics of the plant, the lifetime is probably more in line with coal plants (50-60 years).
Even when using low-grade ore and gas difussion enrichment a nuclear plant produces far more energy over its lifetime than is consumed by building, fueling, and decomissioning the plant.
One thing about the waste argument. Nuclear powerplant waste will decay down to the level of radioactivity in naturally occuring uranium in around 125 years or so. We can build stuff that lasts that long. Once the waste has cooled off how about using uranium mines to store it? We know those mines are geologicly stable for holding radionuclides over long periods of time. The waste would pose no more hazzard than the orginial uranium did.
Not to mention that fuel reprocessing greatly reduces the volume of waste that must be dealt with. Nuclear fuel is only about 5% used before a reactor is refueled.
Doh! ... right.
I don't know about you but I don't consider showering to be a bad habit.
On the other hand depending on who you talk to #2 might be considered a bad habit. It certainly seems to get people in more trouble than #3 or #5.
Code Red is red Mountain Dew with a somewhat different flavor.
:-) Our Mountain Dew is prohibited by law from containing caffeine (only allowed in colas). Cod Red? Never tried it, never will, thanks.
2. Mountain Dew and Code Red: sorry, I'm from Canuckistan (Canada to you'all
No caffeine in Mountain Dew?! What kind of totalitarian hellhole has Canada turned into?
Twirlip was a Mac advocate and rumor has it that Rove likes Macs too.
I don't have an amateur licence either but I learned Morse while in the Boy Scouts.
I'm thinking of getting my license though. If nothing else than to help with the ARRL disaster and event communications groups. A decent handheld isn't that expensive and is enough to be a help.
Much of that is probably due to more and more channels and towers being turned over to GSM service. The same thing was likely to happen even if ATTWS didn't get bought out.
Should I switch and to who?
Yes, I'd go with T-Mobile if you only need service in urban areas. If you need service way out in the boonies, check the coverage maps to make sure the areas you need to go to have coverage.
The Red Cross needs communications gear to co-ordinate it's own relief efforts as well as to help out Federal, State, and Local governments (FEMA and the Military is bringing in gear too).
By all reports local police and fire are having problems due to poor communications as well. In many cases all of the base stations and repeaters are probably offline.
Um, I take it you haven't been to New Orleans ...
Having been there I can say that I'm sure the city will be rebuilt one way or another.
Now some of the outlying communities will likely be abandoned, mostly because the hurricane washed everything, including the land, away.