While it is true that Germany burns too much coal, this has not changed much over the years (and the US has still twice the CO2 production per capita as far as I know). Germany did reduce nuclear, but added a substantial amount of renewables in a very short amount of time which proves that this scales. I posted the numbers here:
It would also be news to me that electricity prices had ruined Germany's industry (and some industries are exempt from paying the additional fee for renewables anyway).
I think you are confusing total energy imports with electricity. Germany has net exports in electricity and this did not change even after shutting down 6(7) nuclear power plants. The missing power has indeed been replaced mostly by renewables [1]. It is true that the prices for electricity are high (among other reasons) because subventions for renewables are added as a fee. In contrast, subventions for nuclear and coal are/have been hidden in general taxes.
No true. There was same shift from gas to ignites due to relative shift in prices, but the missing nuclear power has almost completely replaced by renewables:
Waste is not a small problem. There is a salt mine in Germany where there were nuclear waste was stored. Turns out, this mine is not as safe as originally thought. The mine is instable and there is water inflow and the nuclear waste stored there has to be brought back to surface. The German parlament just passed a law about this. Estimated cost (tax payers of course) 4-6 billion Euro. This is the thing with nuclear energy: It seems such a nice solution. As long as you ignore all the details. Then it gets messy and expensive. Really expensive.
Thorium would be really expensive to develop further, take decades, and it is highly questionable whether it would ever become economically viable. The advantages are also not as clear as proponents make them out to be, and it would still be a finite resource (although more abundant than Uranium). It simply makes a lot more sense to invest some more money into an energy mix based on renewables where there are many proven technologies already in use today.
Well those better designs would need an insane amount of (goverrment) money to develop into something useful. This is the reason most of these research projects have been stopped in the past. Cost became totally out of control, while the prototypes still had lots of technical problems which made it very clear that much bigger further investments would be necessary in the future. For example, consider the history of the German AVR. It is considered a gigantic disaster. This is the problem with nuclear: In principle it looks promising, but then some problems occur. Solutions to these problems are proposed, but it gets much more expensive, then even more problems appear,... In reality, it is huge mess and a money sink. And I think all the nuclear fanboys here on slashdot just underestimate the amount of engineering problems nuclear has by a few orders of magnitude.
For exampe, it is the predominant scientific opinion that radiation is harmful at all levels. While this subject to discussion, your first blog simply claims this is a myth. Therefor it is misrepresenting the state of scientific knowledge and I would personally not trust this source even a little bit.
Lissen up party people! DJ Galileo is in the house!
Do you choose your area of residence upon careful consideration of a map showing natural background radiation sources, which vary significantly? Would you refuse a medical procedure such as an X-ray? Have you ever refused to spend 4 hours in an airplane at 30,000 feet? If any of these are a NO, then whilst in the comfortable state of belief in the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis (LNT) you are living your life on a principle that there is such thing as 'acceptable risk'.
You are beating up a staw man. I never said there is no acceptable risk or even that low doses of radiation are not acceptable in some situations.
Also you are confusinga few things in a very fundamental way: The LNT is a theory based on our understanding the processes happening when ionizing radiation hits living cells. It can be used predict the risk for very low doses by extrapolating data obtained for higher doses. As such it does not tell what is an 'acceptable risk' is or not. It states that there is a risk proportional to the dose. This is what most experts believe is a reasonable good approximation of reality. If instead we would believe that there is no risk at low doses, we would tell people that they can X-rays just for fun and would not even have to think about 'acceptable risk'. Please read up about radiation protection and the term "As Low As Reasonably Achievable".
Ofcourse LNT might be wrong at very low doses and the extrapolation might be wrong. It probably needs some modification to take some non-linear effects into account. Still, there are very good reasons to believe that there is a small risk even at extremly low doses. Also please note that I did not comment about nuclear policy at all. All I was saying is that your source misrepresents the actual state of the scientific discussion. Presumably, because it has an agenda. And so do you, rather obviously.
Ofcouse a very small dose will not be very dangerous. Still it is believed to be harmful. This is the basis of the "as low as reasonably practicable/achievable" principle which is a guiding principle with respect to protection from ionizing radiation. Above website claims this a myth, i.e. there is not even a very small risk whatsoever from a small amount of radiation. This is not the mainstream opinion, which assumes that there is a risk proportional to the dose. And yes, this makes a difference: I.e. one X-ray is not a problem, but you should not have unnecessary X-rays because the risk accumulates. This is also relevant in the case of large release of radioactive into the environment. This is usually quickly diluted, so that the additional exposure to each person is extremly small. But because a very large number of persons might be affected, you can statistically calculate that some are expected to die as the direct result of this exposure.
