We need to do whatever it takes to stop Terror. Bush has shown that he's not up to that task.
It looks like Bush has done a pretty good job. I'm not in his shoes, I don't have access to the information he does, I can't really say what I'd do, other than I have a fondness for big explosions. But then, they're not very useful in this situation.
We go into this country, tell them that their civilization is backwards and violent, and that we're going to bring them forward to a bright future of Freedom and Democracy and Peace, and that they shouldn't listen to their religious leaders who tell them we are evil, immoral, corrupt, tools of Satan, how many converts do you think we'll get when we shoot them, bomb them, jail innocents, torture and humiliate them, and make them submit to really nasty sexual submission? Do you think that will convince them to flock to our side? That we're all about Freedom, and Moral Values, and that we want to bring the Peace and Prosperity?
We don't tell them that their civilisation is backwards and violent. We do say that we're going to help. We aren't after converts. As far as harming innocents, we do our best. If you look at what the russians tended to do when they invaded, the difference is night and day. Civilian casualties are accidents for us. Civilian casualties were a matter of course for them. And when we found out about the abuses, we TOOK CARE OF THE MATTER. Those abuses, and worse, happened under Saddam too. Under him they were a matter of policy. If the people of Iraq truly wanted us out, we couldn't hold on. They're an armed society in many ways. Weapons are easy to get.
And like I said, the "nasty sexual submission" wasn't any worse than than some of the more out of control fraternity initiations. That doesn't mean it's right. But the guards who did it are now on the other side of the bars. This was something that the Iraqi people didn't expect. If our news agencies hadn't made such a big deal of it, the terrorists wouldn't of used it as a propaganda point. I've watched the news. The terrorists get many of their points from our own media. If anything, I think that Abu Graib shows that we need to do a really thourough investigation of our prison systems, as the E-6 in question was a civilian prison guard!
Did you see F9/11? Did you see the scene where a US soldier had pulled an old crippled guy out of his house, accusing him of links to insurgents, with no evidence at all, then while the guy was tied up, laying down, hooded, the soldier made jokes about him, and touched his penis?
I must of seen a different F9/11. If it did happen, then yes, it was a failure of command. Besides, F911 is a propaganda film. It had so many lies and distortions that I don't credit anything in it.
As for the chain of command stuff. Well, at least it reached me. Some soldiers don't listen. Some are unsuited to the military, which is both a career and a life.
And the moment I'm told to take over Washington DC, I'm telling them "no"-and fighting them if necessary. My ultimate oath is to "Uphold and defend the constitution". That would violate the constitution.
For the generals in question to take over the country, they'd have to convince the majority of the soldiers - some of the most patriotic people in the country, to break their oaths. Even then, they'd have to worry about all the milities that'd pop up. And the modern military can't operate for long without the civilian support structure.
The moment it comes up, the soldier in question know's it's going to be ugly. Yes, he can be arrested for refusing an order, at which point it goes through the military legal system. If he turns out to be right, the officer in question gets to go through the next trial. An investigation will happen.
However, they try to keep it simple, and the soldier gets training on it regularly. Basically, you're only supposed to use the weapons you're given in the fashion they tell you to, and not shoot at civilans who aren't threatening you.
may be some distinction between people who openly carry weapons and those who don't
Yeah, the little distinction between being a lawful combatant (some sort of uniform, weapons carried openly, and attacking only enemy troops/positions), and an illegal combantant (not doing the above).
Actually, that's incorrect. It doesn't matter if they're women or children. If they point a weapon at us, they're no longer a non-combatant and we're allowed to shoot them by whatever means available. We just tend to play nice.
It's like the mosque thing. We aren't normally allowed to attack religious buildings(why would we? It's a waste of munitions). But the moment they start using one for military purposes, like storing weapons, quartering troops, basing weapons there, etc, we're allowed to target it.
I wouldn't like hearing that. The moment that order comes out of whoever's mouth, I know there's going to be a court-martial.
It's called an illegal order. It is my duty as a soldier to A: refuse the order, B: prevent the order from being carried out, to the best of my ability. As in apprehend/shoot the officer if he tries to do it himself.
