Only two per cent of primary energy are produced by nuclear power. These two new reactors will be just a drop on a hot stone. What we really need is cutting our consumption.
And comparing real accomplishments of some organisations to the hypothetical replacement of all coal plants is... well, let's just say, hypocritical.
Don't be so quick to judge. There are such things as cold water and deep water corals. These even live in some parts of Norway. The reason for them not living in the Baltic is that the water does not have enough salt. But in the parts close to the North Sea - the Skagerrak - several types have been found.
The percentages near the end are somewhat misleading. If there are only 19% of mainly women-owned businesses, who receive VC, they only get about half of that what men do. But I think especially the high-tech industry is the one getting all the VC, and there the percentage is, according to TFA, 1-3%. So women would, if one assumed that most VC went into this industry, get more than men. So, all in all, these numbers are, at best, misleading.
In my one year in a US highschool, there was a ranking of students. Should colleges not look out for that, instead? Also, as far as I remember, the grading suggested for the new bachelor in Germany was something along the lines of top 10% A, next 10% B, etc. This - applied as a school policy - should fix this problem, or not?
Actually, you probably make a very good point as to why they just passed the west in regard to solar panels: They don't care about the environment being poluted. So it is, neccessarily, much cheaper to produce them there than in "the West"
There have been simulations for the situation without coal or nuclear, according to the weather over a full year, which, by comparison had less winds than usual. In this, an imaginary virtual power plant was used that was composed of many small, renewable sources, which were regulated according to wind predictions. There were no problems. Sadly, this study is, to my knowledge, only available in German.
So while I agree with your notion on biogas, I think it is possibly to face out nuclear power. If we should is another question, as it might be a good alternative if there is a solution found for the waste.
One last point: To my knowledge, there are calculations that when power companies had to pay for the development and all the risks associated with nuclear power, as well as for the waste disposal, the kWh would be something around $2. This would make it highly unfeasable.
Not sure what you mean by founder, but if you mean Paul Watson, he is by no means a founder of Greenpeace, and he was thrown out because he was not willing to act according to their non-violence policy, or at least had a different definition of "violence".
Well, what I tried to get across was the point that nuclear hinders the acceptance of renewables. That's why there were points in the last year in Germany, when you were paid for taking electricity (low usage, high winds all over the country).
How much of this is really the case, I am not able to say. So I guess it is up to whom you have to trust. And I am not proposing any 100% solution:)
France only extracts the U235 from the burned down material. Also, France is not so picky when it comes to the environment. They leak quite a lot and have lots of problems with their nuclear programme.
They also increase the volume of their nuclear waste through recycling it.
Also, I guess you did not hear about the uranhexafluoride scandal, where they exported thousands of tons to siberia. The Russians stored it right there out in the open, no safety whatsoever.
As I posted elsewhere: As far as I know, there is only one breeder reactor in production at the moment with 600 MW electrical output (in Russia). That is after the concept was developed 40+ years ago. Most others have been shutdown, with the minority being due to an anti-nuclear government. So to me the are more vapor ware than anything, until there are actually a few plants. Some have even been in construction for 20 years up to this point. That does not make it look like a realistically available technology either. So you would rather gamble on it working sometime in the future?
Ok, then one more point the environmental movement has:
Nuclear energy can not be regulated very well. On the other hand, wind and solar and everything else fluctuates _a lot_. So you have the permanent base supplied by nuclear, but just let the energy produced by e.g. stronger winds just go to waste? There are studies (the ones I know of are in German, sorry), that 24/7 energy is possible through using a broad array of different (renewable) energy sources, like wind, solar, water, biogas etc. The advantage of water and biogas is that it is much better at adjusting to current demand. So the way I see it, nuclear development would hinder the development of cleaner energy, as it would lead to certain amounts of it going unused, thus making it that much less profitable.
Yet this whole debate can hardly be held in slashdot comments, as it is much too complex.
The point is, to me, that your storage is not really that secure, and that it is very likely to spread (although probably not in my lifetime). We need to store it over 100.000 years. Humans are just not equipped to handle that kind of time frame, and the repercussions might be very grave.
As far as I know, and a quick google search confirmed, there are no really large FBRs as functional energy plants around. The biggest ever to be build was a 1200MW (certainly commercial size), but that was shut down in 1997 by a leftish french government. But as far as I know, that did not really produce energy in its last 10 years.
