Perhaps I was a bit broad with safari, the issues I had to deal with were with the javascript engine, the most difficult issue was interacting with silverlight.
I still hated dealing with it, I don't think they could have made it any more of a pain in the ass to debug javascript in safari.
Sorry. Not that I can specifically reference. All my cross browser work was at a previous job, and I didn't keep my notes. Part of it was the way the javascript engine interfaced with a silverlight video player object.
As someone with experience in web design, I have equal hatred for both MS and Apple. Safari on the mac does not render the same as Safari on the PC. IE 6 emulation mode does not render the same as IE 6. Each one requires different special case javascript to do things that work as expected in Opera or Firefox. etc. The list goes on.
IIRC H1N1 has about twice the kill rate as conventional flu. But only because no one has antibodies for it yet. Once it passes through the population a few times, its death rate will subside.
A: we won't have to mine new uranium for centuries at the projected level of efficiency.
B: grind it up, submerge it in molten glass, and if you are really paranoid wrap it in concrete. That will easily last the 200 years it will take the material to become inert.
I'm sorry. I was focusing on waste that actually poses some kind of actual environmental or health hazard.
The volume of "low level waste" like used lab gloves is absolutely dwarfed by several orders of magnitude by the fly ash you mentioned. If we could eliminate that fly ash by building nuclear plants, the amount of low level hazardous waste we would have to deal with would be quite acceptable.
yes. I notice that you have not demonstrated reasoning for your assertion, much less any actual information to be conveyed. You basically just said "nuh uh!"
false. The only radioactive materials that bio accumulate are those that are nuclear analogs for certain elements found in organic matter. Strontium 90 and Plutonium are the major ones that I know about off hand.
no it is not. the coal industry is much more of a radiation hazard than the nuclear industry. The coal industry releases far more radiation than the nuclear energy does.
the integral fast reactor design produces waste of Sm-151 (half-life 90y) and Tc-99 (half-life 211,100) and the combined radioactivity of the final waste is return to the ores original value of natural uranium ore within 200 years.
Yes, Sm-151 is more dangerous than Pu-239, its also a lot easier to contain. We can make a concrete and steel box that will contain that threat for more than 200 years with great certainty. Its a lot harder to be sure about containing Pu-239 for a couple thousand years.
A: What new waste? Once we have enough feeder breeder reactors, all the waste generated by old reactors will be consumed, and the total quantity of that more appropriately named intermediate fuel will dwindle. After some time, the only "intermediate fuel" will be in the process of being reprocessed on-site. B: More radiation is released into the environment by coal burning plants than by nuclear waste.
Safety: More people die from the pollution of a single large coal burning plant every year than die from the radiation of every nuclear plant for the last 50 years.
Waste: Currently Coal puts more radiation into the environment every year than nuclear waste does. Even this waste can be processed, refined and reused until all that is left is some hot ash that can be contained for a few centuries until it becomes inert. It is the failure to continue nuclear development that is causing the waste issue.
answered questions: Why do we want it? elimination of CO2 and particulate waste from fossil fuels, energy independence from nations that in many cases rightfully hate us, removal of the hazard of unspent nuclear fuel by using it.
Hydro power destroys our rivers and is causing the extinction of many fish species. BioMass is selling our food supply for energy, raping the soil of nutrients and depleting our aquifers of water that wont be replenished for hundreds of thousands of years. Wind is unreliable and both wind and solar are easily damaged by harsh weather.
Nuclear funding has been slashed, projects abandoned, research discontinued for the last 30 years. You imagined investments in nuclear technology that could have been better spent do not exist.
Note: I am still pro solar and geothermal though. Combine them with a health dose of new nuclear power and we will be doing very well.
Fusion is awesome, let me know when it actually produces energy instead of sucking it up. By all means, keep up the research. But it isn't a solution that can actually be implemented.
Solar thermal uses no rare materials, it principally uses steel, aluminum, glass and copper. Using a heat retention reservoir of molten salt or oil and you can avoid the battery issue by keeping the boilers running at night and cloudy days on stored energy.
Its right up there next to feeder-breeder reactors in things I want to see happen with power generation.
I partially agree with you. Though Obama hasn't really shown his colors either way in regards to nuclear power (unless I missed that, been to busy to do much news recently), I expect him to do exactly what every president since carter has (including Reagan and both Bush's) and utterly ignore it as an option.
