We get fined if we dump electronics. In the EU lead free solders have to be used. Sewage is *not* dump into rivers. Really what part of the developed nations are still doing this?
And even if they are, how the hell does that make dumpping more dangerous waste valid?
Yet this goes even further than the usual double-standard because you actually don't have a problem with nuclear waste from a fusion plant
I don't? where did i say that? And as others have noted its LOW level waste from a fusion plant. And we can even tune how low. This is what ITER is about.
They do where I come from, because how else is the company that built it going to decommission it?
Simple. You get that part of the cost *when* they start to decommission it. There is not that much data on civilian plants getting decommission at this stage, so the cost are hard to estimate. Really there has been very little true commercial nuclear plants build. They have been tied up with a lot of military interests and subsidies. Its not clear nuclear is cost effective.
Unfortunately the currently planed small PWR and BWR have climb dramatically. Estimates over the 1B mark even for the smallest ones. Also any water based coolant means a slow neutron spectrum which mean that you can't "burn" your waste. So you still have the waste problem. But yes there uptime have been fixed more or less and they are proven and cheaper than R&D. But that doesn't mean we should avoid the R&D.
Really is it so hard to see that trading CO2 for nuclear waste that has no long term plaining solutions is not a net gain?
bingo. In fact normal silicon solar cells have mostly used the waste crystal from the microchip industry. Solar subsidies have driven the demand above what the producers can produce primarily because solar cells was not the focus. This is however changing.
It was in fact a -1 generation reactor. Really. It didn't have even no brainier safety built in and no containment vessel. It had a negative void coefficient no documentation almost no training for the staff. Finally they did the evils of evils, they tried to restart a pile from a shutdown in under 24 hours. Due to Xe poisoning this is a really really bad idea.
Chernobyl is not an example of how unsafe nuclear is. Its a example of how unsafe we can build stuff to save a buck.
What could possibly go wrong. After all CO2 is not a pollutant so just worry about the S compounds. How did that turn out? Oh thats right it is a pollutant. Now lets look at the containers that should last at least 100 years with waste. Many have not even lasted 20 years before leaking. If you want a real ecological disaster try heavy metal poisoning with radiation.
Also those prices don't include decommissioning cost. That gets even more interesting and one of the prime reasons for extending a plants life beyond its original design parameters. Its cheaper to let it be the next board of directors problem.
Your comments on fusion are basically spot on --more or less;)
But your comments on Fission are out by quite a bit. First it is *not* cheap. The new reactors are costing upwards of 5billion and can be higher than 10B. That totally ignores waste management costs that are heavily controlled and fixed by government regulation. There is plenty of nuclear fuel if we reprocess and use Thorium fuel cycles. The US does not reprocess and hence on a pure U based cycle you are looking at a few 100s of years IIRC (so a few 1000s with reprocessing). Even with reprocessing 5 billion years of U fuel is not here- but thats long term planing in the extreme.
Now the "its available now" comes with a caveat. What to do with the waste? Lets at least plan a head a little. We could develop fast reactors and/or accelerators driven reactors to reduce the waste to something quite manageable. But this kind of R&D reactor will come in the 20B+ price bracket with a 10+ year program. Quite similar to Fusion. After than you only know it can work, we still need to build the reactors.
Personally I think we should invest R&D into both. We don't know if they will be economical. But it would be nice to have the option.
IPCC is run by a political origination with an axe to grind. Al Gore, a Politician won a peace prize for little movie campaign. Can you blame people that they say its all politics these days.
Hell even ask about model details and your slammed with a global warming denier label. You don't get your question answered.
The science is now so obscured with media and other groups agenda bias that its pretty hard to claim its not all politics. Really what does your emotional state ("I'm pretty scared") have to do with the science?
I was in fact working with climate scientists for a while, and i was quite shocked that most think its appropriate to misrepresent the certainty of the models because they "know" best. Now tell me again why people shouldn't think that the science is just as politicized as the rest of the debate?
These discussions where not abstract. Things like can you get STDs from a blowjob. She is now 17. I don't expect she will be not be living with us for much longer.
No matter what you do they will see porn. And guess what, thats ok it wont damage them in anyway if they can talk about it "safely". Don't go off the handle at them, they didn't do anything wrong. Just explain the reality's of life as best you can.