That pretty much depends on how you want to measure radioactivity. Over the whole life span until the compounds reach stable isotopes? Then I seriously don't know. But looking into it, I found that in the area surrounding charcoal and nuclean power plants, the exposure is about 3 times higher at coal plants. But how would radioactivity ever get out of a nuclear power plant in normal operation? So this can not really be taken as a pro nuclear point. Do you have some hard numbers on how this compares? (Keep in mind, that nuclear power only covers about 2 % of primary energy consumed by mankind)
I like the prospect of nuclear energy being clean and everything, but at least we in Germany have, in the 35 years we have been running nuclear power plants, not figured out a place where to put the waste. So how can we put this burden on future generations? There is no plan on how to go on with this. Although there are a few projects and ideas, like old salt mines, none have proven viable so far. Nuclear waste just radiates for way too long. I personally hope for transmutation, but as it looks now, nuclear will lose it's attractiveness with the energy that is needed for that.
I think what is meant that it plays rather smoothly, because it might be hardware accelerated. But the producer's homepage does not give too much information, and they say in the section "audio"(!): "OS Provided: andriod" (sic!)
I don't know how much I would trust that kind of company, but that are just my 2 cents.
Ok, so Android is pretty resource saving. It is pretty impressive that it can display 720p videos. But now to the problem. Android is optimised for a touch screen. So, just to give an example, as also shown in the video in the article: When scrolling while browsing, you have to grab the page and "throw" it upwards. Also, there are buttons for zooming in and out.
So it will be interesting to see how some other minimal linuxes would fare.
But anyway, for that price, it is probably still worth it.
I know that the OP said he wanted to use a "traditional" WM, but for those willing to accept something else, I have another suggestion: Xmonad. I have been using it for way over a year now, and it works like a charm in this setup.
XMonad is a Tiling Window Manager written in Haskell. There are quite a few extensions, and it's not as hard to configure as one might think. There are enough example configs out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Only two per cent of primary energy are produced by nuclear power. These two new reactors will be just a drop on a hot stone.
What we really need is cutting our consumption.
And comparing real accomplishments of some organisations to the hypothetical replacement of all coal plants is... well, let's just say, hypocritical.
Don't be so quick to judge. There are such things as cold water and deep water corals. These even live in some parts of Norway.
The reason for them not living in the Baltic is that the water does not have enough salt. But in the parts close to the North Sea - the Skagerrak - several types have been found.
When you turn off access to the app store, it will be 100%.
The percentages near the end are somewhat misleading. If there are only 19% of mainly women-owned businesses, who receive VC, they only get about half of that what men do. But I think especially the high-tech industry is the one getting all the VC, and there the percentage is, according to TFA, 1-3%. So women would, if one assumed that most VC went into this industry, get more than men.
So, all in all, these numbers are, at best, misleading.
Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced -> Encryption -> View Certificates -> Authorities -> ... -> Profit
In my one year in a US highschool, there was a ranking of students. Should colleges not look out for that, instead?
Also, as far as I remember, the grading suggested for the new bachelor in Germany was something along the lines of top 10% A, next 10% B, etc.
This - applied as a school policy - should fix this problem, or not?
Disclaimer: I am German. While we have our own share of problems, I like living here but the one year I lived in the US I liked that, too.
Just one minor inaccuracy: the cost for university depend on where you live, and can range from 0-500 Eur + fees per semester. (I pay around 600)
Actually, you probably make a very good point as to why they just passed the west in regard to solar panels: They don't care about the environment being poluted. So it is, neccessarily, much cheaper to produce them there than in "the West"
The new generation of nuclear reactors is completely safe, and disposing of the waste products is a completely solvable problem.
And yet has not been solved in the past 40 years, as far as I know. Just sayin'
There have been simulations for the situation without coal or nuclear, according to the weather over a full year, which, by comparison had less winds than usual. In this, an imaginary virtual power plant was used that was composed of many small, renewable sources, which were regulated according to wind predictions. There were no problems. Sadly, this study is, to my knowledge, only available in German.
So while I agree with your notion on biogas, I think it is possibly to face out nuclear power. If we should is another question, as it might be a good alternative if there is a solution found for the waste.
One last point: To my knowledge, there are calculations that when power companies had to pay for the development and all the risks associated with nuclear power, as well as for the waste disposal, the kWh would be something around $2. This would make it highly unfeasable.
Not sure what you mean by founder, but if you mean Paul Watson, he is by no means a founder of Greenpeace, and he was thrown out because he was not willing to act according to their non-violence policy, or at least had a different definition of "violence".
Well, what I tried to get across was the point that nuclear hinders the acceptance of renewables. That's why there were points in the last year in Germany, when you were paid for taking electricity (low usage, high winds all over the country).