Hysteria or not, as a physicist, I am more AGHAST by the fact that you think the blogs you cite somehow provide an impartial account of the facts. For exampe, it is the predominant scientific opinion that radiation is harmful at all levels. While this subject to discussion, your first blog simply claims this is a myth. Therefor it is misrepresenting the state of scientific knowledge and I would personally not trust this source even a little bit.
No, entanglement does not allow communication, because this would violate Einstein causality. Of course you could argue that the particles somehow communicate internally using faster-then-light communication in a preferred frame of reference, but this would be a new theory based on your own speculation.
Yes sqrt(-1) is what QM does, but the physicists never get to see it. The magic is completely shielded behind the unpredictable results of the measurements.
They prepare an entangled state using three spin 1/2 particles.
More specifically, a Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger state as a superposition of the all up and all down states (|UUU> - |DDD>) in the eigenbasis for the Paul matrix s_z. Each of them takes one particle and then measures with s_x or s_y corresponding to the card they are shown. While experimentally much harder to realize, the situation is much simpler than with two particles and Bell inequality.
No it is much more interesting. What you describe is just classical entanglement. Quantum entanglement is more interesting, because you can do things you can't do classically:
To see this, try to solve this riddle: A team of three persons is brought to the city of Zuerich and given the following challenge: They are allowed to discuss and then they will be brought to Paris, Rom, and Berlin, an either all of them will be shown a card with an X on it, or else, only one of them will be shown a card with an X and the other two of them will be shown a card with a Y. Each of them will answer with '-1' or '1', but they are not allowed to communicate by phone (or in any other way). If they have been shown three Xs, the product of all answers must be '1'. Else, the product of the answers must be '-1'. If the product of the answer is wrong, they will get killed (because good riddles have to be gruesome). What strategy does allow them to survive this challenge with certainty?
Hint: Only quantum physicists can do this.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for pointing this out! It was a typo: exports have been 59.9 TWh for 2010.
While it is true that Germany burns too much coal, this has not changed much over the years (and the US has still twice the CO2 production per capita as far as I know). Germany did reduce nuclear, but added a substantial amount of renewables in a very short amount of time which proves that this scales. I posted the numbers here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4531753&cid=45636919
It would also be news to me that electricity prices had ruined Germany's industry (and some industries are exempt from paying the additional fee for renewables anyway).
I think you are confusing total energy imports with electricity. Germany has net exports in electricity and this did not change even after shutting down 6(7) nuclear power plants. The missing power has indeed been replaced mostly by renewables [1]. It is true that the prices for electricity are high (among other reasons) because subventions for renewables are added as a fee. In contrast, subventions for nuclear and coal are/have been hidden in general taxes.
[1] I posted the numbers here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4531753&cid=45636919
No true. There was same shift from gas to ignites due to relative shift in prices, but the missing nuclear power has almost completely replaced by renewables:
2010 2011 2012
ignites (Braunkohle) 145.9 TWh 150.1 TWh 161.1 TWh
nuclear 140.6 TWh 108.0 TWh 99.5 TWh
coal 117.0 TWh 112.4 TWh 116.1 TWh
natural gas 89.3 TWh 86.1 TWh 75.5 TWh
oil 8.7 TWh 7.2 TWh 8.0 TWh
renewables 104.8 TWh 123.8 TWh 142.4 TWh
others 26.7 TWh 25.6 TWh 25.9 TWh
imports 42.2 TWh 49.7 TWh 44.2 TWh
exports 49.9 TWh 56.6 TWh 67.3 TWh
(net imports) -17.7 TWh -6.3 TWh -23.1 TWh
consumption 615.3 TWh 606.8 TWh 604.6 TWh
(source: http://ag-energiebilanzen.de/)
Waste is not a small problem. There is a salt mine in Germany where there were nuclear waste was stored. Turns out, this mine is not as safe as originally thought. The mine is instable and there is water inflow and the nuclear waste stored there has to be brought back to surface. The German parlament just passed a law about this. Estimated cost (tax payers of course) 4-6 billion Euro. This is the thing with nuclear energy: It seems such a nice solution. As long as you ignore all the details. Then it gets messy and expensive. Really expensive.
Thorium would be really expensive to develop further, take decades, and it is highly questionable whether it would ever become economically viable. The advantages are also not as clear as proponents make them out to be, and it would still be a finite resource (although more abundant than Uranium). It simply makes a lot more sense to invest some more money into an energy mix based on renewables where there are many proven technologies already in use today.
Well those better designs would need an insane amount of (goverrment) money to develop into something useful. This is the reason most of these research projects have been stopped in the past. Cost became totally out of control, while the prototypes still had lots of technical problems which made it very clear that much bigger further investments would be necessary in the future. For example, consider the history of the German AVR. It is considered a gigantic disaster. This is the problem with nuclear: In principle it looks promising, but then some problems occur. Solutions to these problems are proposed, but it gets much more expensive, then even more problems appear, ... In reality, it is huge mess and a money sink. And I think all the nuclear fanboys here on slashdot just underestimate the amount of engineering problems nuclear has by a few orders of magnitude.
