Even with the Townshend duty in effect, the Tea Act would allow the East India Company to sell tea more cheaply than before, undercutting the prices offered by smugglers. In 1772, legally imported Bohea, the most common variety of tea, sold for about 3 shillings (3s) per pound.[33] After the Tea Act, colonial consignees would be able to sell it for 2 shillings per pound (2s), just under the smugglers' price of 2 shillings and 1 penny (2s 1d)
Colonial merchants, some of them smugglers, played a significant role in the protests. Because the Tea Act made legally imported tea cheaper, it threatened to put smugglers of Dutch tea out of business
Yes, they disclosed for a part their methods, and then we saw the leaked Pascal source code having some fudge factor written by hand, with no way to know where it came from.
ITYM "Fortran". Or at least that's what ESR claimed. (Actually it was IDL, and commented out)
and we should ask for more research, AND THE DATA that goes with it.
The anger and hatred isn't over the science. It's about taxes. People get tired of being taxed to death. Here in the US they had terrorists throwing tea in the harbor over the tea tax back a few years ago. I think they were the neo-cons who started the whole tea party thing.
Nope. You had tea smugglers chucking tea in the harbor because the tax was too low and they thought that that was unfair competition.
Our cutter was one of those weather stations. 98% of the time the data we gave out was bogus. Obviously some data is good. My point was one should not place blind faith in what people are telling you. You should question assumptions, and the validity of the world view.
Basically, my point is taking down power plants cost a lot of money, and it's mandatory.
This is not unique to nuclear power. All industrial plant needs to be dismantled at end of life, or disasters will happen - look at that incident where a flood of toxic sludge poured into the Danube, killing four eople and destroying a village. Unlike the nuclear industry nobody had made any plans to take care of the waste when the smelting plant was closed down.
You say "noone wants to pay or clean up" but almost all of your figures come from the UK NDA which is paying and cleaning up..
(Although I thing they're doing a typicaly slow and crappy Brit job of it).
It's possible I'm not communicating clearly, but I think we're just not talking about the same thing.
Well, I'm not sure what you're trying to say either, as you keep quoting sources that don't seem to support your conclusions.
You mean decomissioning plants is a billion dollar industry? Seems reasonable, there are quite a few plants (and the older ones, being wildly nonstandard, will be the most expensive to decomission).
As for "60 year average", we're in 2011 now, you're claiming that a decomissioning process started in 1951 will, on average, be finishing now. That's ridiculous.
"The plans of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for decommissioning reactors have an average 50 year time frame."
Oh, it's 50, not 60 now.
The NDA say they will have all the Magnox reactors defueled in 10 years, and be ready for dismantling them withing 20 years.
Sounds like they have a job for life and don't see any reason to get a move on.
. Today with no nuclear plants it would have been a moronic task starting building them to have them working in twenty or so years. Don't you think so?
Ok, I know trhat Italians are lazy, criminal and stupid (or so the Italians on this thread keep telling us) but you do know it doesn't actualy take 20 years to build a nuke plant.
France built 56 of them in 15 years for fucks sake.
You can't just turn off a nuclear power plant. The short version is decommissioning any nuclear power plant is ~60 years of work and billions of dollars. This is a "best case" scenario. Worst case is something like Japan right now.
Bizzare. You provide a link to a Wikipedia page that quotes the time needed to decomission the Maine Yankee power plant as 8 years (rather less than 60) and the cost as 635 million USD (rather less than "billions of dollars").
Maybe you need to brush up on your reading skills.
I love how something which is being done, ie. power being 100% generated by renewables, today, can still be denied by people who don't want to accept that it is. Reality is no match for anyone's ego gratification. Here's BPA's power output by power source:
Did you read your own article? It specifically says that even the "real" number is about a trillion dollars. The US debt is between $14tn and $15tn. What universe do you live in that has the kind of math where 1/14 is "almost half"?
The article says:
China owns about $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities, or nearly half the $2.37 trillion stock of Treasury debt held by âoeforeign officialâ owners.
I.E. China holds almost half of the debt held by foreigners.
China's blown up like what, two satellites in orbit? Thats not a very nice thing to do if you know much about what happens when things moving really fast hit other things that are moving really fast.
Both the US and the (then) USSR have also tested ASAT weapons.
