Nitpicking: Some modern cars (BMW has a few models for example) have completely electronic drive-by-wire systems. Wouldn't want to get hit with this thing while driving one of those:)
Reminds me of something I saw on "Cops" which I was surprised was actually shown on TV. The cops were chasing a random drug-dealer or equivalent, during the chase / apprehension he was resisting. Then once the criminal was on the ground and in handcuffs, a female cop was screaming something about "never put your hands on me", and then said to the other cops "let me tase him". Which she did, while reiterating her previous statement.
I'm Swedish, so I'm not sure about laws and practices in the US. But in Sweden it would definitely not be acceptable to intentionally harm a person who is safely in custody, no matter how much they've resisted. I understand that the cop was pissed off at the criminal for resisting so vigorously, but that doesn't seem like a good enough reason. It was surprising to me that this part was on the show.
The Universe is very large and possibly infinite in volume; the observable matter is spread over a space at least 93 billion light years across. Wikipedia - Universe
This is correct. It can also be noted the by present standards (reactors being built now) the TMI reactors would be considered unsafe. Reactors with triple containment barriers could even withstand a Chernobyl-style explosion with no release of radioactive material (not that such an implosion is even theoretically possible in most designs).
As most ores in the Earth's crust, coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment leads to radioactive contamination. While these substances are present as very small trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released. A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 tons/year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons/year of thorium.[19]
This has been known for decades, yet nuclear plants (which allows controlled handling of the waste, as opposed to releasing it in the atmosphere) is still incorrectly assumed by many people to release loads of radioactive material while coal exhaust is assumed to be "just carbon dioxide".
It is correct that using a purely Thorium fuel cycle is hard, and requires alot more research. Closer to actually being implemented on a commercial scale is the closed fuel cycle, where spent fuel currently considered "waste" is used in fast breeder reactors.
Everyone that has nuclear reactors does not build bombs. 50% of Sweden's electricity comes from reactors, and Sweden has never built a single nuclear bomb.
These reactors are not being built because the technology is not fully developed (as I understand it, better materials are required because of the high temperatures). Though some prototypes has been built.
On this subject it can also be worth of mention that all Gen-IV reactor concepts (which include molten salt reactors) are designed to make it very hard if not impossible to extract Pu-239 from their fuel or waste.
You are correct on the subject of Iran, they want to build a reactor based on a Gen-IV concept (i forget which one right now) but modified to facilitate production of Pu-239. That design is not accepted as a Gen-IV reactor.
In certain IDE:s those types of comment are helpful. Mousing over a function call to see what it returns and what the arguments are without having to find the code for that function speeds up coding for me personally at least.
What he meant was that since it has flown, it must have passed all the required stress tests since this is a requirement for it to get off the ground at all.
I would guess the ground tests are designed to stress the materials way harder than they ever will be in the air, but of course this does not mean the plane as a whole is safe.
Nuking a city would in my mind imply an explosion created by nuclear reactions. The explosion in Chernobyl was created by good old chemical reactions (hydrogren gas).
Sorry if I'm being ignorant, but is there a chance this will be available in Europe? I understand the regular netflix service of mailing DVDs to you is only available in the US, but are there any obstacles to making the streaming service available elsewhere?
There is nothing inherently unprofitable about nuclear power. I don't know how the situation with regulation, taxes etc on it is in the US (where I presume you are from) which might make it unprofitable there. Do you have any good sources for this information?
I work in nuclear power in Sweden, and the power companies here drool at the prospect of building a new reactor. And if and when the government allows such an endeavor, it will not be subsidized by tax payer money in any way. There is even a law that a certain amount of money per kWh has to go to a (public) fund that will be used in the future for final storage and such to handle the waste.
I hear this anti-nuclear argument that it is unprofitable all the time. But the simple fact is, that if the profit-driven power companies are willing to completely fund the construction, running, decommisioning of a reactor as well as the waste handling... there must be profit in it.
Pouring liquid nitrogen down a drain does sweet bugger all except possibly crack the pipes. Been there done that. Anyway quickest way to get rid of a small amount of it in a large enough room is to chuck it on the floor - evaporates harmlessly in seconds.
If by harmlessly you mean evaporates while producing cracks in the floor, then yes:) In our lab the floor is in very bad shape where the nitrogen-cooled detectors are usually placed, however YMMV depending on the type of floor I guess.
So it appears that the real cost is closer to 5.88 / (2 * 1.25) = $2.35 per watt. Still expensive, but not outlandish. I'm in the process of installing a 4kw grid of solar panels on my own roof for a cost (after subsidies/rebates) of $17k, so $4.25 / watt. For greener energy, I think the premium is worth it.
Well, greener energy or not, it's certainly easier than putting a nuclear power plant on your roof.
Slashdot Mirror
"accidentally"... sure!
Nitpicking: Some modern cars (BMW has a few models for example) have completely electronic drive-by-wire systems. Wouldn't want to get hit with this thing while driving one of those :)
Reminds me of something I saw on "Cops" which I was surprised was actually shown on TV. The cops were chasing a random drug-dealer or equivalent, during the chase / apprehension he was resisting. Then once the criminal was on the ground and in handcuffs, a female cop was screaming something about "never put your hands on me", and then said to the other cops "let me tase him". Which she did, while reiterating her previous statement.