I got lucky, my daughter is conformable talking to me about that sort of thing.
I still don't quite get it. What good is a 10Mbit connection if i can only average 1Mbit? I have a 2Mbit and i average in a high month 1.8Mbit. I don't need more as i don't mind waiting for the larger stuff. But i would be rather unhappy with a 2Mbit link were i am only suppose to average 200kbit or something.
The patent office does not have a history of checking prior art. They seem to just rubber stamp anything if worded in a confusing enough manner. The legal system has a habit of assuming that an issued patent is valid by default and will give an injunction till its run its way through the courts. So even if the prior art turns out to be valid prior art, you have been shutdown and in litigation for years, assuming your not already bankrupted.
But here is the real rub. If its obvious, why would it be published? You don't go around publishing blindly obvious things, and even if you do, there is still some other blindly obvious detail you left out.
There is little point in a research reactor. Plain research nuclear reactors don't either. DEMO however would.
Its really moving to a point of "will it be economical" rather than will it work. Thats harder to answer in the long term. Neutron flux damage is a big question mark.
That 40B is per year for federal roading. 20billion is the TOTAL for ITER. It will probably climb to 30billon by the time its over, but thats years worth of operation.
We could do a lot with 40B per year budgets. But we seem to prefer that the money stays with CO2 producing infrastructure.
I had to pay 2000 EU for the last paper I published out of grant money. I just finished reviewing some papers and got paid nothing.
Math, and science research/knowledge should be free to all. Yes, by merely existing I believe you have that right. Access to Knowledge is not the domain of the upper class.
The US government does pay for a lot of the trials etc. This is a dirty little secret the drug companies don't want you to know. Furthermore they spend more on marketing than R&D anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
... will lead to destabilization in the Middle East
In order to destabilize something doesn't it have to be stable to start with?
Yep. It seems we have plenty of money for all the wrong things.
And even if they are, how the hell does that make dumpping more dangerous waste valid?
Yet this goes even further than the usual double-standard because you actually don't have a problem with nuclear waste from a fusion plant
I don't? where did i say that? And as others have noted its LOW level waste from a fusion plant. And we can even tune how low. This is what ITER is about.
They do where I come from, because how else is the company that built it going to decommission it?
Simple. You get that part of the cost *when* they start to decommission it. There is not that much data on civilian plants getting decommission at this stage, so the cost are hard to estimate. Really there has been very little true commercial nuclear plants build. They have been tied up with a lot of military interests and subsidies. Its not clear nuclear is cost effective.
Unfortunately the currently planed small PWR and BWR have climb dramatically. Estimates over the 1B mark even for the smallest ones. Also any water based coolant means a slow neutron spectrum which mean that you can't "burn" your waste. So you still have the waste problem. But yes there uptime have been fixed more or less and they are proven and cheaper than R&D. But that doesn't mean we should avoid the R&D.
Really is it so hard to see that trading CO2 for nuclear waste that has no long term plaining solutions is not a net gain?
bingo. In fact normal silicon solar cells have mostly used the waste crystal from the microchip industry. Solar subsidies have driven the demand above what the producers can produce primarily because solar cells was not the focus. This is however changing.
chernobyl was a second generation reactor
It was in fact a -1 generation reactor. Really. It didn't have even no brainier safety built in and no containment vessel. It had a negative void coefficient no documentation almost no training for the staff. Finally they did the evils of evils, they tried to restart a pile from a shutdown in under 24 hours. Due to Xe poisoning this is a really really bad idea.
Chernobyl is not an example of how unsafe nuclear is. Its a example of how unsafe we can build stuff to save a buck.
Two words. Climate change. It is now considered a pollutant and has been for a few years now.
Bury it.
What could possibly go wrong. After all CO2 is not a pollutant so just worry about the S compounds. How did that turn out? Oh thats right it is a pollutant. Now lets look at the containers that should last at least 100 years with waste. Many have not even lasted 20 years before leaking. If you want a real ecological disaster try heavy metal poisoning with radiation.
Also those prices don't include decommissioning cost. That gets even more interesting and one of the prime reasons for extending a plants life beyond its original design parameters. Its cheaper to let it be the next board of directors problem.