1. In order for the geneva conventions to apply, both parties have to be signatories. 2. Note that weapons aren't mentioned. The Hague Conventions cover this. *Note: Though the USA follows these conventions, the USA is not a signatory*. The main effect of the Hague is that we're not allowed to use expanding bullets. IE hollowpoints/softpoints aren't allowed if they're designed to expand. FMJ only. A hollowpoint design has been approved for use, but only because it's more accurate, and it's not an expanding hollowpoint (IE it doesn't expand any more than a FMJ on will).
Too true. I've been in the area. I've seen white guys tanned darker than the natives of the Middle East. Remember Klingor from MASH?
Don't forget that there are soldiers who came from the region, enlisted and became American citizens. We have everybody from the ultra-white norwegion types to the blackest blacks. And we all work together, despite a couple incidents of skinhead/KKK types sneaking in.
As most large entities, like corporations, the united states military can do multiple things at the same time without losing "focus". Just because it isn't on the news doesn't mean that we aren't looking for Bin Laden. And I doubt he's laughing, after all, his attack that was intended to drive us out of the region resulted in us invading two countries in the region. I do think that Bush would have gone after Saddam anyways, and that we should have supported Afganistan such that they'd be a prospering country now, rather than spending years under the boot of the Taliban and such.
As for dismissing the Geneva conventions- We've followed them above and beyond. And I support the conviction of any soldier who commits gross violations of those standards (Oh, and Abu Ghraib doesn't really apply- those prisoners weren't soldiers or political prisoners, and thus are not mentioned in the conventions.)
But, is it not incredibly arrogant to think America should be the ultimate savior?
We aren't. And I'm agnostic, so I'm not sure about any ultimate. We're the last chance in many ways. We come in when the nastiness in a region gets to the point of affecting us.
There are are a plethora of atrocities being commited around the world and numerous UN sanctions being ignored. Why don't we invade them too?
One invasion at a time? We can handle a number of 'holding' missions, due to sheer size, but most areas end will end up being like Iraq for a period of time. People(and nations) complain if we do, and complain if we don't...
Nice quote... However, don't think that my patriotism is blind. I think that the case for any invasion or war needs to be carefully made. My default position is to stay out of it if it doesn't impact our borders. But if we do go in, we need to do it completely. I don't view it as Gulf War I & II, I view it as the Gulf War, complete with ten year cease-fire.
If Kerry had been for smaller government, less regulation, a strong military stance (his actions after the war ruined him for me), pro-gun(he voted for every anti-gun bill to come his way), and trustworthy, I wouldn't have just voted for him, I would of campaigned for him.
Don't think that Bush is right wing, he isn't. I consider him too liberal for my tastes. Neither am I part of the 'religious right'. Terms such as "libertarion", "constitutionalist", and "Jacksonian" describe me.
That's funny, I thought that the chemical weapon that was used as a roadside bomb was pretty telling.
I thought the "unusual levels" of nerve toxins in the river was telling (did they dump nerve gas in the river, or a major part of their supply of bug killer?), the fact that Saddam didn't allow inspectors in for a long time, and limited their movements when he did under enormous US pressure. The fact that he kept trying to shoot down planes patrolling the no-fly zones. The various sheniagans with the oil-for-food program.
Yes, the not is on purpose. Deride commercial companies as you will, but they wouldn't take on that amount of liability.
The sub statement was a statement on our dedication to safety and rescuing our own. Both subs suffered an explosion that caused the crew to be unable to evacuate or surface the ship.
The '57 chevy was a different matter. I just pulled a car make and year out of my head. I think it was in a song somewhere.
It was a straight quote from the site. It even acknowledges that there are more deaths, just that they can't be accuratly measured.
I was simply pointing out that TMI happened before Chernobyl. A commercial company would not have run a reactor of Chernobyl's design because of the known safety problems. However, it was designed by a friend of a party rep or something like that, so it was the design chosen.
It's almost like the Kursk. We(United States), had a sub suffer a similar disaster, underwater in rough water, even a little deeper than the Kursk, and we managed to rescue all hands that survived the initial accident. The politics and delays the Russians played possibly cost those sailor's lives.
Which is partly why I want to eliminate all that federal funding(and taxing). Let the states fund it if they chose. Federal funds come with way too many strings attached.
