hydro electric solar geothermal etc, etc. (in that context I was referring to wind, fusion, and even our dear e-cat assuming it isn't a scam).
geothermal absolutely has potential (at some point in the future) to replace nuclear fission, fusion is completely safe and although it is also nuclear I take it on faith that everyone realized in this context the (fission) was implied.
A combination of solar,hydro, and wind could absolutely be scaled up to replace nuclear fission *eventually* and at great cost due to storage requirements.
So you may pick whatever subset of those options you like and call them the ideal power generation scheme (though in truth, a dyson sphere/ring is probably ideal).
But then, if you'd actually read my posts instead of being a dipshit, you'd know that I also never said that any of those could completely replace nuclear fission. Saying so would be premature at best, since we're easily 20-50 years away from viably replacing fission.
Mmm no, I should be clear. I'm not at all convinced that we are in a position any time soon to stop using nuclear power... and I certainly don't think that hydro electric, solar, or wind are going to magically change that. (heavy geothermal actually has some potential to, but it's a long way off).
What I was trying to convey, perhaps poorly, is that we can't stop trying with non-nuclear options. There are safer options out there for generation and we have a duty to ourselves to research them with at least as much vigor as we do improved nuclear techniques.
Well they sure aren't going to be using it in the middle of the dessert.
On the other hand, there is absolutely no non-economical reason that costal towns and cities can't run (almost) entirely off of tidal generation. They're not cheap, but I never said they were (I said they were safe).
Niagara falls is also a very safe HE generator that isn't based on tides. You do need a large waterfall for that though.
You're effectively arguing against points I didn't make. As part of a complete solution to a power grid HE can absolutely be used (and is currently) both safely and effectively
Another poster already commented with the exact same point.
Yes, there are damaging and dangerous hydro electric schemes. There are also completely responsible and safe ones (ie. tidal).
Keep in mind that the full effects of chernobyl are still not really known environmentally (although nature seems to have enjoyed the reprieve from us and not minded the radioactivity too much). There is also the mining and eventual disposal of nuclear fuel. Aside from one or two seriously egregious cock-ups with HE generation nuclear is definitely more environmentally damaging.
I'm not saying you're wrong, because you're completely right. Every type of generation has potential dangers when used irresponsibly. The point is that even used *perfectly* nuclear (fission) is not as good as the ideal options.
Probably the simplest answer to this is that it would be expensive.
I mean that in a few ways, the notable two are putting things underground is just plain expensive; the second being that maintenance becomes a giant problem.
Basically putting a nuclear reactor (at least, the traditional design) underground would push the cost of that power higher than solar/wind/etc.
When it comes down to it people don't actually care about safety nearly as much as they do money.
As a side note, I'd encourage you to do some looking at the new generation nuclear plants if you're interested. They include such important design concepts as built-in automatic "oh fuck something went wrong eject the core" failsafes. The newest designs for nuke plants really are *insanely* safe, but they cost a lot of money to build
What do they think of nuclear power in comparison to the other options?
I don't think anyone was ever truly a fan of nuclear power, it's still way more dangerous than hydro electric, geothermal, solar, etc. etc. But it was the best of a bad set of options.
Can you point to where that's said? From what I read they used the earth as a filter to block out noise, I saw nothing regarding the events happening locally
Wait, unless I've missed something you just made an incredibly silly argument. They've detected something for the first time; whatever the explanation for the event is, saying "they'd have detected it already" is broken.
Well we've found the reason that you think solar is cheaper:
Storage is a red herring for now. It's simply not a problem for solar (PV)
No one who understands or even pretends to understand power generation would *ever* state that storage is a non-issue.
Storage is *the* problem with solar and will continue to be until either the PV cells themselves become almost free, or other methods step in (such as thermal salts which you so readily discount for completely incorrect reasons).
If solar cannot accommodate large amounts of the grid requirements both night and day it is worse than useless. To accommodate that need pushes it into more expensive territory.
Wind indeed works fairly well since you only need to smooth the valleys. It still has a storage issue for extended periods of low wind, but on the whole it's much more stable than solar; that's why wind is coming online in many areas. It's getting pretty close to being on-par with other generation techniques and within a few years it will be cheaper. Unfortunately it will still need backups or incredible storage systems before it can take on a serious amount of the grid.
Antimatter galaxies (or at least clumps) seem like they could also plausibly explain this. That's not an outright endorsement of the theory but I can't help but think that they've got insufficient evidence to show causal link.