I would agree. Yet so many complain about the money invested in fusion. For ITER thats about 20B for 10+ years of R&D. Not bad really.
Your comments on fusion are basically spot on --more or less ;)
But your comments on Fission are out by quite a bit. First it is *not* cheap. The new reactors are costing upwards of 5billion and can be higher than 10B. That totally ignores waste management costs that are heavily controlled and fixed by government regulation. There is plenty of nuclear fuel if we reprocess and use Thorium fuel cycles. The US does not reprocess and hence on a pure U based cycle you are looking at a few 100s of years IIRC (so a few 1000s with reprocessing). Even with reprocessing 5 billion years of U fuel is not here- but thats long term planing in the extreme.
Now the "its available now" comes with a caveat. What to do with the waste? Lets at least plan a head a little. We could develop fast reactors and/or accelerators driven reactors to reduce the waste to something quite manageable. But this kind of R&D reactor will come in the 20B+ price bracket with a 10+ year program. Quite similar to Fusion. After than you only know it can work, we still need to build the reactors.
Personally I think we should invest R&D into both. We don't know if they will be economical. But it would be nice to have the option.
for solar cells its growing the high purity crystal thats expensive and very slow.
I do believe that some already do.
My experience is "anecdotal" evidence. But it is however my experience. They won't put in a journal. But when a reporter is asking....
IPCC is run by a political origination with an axe to grind. Al Gore, a Politician won a peace prize for little movie campaign. Can you blame people that they say its all politics these days.
Hell even ask about model details and your slammed with a global warming denier label. You don't get your question answered.
The science is now so obscured with media and other groups agenda bias that its pretty hard to claim its not all politics. Really what does your emotional state ("I'm pretty scared") have to do with the science?
I was in fact working with climate scientists for a while, and i was quite shocked that most think its appropriate to misrepresent the certainty of the models because they "know" best. Now tell me again why people shouldn't think that the science is just as politicized as the rest of the debate?
These discussions where not abstract. Things like can you get STDs from a blowjob. She is now 17. I don't expect she will be not be living with us for much longer.
QFT
No matter what you do they will see porn. And guess what, thats ok it wont damage them in anyway if they can talk about it "safely". Don't go off the handle at them, they didn't do anything wrong. Just explain the reality's of life as best you can.
I got lucky, my daughter is conformable talking to me about that sort of thing.
Dilbert should be mandatory reading. I get freaked out about its accuracy sometimes.
I still don't quite get it. What good is a 10Mbit connection if i can only average 1Mbit? I have a 2Mbit and i average in a high month 1.8Mbit. I don't need more as i don't mind waiting for the larger stuff. But i would be rather unhappy with a 2Mbit link were i am only suppose to average 200kbit or something.
Hence defensive patents. QED
Does your performance suffer much by doing that?
The patent office does not have a history of checking prior art. They seem to just rubber stamp anything if worded in a confusing enough manner. The legal system has a habit of assuming that an issued patent is valid by default and will give an injunction till its run its way through the courts. So even if the prior art turns out to be valid prior art, you have been shutdown and in litigation for years, assuming your not already bankrupted.
But here is the real rub. If its obvious, why would it be published? You don't go around publishing blindly obvious things, and even if you do, there is still some other blindly obvious detail you left out.
Ironically the nano-machines that cause the original grey goo disaster are not grey either.
There is little point in a research reactor. Plain research nuclear reactors don't either. DEMO however would.
Its really moving to a point of "will it be economical" rather than will it work. Thats harder to answer in the long term. Neutron flux damage is a big question mark.
That 40B is per year for federal roading. 20billion is the TOTAL for ITER. It will probably climb to 30billon by the time its over, but thats years worth of operation.
We could do a lot with 40B per year budgets. But we seem to prefer that the money stays with CO2 producing infrastructure.
I had to pay 2000 EU for the last paper I published out of grant money. I just finished reviewing some papers and got paid nothing.
Math, and science research/knowledge should be free to all. Yes, by merely existing I believe you have that right. Access to Knowledge is not the domain of the upper class.
The US government does pay for a lot of the trials etc. This is a dirty little secret the drug companies don't want you to know. Furthermore they spend more on marketing than R&D anyway.