Drafting troops, calling up new troops? It'd take at least a year. That's about how long it takes to train a modern infantry trooper up to standards. Our troop mix is not up to the task of limited strikes in that amount. There are also substantial costs in terms of control and coordination. Extra supplies and equipment would have to be obtained too.
I see it taking 10-20 years before we can withdraw. We have to train up the Iraqi military from pretty much scratch, and senior officers and a good NCO core take years. I will say that we're taking more and more of a back seat to the Iraqies, letting them handle things. But building the trust, the skills, of government by the people takes time.
Middle America even approved of the Abu Ghraib attrocities. 57 million of them
Say WHAT? We approved? That's news to me! I cheered when I heard that the first soldier was convicted with maximum penaties. I ask why the highest ranking person being charged was an E-6. I expected at least a captain (note: the military can and often does hold an officer responsible for the acts of the troops under him or her).
A more credable statement would be that the Midwesterners saw the matter as "being handled". Investigation was done, people being punished, and besides, the terrorists are beheading people! Murder is worse than some idiots doing the equivalent of fraternity pranks.
And how hard is it to throw one of these over it? As for natural convection cooling-You put the turbines with cooling tower outside the reactor building. And as for not being able to build another and being less modular, oh well. With proper piping you should still be able to.
2. It uses flammable graphite as a moderator. From the site:
Pyrolytic graphite is the main structural material in these pebbles. It melts at 3000C, more than twice the design temperature of most reactors. It slows neutrons very ably, is strong, inexpensive, and has a long history of use in reactors. Its strength and hardness come from anisotropic crystals of carbon. Pyrolytic graphite is also used, unreinforced, to construct missile reentry nose-cones and large solid rocket nozzles. It is nothing like the powdered mixture of flakes and waxes in pencil leads or lubricants.
You also have to remember that the coolant is helium, which is pretty much as inflammable as you can get. It's also wrapped in a ceramic shell.
3. It produces more high level nuclear wastes than current nuclear reactor designs.
Which decays faster than the lower level waste. Meaning that the stuff is "safe" in far less time than the current waste. And it's a side effect of being more efficient with the fuel.
4. It relies heavily on nearly perfect fuel pebbles.
And a car engine today depends on a nearly perfect block, an airplane on perfectly put together parts, computer chips on perfectly laid traces... When you only replace a few dozen pebbles a year, you can handle tight tolerances.
5. It relies heavily upon fuel handling as the pebbles are cycled through the reactor.
Fuel handling? We replace rods in conventional reactors, constantly remove ash and input more coal into coal plants, feed gas to turbines in natural gas plants. I don't see any problem with proper design.
6. There's already been an accident at a pebble bed reactor in Germany due to fuel handling problems.
In 1986, which is almost 20 years ago. Material and nuclear science has advanced a bit since then. It works just like the airline industry. A problem is found, a fix is engineered and implimented.
At 1.5 watts per SQ foot, covering an area of the roof with solar panels will only net you 12 amps per 1000 sq feet of home @ 120V. Consider that most homes have 200 amp power panels. 1000 sq feet of panels costs $62,000. Saving $100/month, the panels would exceed their life expectancy before making back the raw cost.
The average price for a 1,000 sq foot house in my area is around $80,000.
Consider that in areas further south, power production goes up more than 50%, which makes the panels a much beter deal. Add in maintenance and repairs, and it makes no sense to install solar panels here.
Actually, I don't think there was any limit to the washing/sterilizing, as long as the bottle was still intact(how would you keep track, anyway?). Contamination concerns along with the utter cheapness of plastic/paper packaging was what doomed reusable glass. It's actually cheaper to make a plastic bottle than to collect, inspect, wash, and sterilize the glass bottle.
We're simplifying. A car can hold, what, four to five people? And we have all sorts of safety requirements for it.
A power plant can supply hundreds of thousands of people with power. Again, there are all sorts of safety requirements for it. The Chernobyl reactors were the Pintos of nuclear power plants.
And you don't think that the same effect will come into effect for uranium?
The demand increases, more sources are found, effeciency is increased. If prices rise, more sources are found. If the price rises too far, alternate energy sources are used.