I'm Swedish, so I'm not sure about laws and practices in the US. But in Sweden it would definitely not be acceptable to intentionally harm a person who is safely in custody, no matter how much they've resisted. I understand that the cop was pissed off at the criminal for resisting so vigorously, but that doesn't seem like a good enough reason. It was surprising to me that this part was on the show.
Fortunately, space is big. Really big.
[citation needed]
The Universe is very large and possibly infinite in volume; the observable matter is spread over a space at least 93 billion light years across. Wikipedia - Universe
d'oh, obviously I did not mean to write implosion.
This is correct. It can also be noted the by present standards (reactors being built now) the TMI reactors would be considered unsafe. Reactors with triple containment barriers could even withstand a Chernobyl-style explosion with no release of radioactive material (not that such an implosion is even theoretically possible in most designs).
This is offtopic, but from Wikipedia - Coal Plant
As most ores in the Earth's crust, coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment leads to radioactive contamination. While these substances are present as very small trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released. A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 tons/year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons/year of thorium.[19]
This has been known for decades, yet nuclear plants (which allows controlled handling of the waste, as opposed to releasing it in the atmosphere) is still incorrectly assumed by many people to release loads of radioactive material while coal exhaust is assumed to be "just carbon dioxide".
It is correct that using a purely Thorium fuel cycle is hard, and requires alot more research. Closer to actually being implemented on a commercial scale is the closed fuel cycle, where spent fuel currently considered "waste" is used in fast breeder reactors.
Everyone that has nuclear reactors does not build bombs. 50% of Sweden's electricity comes from reactors, and Sweden has never built a single nuclear bomb.
These reactors are not being built because the technology is not fully developed (as I understand it, better materials are required because of the high temperatures). Though some prototypes has been built.
On this subject it can also be worth of mention that all Gen-IV reactor concepts (which include molten salt reactors) are designed to make it very hard if not impossible to extract Pu-239 from their fuel or waste.
You are correct on the subject of Iran, they want to build a reactor based on a Gen-IV concept (i forget which one right now) but modified to facilitate production of Pu-239. That design is not accepted as a Gen-IV reactor.
Generation IV Wikipedia article
In certain IDE:s those types of comment are helpful. Mousing over a function call to see what it returns and what the arguments are without having to find the code for that function speeds up coding for me personally at least.
What he meant was that since it has flown, it must have passed all the required stress tests since this is a requirement for it to get off the ground at all.
I would guess the ground tests are designed to stress the materials way harder than they ever will be in the air, but of course this does not mean the plane as a whole is safe.
Nuking a city would in my mind imply an explosion created by nuclear reactions. The explosion in Chernobyl was created by good old chemical reactions (hydrogren gas).
Sorry if I'm being ignorant, but is there a chance this will be available in Europe? I understand the regular netflix service of mailing DVDs to you is only available in the US, but are there any obstacles to making the streaming service available elsewhere?
"they want to force you to name your firstborn child Raynor,"
Force? My second will be called Kerrigan btw.
Correction: Switzerland is a part of Europe. It is, however, not a part of the European Union.
There is nothing inherently unprofitable about nuclear power. I don't know how the situation with regulation, taxes etc on it is in the US (where I presume you are from) which might make it unprofitable there. Do you have any good sources for this information?
I work in nuclear power in Sweden, and the power companies here drool at the prospect of building a new reactor. And if and when the government allows such an endeavor, it will not be subsidized by tax payer money in any way. There is even a law that a certain amount of money per kWh has to go to a (public) fund that will be used in the future for final storage and such to handle the waste.
I hear this anti-nuclear argument that it is unprofitable all the time. But the simple fact is, that if the profit-driven power companies are willing to completely fund the construction, running, decommisioning of a reactor as well as the waste handling... there must be profit in it.
What PachmanP said was, if the degree is actually negative when applying for those jobs, you could just leave it out of your resume.
Pouring liquid nitrogen down a drain does sweet bugger all except possibly crack the pipes. Been there done that. Anyway quickest way to get rid of a small amount of it in a large enough room is to chuck it on the floor - evaporates harmlessly in seconds.
If by harmlessly you mean evaporates while producing cracks in the floor, then yes :) In our lab the floor is in very bad shape where the nitrogen-cooled detectors are usually placed, however YMMV depending on the type of floor I guess.
So it appears that the real cost is closer to 5.88 / (2 * 1.25) = $2.35 per watt. Still expensive, but not outlandish. I'm in the process of installing a 4kw grid of solar panels on my own roof for a cost (after subsidies/rebates) of $17k, so $4.25 / watt. For greener energy, I think the premium is worth it.
Well, greener energy or not, it's certainly easier than putting a nuclear power plant on your roof.
The AP1000 (which is plant they are building) produces 1150 MW. I don't know where the 12 MW figure comes from, but it is incorrect.
Either way, people may want to consider getting on the nexr plane out of China...
In all seriousness, 12.7 MW seems rather small for a $6 billion price tag.
The AP1000 produces 1150 MWe (megawatts electric). The 12.7 MW figure is either wrong or has to do with the start-up phase.