You're not kidding. There is only about 80 years of uranium left at the current rate of use. With a nuclear renaissance, most new plants would face a fuel shortage before they are fully paid off. The only low cost path for nuclear power is less and less of it.
Idiot.
There's only 80 years of uranium from proven reserves in traditional mines with no recycling.
With recycling that goes to 100s of years
with unconventional sources like seawater extraction that goes to thousands of years.
In fact TMI had such a severe effect on plant construction that the last plant was started one year before the accident. Yes, the TMI disaster was so bad it changed the past.
Germany has just shut down 8 of its 17 nuclear reactors. It still does not need to import energy (in the last years Germany exported a massive amount of energy to other countries).
Before the shutdown, Germany produced about 20% of its energy from nuclear and abount 17% from renewable energy sources (see wikipedia)
After the shutdown, Germany probably produces more power from renewable as from nuclear energy...
Not exactly.
Germany has shut down its 7 oldest and smallest nuclear plants. And 8th plant is down for maintenance.
To reduce the dependancy on imported (French and Czech) nuclear generated electricty Germany is bringing new coal and brown coal fired plants online.
Long term (by 2030) the plan is to be producing ~35% of electricity from fossil fuels, mostly coal and brown coal and 65% from renewables, mostly wind.
Slashdot Mirror
So, how do the NYT store the password?
On Linux I drain my laptop's batter in under 2 hours, sometimes 1.5. On Win7 it used to take 3+ hours with brightness at 100% .
How long ago was that? Maybe your battery is nearing end of life.
Ah...a history revisionist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party
nobody is denying climate change, they are only challenging the cause of it
Balls.The litany has gone:
It's not happening
It's not our fault
It's all for the better
It's not worth worrying about
I's too late, there's nothing we can do.
(I've seen people make most or all of these contradictory claims in a thread. Sometimes multiple ones in the same message.
Yes, they disclosed for a part their methods, and then we saw the leaked Pascal source code having some fudge factor written by hand, with no way to know where it came from.
ITYM "Fortran". Or at least that's what ESR claimed. (Actually it was IDL, and commented out)
and we should ask for more research, AND THE DATA that goes with it.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=raw+climate+data
And which of those applies to the ALF?
The anger and hatred isn't over the science. It's about taxes. People get tired of being taxed to death. Here in the US they had terrorists throwing tea in the harbor over the tea tax back a few years ago. I think they were the neo-cons who started the whole tea party thing.
Nope. You had tea smugglers chucking tea in the harbor because the tax was too low and they thought that that was unfair competition.
weather stations all over the world!
Our cutter was one of those weather stations. 98% of the time the data we gave out was bogus. Obviously some data is good. My point was one should not place blind faith in what people are telling you. You should question assumptions, and the validity of the world view.
So, who got court-martialled?
Basically, my point is taking down power plants cost a lot of money, and it's mandatory.
This is not unique to nuclear power. All industrial plant needs to be dismantled at end of life, or disasters will happen - look at that incident where a flood of toxic sludge poured into the Danube, killing four eople and destroying a village. Unlike the nuclear industry nobody had made any plans to take care of the waste when the smelting plant was closed down.
You say "noone wants to pay or clean up" but almost all of your figures come from the UK NDA which is paying and cleaning up..
(Although I thing they're doing a typicaly slow and crappy Brit job of it).
Well, I'm not sure what you're trying to say either, as you keep quoting sources that don't seem to support your conclusions.
Billion dollar industry, 60 year average.
Huh? What?
You mean decomissioning plants is a billion dollar industry? Seems reasonable, there are quite a few plants (and the older ones, being wildly nonstandard, will be the most expensive to decomission).
As for "60 year average", we're in 2011 now, you're claiming that a decomissioning process started in 1951 will, on average, be finishing now. That's ridiculous.
"The plans of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for decommissioning reactors have an average 50 year time frame."
Oh, it's 50, not 60 now.
The NDA say they will have all the Magnox reactors defueled in 10 years, and be ready for dismantling them withing 20 years.
Sounds like they have a job for life and don't see any reason to get a move on.
. Today with no nuclear plants it would have been a moronic task starting building them to have them working in twenty or so years. Don't you think so?
Ok, I know trhat Italians are lazy, criminal and stupid (or so the Italians on this thread keep telling us) but you do know it doesn't actualy take 20 years to build a nuke plant.