They're saying: 1. lots of energy released (presumably when dark matter interacts) 2. anti-matter is created
An equally plausible interpretation is: 1. the anti-matter already exists 2. the interactions with small amounts of matter cause the energy release
I may have missed it, but I don't see anything to rule that possibility out. The primary objection to the anti-matter galaxy theory is that we don't see a lot of annihilation events; This could just as easily be those exact events.
from 2006 to 2010 solar has gone 0.2%->0.3%, wind has faired markedly better [1.8%->4.7%] as expected. Coal over that same time has dropped drastically which shows very clearly that they *are* bringing new power online; it just isn't primarily solar.
Wind is much cheaper than solar but runs up against the same problem of evening storage. Solar thermal is aiming to help that and maybe that'll be the tipping point I mentioned earlier.
These are reports directly from california. I didn't take the time to look into the others and I don't doubt that there are places that are moving completely to renewables... I do doubt that they're doing it because it's cheaper.
Hawaii, based completely on out-of-my-ass figuring, quite likely can and does get away with large scale wind and tidal generation (being an island). Niagara Falls, Ontario produces vast amounts of hydro electric power too, but that doesn't mean everything everywhere can just up and use HE generation.
I'd like to also restate at this point that I still think we *should* be going with renewables for all new capacity. The additional costs most definitely are outweighed by the benefits both long and short term. I'm only saying that I really don't think they're cheaper, and it's not like I've never looked into it.
Groupon abso-fucking-lutely runs the best deals for them, but it isn't their fault if a business doesn't have an attractive enough offer.
Most businesses around here *make* money on groupon deals. That's not just free advertising... that's getting *paid* for advertising. Those businesses somehow magically still manage to get groupon to run it.
She's a moron, and you're looking pretty dumb by defending her too.
You can also (at least around these parts) set a limit for groupons so that only X may be bought.
She's either very smart and has got not only tons of grouponers but also blogs from around the world to advertise for her on only ~$40,000, or very very dumb.
Do you have any study links (if there are any) re: internal usage?
My understanding of the antimicrobial nature of silver was that it essentially starved that bacteria that tried to live *on* it. Which I assumed would be rather ineffective except in topical situations...
I'm very interested in the possibility that there's more to it than that.
If you'd care to read you'd understand that they aren't expecting that to be the case.
They're looking to shorten the time from new bug to cure to ~2 weeks. So the bacteria can become resistant all they want, and the new ones have about 2 weeks to live.
Evolution isn't smart, so it doesn't stand up well against direct assault from intelligence. As yet we don't have a means of applying our intelligence directly to this problem and DARPA is looking to change that
You seem to have fallen victim to the classic evolution misunderstanding.
bacteria have been evolving for billions of years, and all of that means exactly squat when we come up with a completely novel, artificial weapon against them.
evolution is the act of random mutations surviving, so a bacteria from 3.5 billion years ago would have exactly the same chance of surviving DARPAs new weapon as today's would (not much).
As mentioned above, they really do want small businesses.
The big companies might have some extra money to toss at a problem, but they won't without good chances for return.
In this case "small businesses" translates roughly to "those crazy enough to risk economic ruin when they fail".
*note* I realize this post sounds a little negative, that is not the intent. I love DARPA and out of the grants they award has come some truly stunning stuff.
Phelps said the donation was a violation of the firmâ(TM)s privacy policies.
âoeIt was a mistake,â said Phelps. âoeThe employee did not believe there was any personal information on the papers.â
It doesn't sound like the manager was in any way involved in this. It sounds very much to me like the paralegal just took some paper over to the school.
Managers need to be crucified when there is a lapse in policy or reasonable management of staff. But one employee doing something wrong with full knowledge of policy and without clearing it through management first is no reason to send blame up the chain.
I should clarify... Fukashima was a fairly major disaster, but not on the scale of Chernobyl or anything. It won't be off limits for centuries or anything.
Slashdot Mirror
I specifically mentioned:
hydro electric
solar
geothermal
etc, etc. (in that context I was referring to wind, fusion, and even our dear e-cat assuming it isn't a scam).
geothermal absolutely has potential (at some point in the future) to replace nuclear fission, fusion is completely safe and although it is also nuclear I take it on faith that everyone realized in this context the (fission) was implied.