If oil had stayed up in price for much longer, We would of seen a number of wells in Texas reactivated, as the cost of mining oil from those wells doesn't make it worth it at current prices, not because there isn't any oil left.
The problem here is that the stuff was never properly stored/disposed of.
I think that the storage of those materials was criminal. To a large extent, these wastes were produced by a weapon industry concentrating on delivering material-not disposing of waste. It wasn't particularly concerned with efficiency either, so here's alot of waste. Best I can say - they're working on cleaning it up, but it's a slow process. It's like the leftovers from the various war efforts. We're still digging stuff up that was pretty much just dumped in a hole in the ground.
If this is true, then it stands to reason I should be able to get a Nuclear reactor installed in my back yard.
How big of a back yard do you have? I know you could get a RTG to fit pretty easily, but they don't produce that much power,nor do they do it efficiently. They're good when you can't do any maintenance for years and years.
As for the safety record, with there being different amounts of control, the fact is that they can do it in a nuclear plant due to the small size of the fuel. Newer reactor designs require far less intervention than the old ones that we're using.
When you start looking at a 1000MW power plant, it doesn't really matter what you use to fuel it, it's a dangerous amount of power. Just think what would happen if a lighting strike set the coal reserve for the plant on fire. Except they keep it seperated- just like rods.
I do not like hydrocarbon fueled electricity. It pollutes far too much. Nuclear fission has issues - that have been addressed. Hydro has been tapped. Solar, Wind, geothermal, and Tidal still have issues to be addressed. Like they aren't suitable for all locations. I live in North Dakota. We don't get enough solar, the wind is intermittent, we're way too far from any tidal or decent geothermal sources. Primary power source: Coal.
Slashdot Mirror
We need to do whatever it takes to stop Terror. Bush has shown that he's not up to that task.
It looks like Bush has done a pretty good job. I'm not in his shoes, I don't have access to the information he does, I can't really say what I'd do, other than I have a fondness for big explosions. But then, they're not very useful in this situation.
We go into this country, tell them that their civilization is backwards and violent, and that we're going to bring them forward to a bright future of Freedom and Democracy and Peace, and that they shouldn't listen to their religious leaders who tell them we are evil, immoral, corrupt, tools of Satan, how many converts do you think we'll get when we shoot them, bomb them, jail innocents, torture and humiliate them, and make them submit to really nasty sexual submission?
Do you think that will convince them to flock to our side? That we're all about Freedom, and Moral Values, and that we want to bring the Peace and Prosperity?
We don't tell them that their civilisation is backwards and violent. We do say that we're going to help. We aren't after converts. As far as harming innocents, we do our best. If you look at what the russians tended to do when they invaded, the difference is night and day. Civilian casualties are accidents for us. Civilian casualties were a matter of course for them. And when we found out about the abuses, we TOOK CARE OF THE MATTER. Those abuses, and worse, happened under Saddam too. Under him they were a matter of policy. If the people of Iraq truly wanted us out, we couldn't hold on. They're an armed society in many ways. Weapons are easy to get.
And like I said, the "nasty sexual submission" wasn't any worse than than some of the more out of control fraternity initiations. That doesn't mean it's right. But the guards who did it are now on the other side of the bars. This was something that the Iraqi people didn't expect. If our news agencies hadn't made such a big deal of it, the terrorists wouldn't of used it as a propaganda point. I've watched the news. The terrorists get many of their points from our own media. If anything, I think that Abu Graib shows that we need to do a really thourough investigation of our prison systems, as the E-6 in question was a civilian prison guard!
Did you see F9/11? Did you see the scene where a US soldier had pulled an old crippled guy out of his house, accusing him of links to insurgents, with no evidence at all, then while the guy was tied up, laying down, hooded, the soldier made jokes about him, and touched his penis?
I must of seen a different F9/11. If it did happen, then yes, it was a failure of command. Besides, F911 is a propaganda film. It had so many lies and distortions that I don't credit anything in it.
As for the chain of command stuff. Well, at least it reached me. Some soldiers don't listen. Some are unsuited to the military, which is both a career and a life.
If they're a non-combatant, then yes. But if they're attacking, then the rules for being a combatant apply.
Hassan Bility- Well, he's apparently been released.