France built 56 of them in 15 years for fucks sake.
Start with the wikipedia article, I guess.
You can't just turn off a nuclear power plant. The short version is decommissioning any nuclear power plant is ~60 years of work and billions of dollars. This is a "best case" scenario. Worst case is something like Japan right now.
Bizzare. You provide a link to a Wikipedia page that quotes the time needed to decomission the Maine Yankee power plant as 8 years (rather less than 60) and the cost as 635 million USD (rather less than "billions of dollars").
Maybe you need to brush up on your reading skills.
"renewable" isn't going to cut it, either."
I love how something which is being done, ie. power being 100% generated by renewables, today, can still be denied by people who don't want to accept that it is. Reality is no match for anyone's ego gratification. Here's BPA's power output by power source:
http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx
So what happened on 9th to 10th june? Oh, zero MW were generated by wind. Good thing they had all that hydro.
Hum, hydro. Lets not build nasty nukes in earthquake prone Italy, let's build lots of dams. What could possibly go wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam
Did you read your own article? It specifically says that even the "real" number is about a trillion dollars. The US debt is between $14tn and $15tn. What universe do you live in that has the kind of math where 1/14 is "almost half"?
The article says:
I.E. China holds almost half of the debt held by foreigners.
The other ~ $12 trillion is held by Americans.
China's blown up like what, two satellites in orbit? Thats not a very nice thing to do if you know much about what happens when things moving really fast hit other things that are moving really fast.
Both the US and the (then) USSR have also tested ASAT weapons.
And?
Actually, recycling gets you very little more, certainly not hundreds of years.
Got a source for that bizzare claim?
The sea water idea is a bad joke
Sez who?
and the molten salt reactor never worked right and had a hugely expensive cleanup cost.
Who said anything about molten salt? You can burn thorium in conventional PWRs.
You're not kidding. There is only about 80 years of uranium left at the current rate of use. With a nuclear renaissance, most new plants would face a fuel shortage before they are fully paid off. The only low cost path for nuclear power is less and less of it.
Idiot.
There's only 80 years of uranium from proven reserves in traditional mines with no recycling.
With recycling that goes to 100s of years
with unconventional sources like seawater extraction that goes to thousands of years.
And then there's thorium...
tmost of the cancer is treatable (one big problem might be the issue of people whose cancer might be treatable, but unable to afford medical care).
So we're lucky the accident didn't happen in a 3rd world county where people have to pay for medical care.
Uh the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant in my backyard was built in 1990.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Uh, started in 1974, five years pre TMI.
In fact TMI had such a severe effect on plant construction that the last plant was started one year before the accident. Yes, the TMI disaster was so bad it changed the past.
The US hasn't built a new plant since TMI.
As usual what gets spouted as "simple facts" on slashdot is simply wrong.
And +3 interesting.
There has been no groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
My mother used to share your fantasy [...] She is an avid horse woman and was very much looking forward to it.
Is this realy the sort of thing you should be saying about your mother in public?
The hard leftist core of the so-called environmentalists (really they are anti-human and anti-civilization) will be the ruin of us all yet.
I am the hard leftist core of the so-called environmentalists and I say more fucking nukes now.
It's the filthy right wing NIMBY pseudo-environmentalists like the "green party" who want to get rid of nukes.
Just to disappoint you...
Germany has just shut down 8 of its 17 nuclear reactors. It still does not need to import energy (in the last years Germany exported a massive amount of energy to other countries). Before the shutdown, Germany produced about 20% of its energy from nuclear and abount 17% from renewable energy sources (see wikipedia)
After the shutdown, Germany probably produces more power from renewable as from nuclear energy...
Not exactly.
Germany has shut down its 7 oldest and smallest nuclear plants. And 8th plant is down for maintenance.
Before te shutdown Germany was a net exporter of electricity. Since the shutdown it has become a net importer. http://www.thelocal.de/money/20110404-34161.html
To reduce the dependancy on imported (French and Czech) nuclear generated electricty Germany is bringing new coal and brown coal fired plants online.
Long term (by 2030) the plan is to be producing ~35% of electricity from fossil fuels, mostly coal and brown coal and 65% from renewables, mostly wind.
http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/image/show.html?did=77855753&aref=image048/2011/04/02/CO-SP-2011-014-0067-01-GR.JPG&thumb=false