A combination of solar,hydro, and wind could absolutely be scaled up to replace nuclear fission *eventually* and at great cost due to storage requirements.
So you may pick whatever subset of those options you like and call them the ideal power generation scheme (though in truth, a dyson sphere/ring is probably ideal).
But then, if you'd actually read my posts instead of being a dipshit, you'd know that I also never said that any of those could completely replace nuclear fission. Saying so would be premature at best, since we're easily 20-50 years away from viably replacing fission.
Mmm no, I should be clear. I'm not at all convinced that we are in a position any time soon to stop using nuclear power... and I certainly don't think that hydro electric, solar, or wind are going to magically change that. (heavy geothermal actually has some potential to, but it's a long way off).
What I was trying to convey, perhaps poorly, is that we can't stop trying with non-nuclear options. There are safer options out there for generation and we have a duty to ourselves to research them with at least as much vigor as we do improved nuclear techniques.
Yes, because I clearly in all of my posts here only mentioned the one possible generation tactic.
Stop being a dumbass
Stupidity alert?
When did I say they could?
Oh, right. I didn't, you're just being an asshole.
Well they sure aren't going to be using it in the middle of the dessert.
On the other hand, there is absolutely no non-economical reason that costal towns and cities can't run (almost) entirely off of tidal generation. They're not cheap, but I never said they were (I said they were safe).
Niagara falls is also a very safe HE generator that isn't based on tides. You do need a large waterfall for that though.
You're effectively arguing against points I didn't make. As part of a complete solution to a power grid HE can absolutely be used (and is currently) both safely and effectively
Another poster already commented with the exact same point.
Yes, there are damaging and dangerous hydro electric schemes. There are also completely responsible and safe ones (ie. tidal).
Keep in mind that the full effects of chernobyl are still not really known environmentally (although nature seems to have enjoyed the reprieve from us and not minded the radioactivity too much). There is also the mining and eventual disposal of nuclear fuel. Aside from one or two seriously egregious cock-ups with HE generation nuclear is definitely more environmentally damaging.
I'm not saying you're wrong, because you're completely right. Every type of generation has potential dangers when used irresponsibly. The point is that even used *perfectly* nuclear (fission) is not as good as the ideal options.
Probably the simplest answer to this is that it would be expensive.
I mean that in a few ways, the notable two are putting things underground is just plain expensive; the second being that maintenance becomes a giant problem.
Basically putting a nuclear reactor (at least, the traditional design) underground would push the cost of that power higher than solar/wind/etc.
When it comes down to it people don't actually care about safety nearly as much as they do money.
As a side note, I'd encourage you to do some looking at the new generation nuclear plants if you're interested. They include such important design concepts as built-in automatic "oh fuck something went wrong eject the core" failsafes. The newest designs for nuke plants really are *insanely* safe, but they cost a lot of money to build
Ah, well... yes certain types of hydro electric are quite dangerous. There are also very safe and responsible versions (tidal, being a key one).
But point taken
What do they think of nuclear power in comparison to the other options?
I don't think anyone was ever truly a fan of nuclear power, it's still way more dangerous than hydro electric, geothermal, solar, etc. etc. But it was the best of a bad set of options.
Can you point to where that's said? From what I read they used the earth as a filter to block out noise, I saw nothing regarding the events happening locally
Wait, unless I've missed something you just made an incredibly silly argument. They've detected something for the first time; whatever the explanation for the event is, saying "they'd have detected it already" is broken.
I assumed you were a moron, but thanks for confirming it!
Well we've found the reason that you think solar is cheaper:
Storage is a red herring for now. It's simply not a problem for solar (PV)
No one who understands or even pretends to understand power generation would *ever* state that storage is a non-issue.
Storage is *the* problem with solar and will continue to be until either the PV cells themselves become almost free, or other methods step in (such as thermal salts which you so readily discount for completely incorrect reasons).
If solar cannot accommodate large amounts of the grid requirements both night and day it is worse than useless. To accommodate that need pushes it into more expensive territory.
Wind indeed works fairly well since you only need to smooth the valleys. It still has a storage issue for extended periods of low wind, but on the whole it's much more stable than solar; that's why wind is coming online in many areas. It's getting pretty close to being on-par with other generation techniques and within a few years it will be cheaper. Unfortunately it will still need backups or incredible storage systems before it can take on a serious amount of the grid.
Antimatter galaxies (or at least clumps) seem like they could also plausibly explain this. That's not an outright endorsement of the theory but I can't help but think that they've got insufficient evidence to show causal link.