For exampe, it is the predominant scientific opinion that radiation is harmful at all levels. While this subject to discussion, your first blog simply claims this is a myth. Therefor it is misrepresenting the state of scientific knowledge and I would personally not trust this source even a little bit.
Lissen up party people! DJ Galileo is in the house!
Do you choose your area of residence upon careful consideration of a map showing natural background radiation sources, which vary significantly? Would you refuse a medical procedure such as an X-ray? Have you ever refused to spend 4 hours in an airplane at 30,000 feet? If any of these are a NO, then whilst in the comfortable state of belief in the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis (LNT) you are living your life on a principle that there is such thing as 'acceptable risk'.
You are beating up a staw man. I never said there is no acceptable risk or even that low doses of radiation are not acceptable in some situations.
Also you are confusinga few things in a very fundamental way: The LNT is a theory based on our understanding the processes happening when ionizing radiation hits living cells. It can be used predict the risk for very low doses by extrapolating data obtained for higher doses. As such it does not tell what is an 'acceptable risk' is or not. It states that there is a risk proportional to the dose. This is what most experts believe is a reasonable good approximation of reality. If instead we would believe that there is no risk at low doses, we would tell people that they can X-rays just for fun and would not even have to think about 'acceptable risk'. Please read up about radiation protection and the term "As Low As Reasonably Achievable".
Ofcourse LNT might be wrong at very low doses and the extrapolation might be wrong. It probably needs some modification to take some non-linear effects into account. Still, there are very good reasons to believe that there is a small risk even at extremly low doses. Also please note that I did not comment about nuclear policy at all. All I was saying is that your source misrepresents the actual state of the scientific discussion. Presumably, because it has an agenda. And so do you, rather obviously.
Ofcouse a very small dose will not be very dangerous. Still it is believed to be harmful. This is the basis of the "as low as reasonably practicable/achievable" principle which is a guiding principle with respect to protection from ionizing radiation. Above website claims this a myth, i.e. there is not even a very small risk whatsoever from a small amount of radiation. This is not the mainstream opinion, which assumes that there is a risk proportional to the dose. And yes, this makes a difference: I.e. one X-ray is not a problem, but you should not have unnecessary X-rays because the risk accumulates. This is also relevant in the case of large release of radioactive into the environment. This is usually quickly diluted, so that the additional exposure to each person is extremly small. But because a very large number of persons might be affected, you can statistically calculate that some are expected to die as the direct result of this exposure.
Hysteria or not, as a physicist, I am more AGHAST by the fact that you think the blogs you cite somehow provide an impartial account of the facts. For exampe, it is the predominant scientific opinion that radiation is harmful at all levels. While this subject to discussion, your first blog simply claims this is a myth. Therefor it is misrepresenting the state of scientific knowledge and I would personally not trust this source even a little bit.
Exactly, you can coordinate but not communicate. Which is still allowed by causality and special relativity. Isn't it amazing?
No, entanglement does not allow communication, because this would violate Einstein causality. Of course you could argue that the particles somehow communicate internally using faster-then-light communication in a preferred frame of reference, but this would be a new theory based on your own speculation.
Yes sqrt(-1) is what QM does, but the physicists never get to see it. The magic is completely shielded behind the unpredictable results of the measurements.
They prepare an entangled state using three spin 1/2 particles. More specifically, a Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger state as a superposition of the all up and all down states (|UUU> - |DDD>) in the eigenbasis for the Paul matrix s_z. Each of them takes one particle and then measures with s_x or s_y corresponding to the card they are shown. While experimentally much harder to realize, the situation is much simpler than with two particles and Bell inequality.
My apologies. But if you try, you might actually learn something which apparently only very few people understand: Why QM is weird.
No it is much more interesting. What you describe is just classical entanglement. Quantum entanglement is more interesting, because you can do things you can't do classically: To see this, try to solve this riddle: A team of three persons is brought to the city of Zuerich and given the following challenge: They are allowed to discuss and then they will be brought to Paris, Rom, and Berlin, an either all of them will be shown a card with an X on it, or else, only one of them will be shown a card with an X and the other two of them will be shown a card with a Y. Each of them will answer with '-1' or '1', but they are not allowed to communicate by phone (or in any other way). If they have been shown three Xs, the product of all answers must be '1'. Else, the product of the answers must be '-1'. If the product of the answer is wrong, they will get killed (because good riddles have to be gruesome). What strategy does allow them to survive this challenge with certainty? Hint: Only quantum physicists can do this.
http://www.psych.uni-goettingen.de/home/ertel/ertel-dir/morehome/4gallerypast/4.04gravesofrenownscientists.html