And the moment I'm told to take over Washington DC, I'm telling them "no"-and fighting them if necessary. My ultimate oath is to "Uphold and defend the constitution". That would violate the constitution.
For the generals in question to take over the country, they'd have to convince the majority of the soldiers - some of the most patriotic people in the country, to break their oaths. Even then, they'd have to worry about all the milities that'd pop up. And the modern military can't operate for long without the civilian support structure.
The moment it comes up, the soldier in question know's it's going to be ugly. Yes, he can be arrested for refusing an order, at which point it goes through the military legal system. If he turns out to be right, the officer in question gets to go through the next trial. An investigation will happen.
However, they try to keep it simple, and the soldier gets training on it regularly. Basically, you're only supposed to use the weapons you're given in the fashion they tell you to, and not shoot at civilans who aren't threatening you.
may be some distinction between people who openly carry weapons and those who don't
Yeah, the little distinction between being a lawful combatant (some sort of uniform, weapons carried openly, and attacking only enemy troops/positions), and an illegal combantant (not doing the above).
Basically, the conventions don't apply.
An explanation
Actually, that's incorrect. It doesn't matter if they're women or children. If they point a weapon at us, they're no longer a non-combatant and we're allowed to shoot them by whatever means available. We just tend to play nice.
It's like the mosque thing. We aren't normally allowed to attack religious buildings(why would we? It's a waste of munitions). But the moment they start using one for military purposes, like storing weapons, quartering troops, basing weapons there, etc, we're allowed to target it.
I wouldn't like hearing that. The moment that order comes out of whoever's mouth, I know there's going to be a court-martial.
It's called an illegal order. It is my duty as a soldier to A: refuse the order, B: prevent the order from being carried out, to the best of my ability. As in apprehend/shoot the officer if he tries to do it himself.
And don't forget that the polling was done only in the most violent spots...
It's like calculating casualty figures from counting the number of bodies in the morgue, without regard for cause of death.
As the abused prisoners were criminals, not POWs, the Geneva conventions don't apply. The soldiers were busted on the standard prisoner abuse rules.
Geneva Conventions
1. In order for the geneva conventions to apply, both parties have to be signatories.
2. Note that weapons aren't mentioned. The Hague Conventions cover this. *Note: Though the USA follows these conventions, the USA is not a signatory*. The main effect of the Hague is that we're not allowed to use expanding bullets. IE hollowpoints/softpoints aren't allowed if they're designed to expand. FMJ only. A hollowpoint design has been approved for use, but only because it's more accurate, and it's not an expanding hollowpoint (IE it doesn't expand any more than a FMJ on will).
Huh, that's news to me, seeing as how shotguns have been used in every war since the 1700's. Including Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf.
Heck shotguns are issued out at my base every day for security.
Information about the marine's shotguns
Too true. I've been in the area. I've seen white guys tanned darker than the natives of the Middle East. Remember Klingor from MASH?
Don't forget that there are soldiers who came from the region, enlisted and became American citizens. We have everybody from the ultra-white norwegion types to the blackest blacks. And we all work together, despite a couple incidents of skinhead/KKK types sneaking in.
As most large entities, like corporations, the united states military can do multiple things at the same time without losing "focus". Just because it isn't on the news doesn't mean that we aren't looking for Bin Laden. And I doubt he's laughing, after all, his attack that was intended to drive us out of the region resulted in us invading two countries in the region. I do think that Bush would have gone after Saddam anyways, and that we should have supported Afganistan such that they'd be a prospering country now, rather than spending years under the boot of the Taliban and such.
As for dismissing the Geneva conventions- We've followed them above and beyond. And I support the conviction of any soldier who commits gross violations of those standards (Oh, and Abu Ghraib doesn't really apply- those prisoners weren't soldiers or political prisoners, and thus are not mentioned in the conventions.)
But, is it not incredibly arrogant to think America should be the ultimate savior?
We aren't. And I'm agnostic, so I'm not sure about any ultimate. We're the last chance in many ways. We come in when the nastiness in a region gets to the point of affecting us.
There are are a plethora of atrocities being commited around the world and numerous UN sanctions being ignored. Why don't we invade them too?