They're saying:
1. lots of energy released (presumably when dark matter interacts)
2. anti-matter is created
An equally plausible interpretation is:
1. the anti-matter already exists
2. the interactions with small amounts of matter cause the energy release
I may have missed it, but I don't see anything to rule that possibility out. The primary objection to the anti-matter galaxy theory is that we don't see a lot of annihilation events; This could just as easily be those exact events.
Really you live in/have detailed knowledge of my local area? how exactly do you even know where that is?
What I said is exactly true, you're just out to show groupon is a meanie because they took your lunch money as a kid or something.
Sorry but I doubt your claims, based on this:
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/system_power/2006_gross_system_power.html
from 2006 to 2010 solar has gone 0.2%->0.3%, wind has faired markedly better [1.8%->4.7%] as expected. Coal over that same time has dropped drastically which shows very clearly that they *are* bringing new power online; it just isn't primarily solar.
Wind is much cheaper than solar but runs up against the same problem of evening storage. Solar thermal is aiming to help that and maybe that'll be the tipping point I mentioned earlier.
These are reports directly from california. I didn't take the time to look into the others and I don't doubt that there are places that are moving completely to renewables... I do doubt that they're doing it because it's cheaper.
Hawaii, based completely on out-of-my-ass figuring, quite likely can and does get away with large scale wind and tidal generation (being an island). Niagara Falls, Ontario produces vast amounts of hydro electric power too, but that doesn't mean everything everywhere can just up and use HE generation.
I'd like to also restate at this point that I still think we *should* be going with renewables for all new capacity. The additional costs most definitely are outweighed by the benefits both long and short term. I'm only saying that I really don't think they're cheaper, and it's not like I've never looked into it.
No this is such a load of crap it's insane.
Groupon abso-fucking-lutely runs the best deals for them, but it isn't their fault if a business doesn't have an attractive enough offer.
Most businesses around here *make* money on groupon deals. That's not just free advertising... that's getting *paid* for advertising. Those businesses somehow magically still manage to get groupon to run it.
She's a moron, and you're looking pretty dumb by defending her too.
You can also (at least around these parts) set a limit for groupons so that only X may be bought.
She's either very smart and has got not only tons of grouponers but also blogs from around the world to advertise for her on only ~$40,000, or very very dumb.
Do you have any study links (if there are any) re: internal usage?
My understanding of the antimicrobial nature of silver was that it essentially starved that bacteria that tried to live *on* it. Which I assumed would be rather ineffective except in topical situations...
I'm very interested in the possibility that there's more to it than that.
If you'd care to read you'd understand that they aren't expecting that to be the case.
They're looking to shorten the time from new bug to cure to ~2 weeks. So the bacteria can become resistant all they want, and the new ones have about 2 weeks to live.
Evolution isn't smart, so it doesn't stand up well against direct assault from intelligence. As yet we don't have a means of applying our intelligence directly to this problem and DARPA is looking to change that
You seem to have fallen victim to the classic evolution misunderstanding.
bacteria have been evolving for billions of years, and all of that means exactly squat when we come up with a completely novel, artificial weapon against them.
evolution is the act of random mutations surviving, so a bacteria from 3.5 billion years ago would have exactly the same chance of surviving DARPAs new weapon as today's would (not much).
As mentioned above, they really do want small businesses.
The big companies might have some extra money to toss at a problem, but they won't without good chances for return.
In this case "small businesses" translates roughly to "those crazy enough to risk economic ruin when they fail".
*note* I realize this post sounds a little negative, that is not the intent. I love DARPA and out of the grants they award has come some truly stunning stuff.
Well now hang on...
Phelps said the donation was a violation of the firmâ(TM)s privacy policies.
âoeIt was a mistake,â said Phelps. âoeThe employee did not believe there was any personal information on the papers.â
It doesn't sound like the manager was in any way involved in this. It sounds very much to me like the paralegal just took some paper over to the school.
Managers need to be crucified when there is a lapse in policy or reasonable management of staff. But one employee doing something wrong with full knowledge of policy and without clearing it through management first is no reason to send blame up the chain.
You're too dumb to be classified as a human, so I'm going to use the same approach I would with an animal and just walk away.
I should clarify... Fukashima was a fairly major disaster, but not on the scale of Chernobyl or anything. It won't be off limits for centuries or anything.