Nuclear power is an exceptional solution to pollution problems, and they help to make electrical cars more feasible. One argument that a number of people seem to be making against electrical cars on this thread is that by the time you factor in the pollution inherent in the production of the electricity, combined with the low efficiency of power transmission systems, you lose any pollution and efficiency benefits that you may have had. Nuclear power solves the pollution problem, since the only thing they emit is steam (which is actually a greenhouse gas, but it condenses before it does any harm). As for nuclear waste, it is a far less serious problem than most people seem to believe, it can easily be dealt with by launching it into space. The threat in doing this is nil, if you store the waste correctly, it will not be damaged even if the rocket explodes. As for the economics, a one-gigawatt nuclear plant, IIRC, anually produces material, that, when packaged, weighs between 1 and 10 tons, and while I don't have any specific figures, I am relatively sure that the cost of launching that into space with a small, reusable rocket, is quite feasible. The only reason that this system is not being used is because whenever NASA tries to put anything radioactive into space, protesters turn out so as to show their ignorance. Also, by using breeder reactors, we can be assured a supply of nuclear fuel that, even with exponentially growing power needs in developing countries, will last for 300-400 years at least. Therefore, nuclear power can be concluded to be a safe, highly efficient, non-polluting source of energy. The second point I want to make is that the lack of efficiency in power transmission can be remedied by using superconducting power lines. For those who aren't aware, superconductivity is the property of certain materials to conduct electricity without any loss of energy at low temperatures. I am less sure on this point, since I have never read anything about it that really mentioned economics, and I, personally, am a bit dubious of the initial cost of putting all power lines into underground tubes filled with liquid nitrogen, but, if it can be done, it would result in 20-50% more electricity available to end users.
Laptops are not bad for economic diversity
on
Laptop Exams?
·
· Score: 1
I don't think that the issue of forcing students to buy laptops when they come into the school is a bad thing. People here are arguing that it would weed out people who cannot afford them, this is wrong.
College already weeds out people who can't afford it, except those who are incredibly bright and can obtain a significant scholarship(sp?), and until college is fully funded by the state, it will have to stay that way. I am aware of several schools that require the purchase of a laptop, and at all of those, if someone cannot afford one, they will be assisted in purchasing one. Laptops are also an immense boon to studying, allowing students to use electronic resources anywhere they need to. If a school does not require (with an assistance program) laptops, then there will be people who will miss out on these beneficial tools, and who will not be given an equal chance to learn.
As for using open internet testing, there are many methods for flagrant abuse, so unless network traffic is monitored, it probably isn't a good idea. But I do think that it would be good if each student were given a lab computer with the resources needed on the test, it would be a great idea, since open notes/book tests are very aggravating in that you have to dig through lots of useless material to find what you want. If the resources were provided in electronic, indexed form, you could search them to find what you need immediatly.
Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear power is an exceptional solution to pollution problems, and they help to make electrical cars more feasible. One argument that a number of people seem to be making against electrical cars on this thread is that by the time you factor in the pollution inherent in the production of the electricity, combined with the low efficiency of power transmission systems, you lose any pollution and efficiency benefits that you may have had. Nuclear power solves the pollution problem, since the only thing they emit is steam (which is actually a greenhouse gas, but it condenses before it does any harm). As for nuclear waste, it is a far less serious problem than most people seem to believe, it can easily be dealt with by launching it into space. The threat in doing this is nil, if you store the waste correctly, it will not be damaged even if the rocket explodes. As for the economics, a one-gigawatt nuclear plant, IIRC, anually produces material, that, when packaged, weighs between 1 and 10 tons, and while I don't have any specific figures, I am relatively sure that the cost of launching that into space with a small, reusable rocket, is quite feasible. The only reason that this system is not being used is because whenever NASA tries to put anything radioactive into space, protesters turn out so as to show their ignorance. Also, by using breeder reactors, we can be assured a supply of nuclear fuel that, even with exponentially growing power needs in developing countries, will last for 300-400 years at least. Therefore, nuclear power can be concluded to be a safe, highly efficient, non-polluting source of energy. The second point I want to make is that the lack of efficiency in power transmission can be remedied by using superconducting power lines. For those who aren't aware, superconductivity is the property of certain materials to conduct electricity without any loss of energy at low temperatures. I am less sure on this point, since I have never read anything about it that really mentioned economics, and I, personally, am a bit dubious of the initial cost of putting all power lines into underground tubes filled with liquid nitrogen, but, if it can be done, it would result in 20-50% more electricity available to end users.
I don't think that the issue of forcing students to buy laptops when they come into the school is a bad thing. People here are arguing that it would weed out people who cannot afford them, this is wrong.
College already weeds out people who can't afford it, except those who are incredibly bright and can obtain a significant scholarship(sp?), and until college is fully funded by the state, it will have to stay that way. I am aware of several schools that require the purchase of a laptop, and at all of those, if someone cannot afford one, they will be assisted in purchasing one. Laptops are also an immense boon to studying, allowing students to use electronic resources anywhere they need to. If a school does not require (with an assistance program) laptops, then there will be people who will miss out on these beneficial tools, and who will not be given an equal chance to learn.
As for using open internet testing, there are many methods for flagrant abuse, so unless network traffic is monitored, it probably isn't a good idea. But I do think that it would be good if each student were given a lab computer with the resources needed on the test, it would be a great idea, since open notes/book tests are very aggravating in that you have to dig through lots of useless material to find what you want. If the resources were provided in electronic, indexed form, you could search them to find what you need immediatly.