One invasion at a time? We can handle a number of 'holding' missions, due to sheer size, but most areas end will end up being like Iraq for a period of time. People(and nations) complain if we do, and complain if we don't...
Nice quote... However, don't think that my patriotism is blind. I think that the case for any invasion or war needs to be carefully made. My default position is to stay out of it if it doesn't impact our borders. But if we do go in, we need to do it completely. I don't view it as Gulf War I & II, I view it as the Gulf War, complete with ten year cease-fire.
If Kerry had been for smaller government, less regulation, a strong military stance (his actions after the war ruined him for me), pro-gun(he voted for every anti-gun bill to come his way), and trustworthy, I wouldn't have just voted for him, I would of campaigned for him.
Don't think that Bush is right wing, he isn't. I consider him too liberal for my tastes. Neither am I part of the 'religious right'. Terms such as "libertarion", "constitutionalist", and "Jacksonian" describe me.
That's funny, I thought that the chemical weapon that was used as a roadside bomb was pretty telling.
I thought the "unusual levels" of nerve toxins in the river was telling (did they dump nerve gas in the river, or a major part of their supply of bug killer?), the fact that Saddam didn't allow inspectors in for a long time, and limited their movements when he did under enormous US pressure. The fact that he kept trying to shoot down planes patrolling the no-fly zones. The various sheniagans with the oil-for-food program.
Yes, the not is on purpose. Deride commercial companies as you will, but they wouldn't take on that amount of liability.
The sub statement was a statement on our dedication to safety and rescuing our own. Both subs suffered an explosion that caused the crew to be unable to evacuate or surface the ship.
The '57 chevy was a different matter. I just pulled a car make and year out of my head. I think it was in a song somewhere.
It was a straight quote from the site. It even acknowledges that there are more deaths, just that they can't be accuratly measured.
I was simply pointing out that TMI happened before Chernobyl. A commercial company would not have run a reactor of Chernobyl's design because of the known safety problems. However, it was designed by a friend of a party rep or something like that, so it was the design chosen.
It's almost like the Kursk. We(United States), had a sub suffer a similar disaster, underwater in rough water, even a little deeper than the Kursk, and we managed to rescue all hands that survived the initial accident. The politics and delays the Russians played possibly cost those sailor's lives.
American designs tend to be safer.
Which is partly why I want to eliminate all that federal funding(and taxing). Let the states fund it if they chose. Federal funds come with way too many strings attached.
Sure, we could of pushed the "instant win" button.
Drafting troops, calling up new troops? It'd take at least a year. That's about how long it takes to train a modern infantry trooper up to standards. Our troop mix is not up to the task of limited strikes in that amount. There are also substantial costs in terms of control and coordination. Extra supplies and equipment would have to be obtained too.
I see it taking 10-20 years before we can withdraw. We have to train up the Iraqi military from pretty much scratch, and senior officers and a good NCO core take years. I will say that we're taking more and more of a back seat to the Iraqies, letting them handle things. But building the trust, the skills, of government by the people takes time.
Middle America even approved of the Abu Ghraib attrocities. 57 million of them
Say WHAT? We approved? That's news to me! I cheered when I heard that the first soldier was convicted with maximum penaties. I ask why the highest ranking person being charged was an E-6. I expected at least a captain (note: the military can and often does hold an officer responsible for the acts of the troops under him or her).
A more credable statement would be that the Midwesterners saw the matter as "being handled". Investigation was done, people being punished, and besides, the terrorists are beheading people! Murder is worse than some idiots doing the equivalent of fraternity pranks.
1. It has no containment building
And how hard is it to throw one of these over it? As for natural convection cooling-You put the turbines with cooling tower outside the reactor building. And as for not being able to build another and being less modular, oh well. With proper piping you should still be able to.
2. It uses flammable graphite as a moderator.
From the site:
You also have to remember that the coolant is helium, which is pretty much as inflammable as you can get. It's also wrapped in a ceramic shell.
3. It produces more high level nuclear wastes than current nuclear reactor designs.
Which decays faster than the lower level waste. Meaning that the stuff is "safe" in far less time than the current waste. And it's a side effect of being more efficient with the fuel.