How much of this is really the case, I am not able to say. So I guess it is up to whom you have to trust. And I am not proposing any 100% solution :)
France only extracts the U235 from the burned down material. Also, France is not so picky when it comes to the environment. They leak quite a lot and have lots of problems with their nuclear programme.
They also increase the volume of their nuclear waste through recycling it.
Also, I guess you did not hear about the uranhexafluoride scandal, where they exported thousands of tons to siberia. The Russians stored it right there out in the open, no safety whatsoever.
As I posted elsewhere: As far as I know, there is only one breeder reactor in production at the moment with 600 MW electrical output (in Russia). That is after the concept was developed 40+ years ago.
Most others have been shutdown, with the minority being due to an anti-nuclear government.
So to me the are more vapor ware than anything, until there are actually a few plants. Some have even been in construction for 20 years up to this point. That does not make it look like a realistically available technology either.
So you would rather gamble on it working sometime in the future?
Ok, then one more point the environmental movement has:
Nuclear energy can not be regulated very well. On the other hand, wind and solar and everything else fluctuates _a lot_. So you have the permanent base supplied by nuclear, but just let the energy produced by e.g. stronger winds just go to waste? There are studies (the ones I know of are in German, sorry), that 24/7 energy is possible through using a broad array of different (renewable) energy sources, like wind, solar, water, biogas etc.
The advantage of water and biogas is that it is much better at adjusting to current demand.
So the way I see it, nuclear development would hinder the development of cleaner energy, as it would lead to certain amounts of it going unused, thus making it that much less profitable.
Yet this whole debate can hardly be held in slashdot comments, as it is much too complex.
The point is, to me, that your storage is not really that secure, and that it is very likely to spread (although probably not in my lifetime). We need to store it over 100.000 years. Humans are just not equipped to handle that kind of time frame, and the repercussions might be very grave.
As far as I know, and a quick google search confirmed, there are no really large FBRs as functional energy plants around. The biggest ever to be build was a 1200MW (certainly commercial size), but that was shut down in 1997 by a leftish french government. But as far as I know, that did not really produce energy in its last 10 years.
Do you have some more successful examples?
That pretty much depends on how you want to measure radioactivity. Over the whole life span until the compounds reach stable isotopes? Then I seriously don't know. But looking into it, I found that in the area surrounding charcoal and nuclean power plants, the exposure is about 3 times higher at coal plants. But how would radioactivity ever get out of a nuclear power plant in normal operation? So this can not really be taken as a pro nuclear point.
Do you have some hard numbers on how this compares? (Keep in mind, that nuclear power only covers about 2 % of primary energy consumed by mankind)
I like the prospect of nuclear energy being clean and everything, but at least we in Germany have, in the 35 years we have been running nuclear power plants, not figured out a place where to put the waste. So how can we put this burden on future generations? There is no plan on how to go on with this. Although there are a few projects and ideas, like old salt mines, none have proven viable so far.
Nuclear waste just radiates for way too long. I personally hope for transmutation, but as it looks now, nuclear will lose it's attractiveness with the energy that is needed for that.
I think what is meant that it plays rather smoothly, because it might be hardware accelerated. But the producer's homepage does not give too much information, and they say in the section "audio"(!): "OS Provided: andriod" (sic!)
I don't know how much I would trust that kind of company, but that are just my 2 cents.
Ok, so Android is pretty resource saving. It is pretty impressive that it can display 720p videos.
But now to the problem. Android is optimised for a touch screen. So, just to give an example, as also shown in the video in the article: When scrolling while browsing, you have to grab the page and "throw" it upwards. Also, there are buttons for zooming in and out.
So it will be interesting to see how some other minimal linuxes would fare.
But anyway, for that price, it is probably still worth it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsjU0K8QPhs&feature=player_embedded :)
Seems like Steve Jobs got the idea from there
(A tribute to all of those having to thing of maxipads everytime you read iPad)
I know that the OP said he wanted to use a "traditional" WM, but for those willing to accept something else, I have another suggestion: Xmonad. I have been using it for way over a year now, and it works like a charm in this setup.
XMonad is a Tiling Window Manager written in Haskell. There are quite a few extensions, and it's not as hard to configure as one might think. There are enough example configs out there.
As the title says.
Oblig: http://xkcd.com/257/ [xkcd.com]
I was kind of expecting the same ol' "We creating our own encryption" thing, and was prepared to post exactly this. Thanks for sparing me to RTFA