4. It relies heavily on nearly perfect fuel pebbles.
And a car engine today depends on a nearly perfect block, an airplane on perfectly put together parts, computer chips on perfectly laid traces... When you only replace a few dozen pebbles a year, you can handle tight tolerances.
5. It relies heavily upon fuel handling as the pebbles are cycled through the reactor.
Fuel handling? We replace rods in conventional reactors, constantly remove ash and input more coal into coal plants, feed gas to turbines in natural gas plants. I don't see any problem with proper design.
6. There's already been an accident at a pebble bed reactor in Germany due to fuel handling problems.
In 1986, which is almost 20 years ago. Material and nuclear science has advanced a bit since then. It works just like the airline industry. A problem is found, a fix is engineered and implimented.
At 1.5 watts per SQ foot, covering an area of the roof with solar panels will only net you 12 amps per 1000 sq feet of home @ 120V. Consider that most homes have 200 amp power panels. 1000 sq feet of panels costs $62,000. Saving $100/month, the panels would exceed their life expectancy before making back the raw cost.
The average price for a 1,000 sq foot house in my area is around $80,000.
Consider that in areas further south, power production goes up more than 50%, which makes the panels a much beter deal. Add in maintenance and repairs, and it makes no sense to install solar panels here.
Actually, I don't think there was any limit to the washing/sterilizing, as long as the bottle was still intact(how would you keep track, anyway?). Contamination concerns along with the utter cheapness of plastic/paper packaging was what doomed reusable glass. It's actually cheaper to make a plastic bottle than to collect, inspect, wash, and sterilize the glass bottle.
But there's alot more cars.
We're simplifying. A car can hold, what, four to five people? And we have all sorts of safety requirements for it.
A power plant can supply hundreds of thousands of people with power. Again, there are all sorts of safety requirements for it. The Chernobyl reactors were the Pintos of nuclear power plants.
Three mile Island accident: March 28, 1979
led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community
Chernobyl: April 25-26, 1986
Thirty-one people died in the Chernobyl accident and its immediate aftermath, most in fighting the fires that ensued. There have been news reports of additional deaths subsequent to the 31, but details are not available. Delayed health effects could be extensive, but estimates vary.
We learned our lesson after TMI, and Chernobyl happened seven years afterwards. Mostly due to bad reactor design and stupidity.
This is like making statements about car safety and fuel efficiency for today based on a '57 chevy.
And you don't think that the same effect will come into effect for uranium?
The demand increases, more sources are found, effeciency is increased. If prices rise, more sources are found. If the price rises too far, alternate energy sources are used.
If oil had stayed up in price for much longer, We would of seen a number of wells in Texas reactivated, as the cost of mining oil from those wells doesn't make it worth it at current prices, not because there isn't any oil left.
The problem here is that the stuff was never properly stored/disposed of.
I think that the storage of those materials was criminal. To a large extent, these wastes were produced by a weapon industry concentrating on delivering material-not disposing of waste. It wasn't particularly concerned with efficiency either, so here's alot of waste.
Best I can say - they're working on cleaning it up, but it's a slow process.
It's like the leftovers from the various war efforts. We're still digging stuff up that was pretty much just dumped in a hole in the ground.
If this is true, then it stands to reason I should be able to get a Nuclear reactor installed in my back yard.
How big of a back yard do you have? I know you could get a RTG to fit pretty easily, but they don't produce that much power,nor do they do it efficiently. They're good when you can't do any maintenance for years and years.
As for the safety record, with there being different amounts of control, the fact is that they can do it in a nuclear plant due to the small size of the fuel. Newer reactor designs require far less intervention than the old ones that we're using.
When you start looking at a 1000MW power plant, it doesn't really matter what you use to fuel it, it's a dangerous amount of power. Just think what would happen if a lighting strike set the coal reserve for the plant on fire. Except they keep it seperated- just like rods.
I do not like hydrocarbon fueled electricity. It pollutes far too much. Nuclear fission has issues - that have been addressed. Hydro has been tapped. Solar, Wind, geothermal, and Tidal still have issues to be addressed. Like they aren't suitable for all locations. I live in North Dakota. We don't get enough solar, the wind is intermittent, we're way too far from any tidal or decent geothermal sources. Primary power source: Coal.