Photovoltaic solar is currently and will likely remain a niche market due to cost to manufacture and rareness of materials (rare earth metals, etc) for the higher performing panels.
Solar thermal is generally much better than PV for large scale energy production, as it uses proven technology, and does not require batteries to produce power at night or for a few days of reduced light (the thermal mass of molten salts can keep the boilers going for some time, depending on the design and insulation of course).
Nuclear plants have an advantage over solar thermal in that they are largely impervious to hazardous weather and use much less space for a given amount of power, particularly in more northern or overcast areas.
Solar thermal is a fairly good option for base load and massive scaling. Using a thermal reservoir allows continued energy production at night and cloudy days. It requires no exotic materials or manufacture processes like photovoltaic, it can use the same turbines, generators and boilers used in conventional plants. Its drawbacks are the space it takes up (not relevant in the desert) and being fragile to adverse weather (hail, tornadoes, thunderstorms, etc).
The facts are still on the side of the pro nuclear camp.
"Dangerous Nuclear Waste" of the old plants remains active for thousands of years, we can't really be sure to contain it for that long.
Once fully processed through feeder-breeder plants, the waste will be of two types. 1: almost non reactive with a half life of hundreds of thousands of years. Its about as dangerous as normal granite. 2: highly radioactive stuff with half lives of decades, the stuff will be decomposed and safe after about 2 centuries. We can build safe containment sure to last that long.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I was a bit broad with safari, the issues I had to deal with were with the javascript engine, the most difficult issue was interacting with silverlight.
I still hated dealing with it, I don't think they could have made it any more of a pain in the ass to debug javascript in safari.
Sorry. Not that I can specifically reference. All my cross browser work was at a previous job, and I didn't keep my notes. Part of it was the way the javascript engine interfaced with a silverlight video player object.
As someone with experience in web design, I have equal hatred for both MS and Apple. Safari on the mac does not render the same as Safari on the PC. IE 6 emulation mode does not render the same as IE 6. Each one requires different special case javascript to do things that work as expected in Opera or Firefox. etc. The list goes on.
IIRC H1N1 has about twice the kill rate as conventional flu. But only because no one has antibodies for it yet. Once it passes through the population a few times, its death rate will subside.
What? you mean like carbon sequestering for "safe" "clean" coal.
A: we won't have to mine new uranium for centuries at the projected level of efficiency.
B: grind it up, submerge it in molten glass, and if you are really paranoid wrap it in concrete. That will easily last the 200 years it will take the material to become inert.
I'm sorry. I was focusing on waste that actually poses some kind of actual environmental or health hazard.
The volume of "low level waste" like used lab gloves is absolutely dwarfed by several orders of magnitude by the fly ash you mentioned. If we could eliminate that fly ash by building nuclear plants, the amount of low level hazardous waste we would have to deal with would be quite acceptable.
yes. I notice that you have not demonstrated reasoning for your assertion, much less any actual information to be conveyed. You basically just said "nuh uh!"
false.
The only radioactive materials that bio accumulate are those that are nuclear analogs for certain elements found in organic matter. Strontium 90 and Plutonium are the major ones that I know about off hand.
no it is not. the coal industry is much more of a radiation hazard than the nuclear industry. The coal industry releases far more radiation than the nuclear energy does.
I was thinking more about godzilla...
Good. However lightweight "bullet-proof" armor won't really stop the average machine gun bullet.
the integral fast reactor design produces waste of Sm-151 (half-life 90y) and Tc-99 (half-life 211,100) and the combined radioactivity of the final waste is return to the ores original value of natural uranium ore within 200 years.
Yes, Sm-151 is more dangerous than Pu-239, its also a lot easier to contain. We can make a concrete and steel box that will contain that threat for more than 200 years with great certainty. Its a lot harder to be sure about containing Pu-239 for a couple thousand years.
absolutely, hell yes. bring it on right now. I would pay extra to live near a nuclear site.
A: What new waste? Once we have enough feeder breeder reactors, all the waste generated by old reactors will be consumed, and the total quantity of that more appropriately named intermediate fuel will dwindle. After some time, the only "intermediate fuel" will be in the process of being reprocessed on-site.
B: More radiation is released into the environment by coal burning plants than by nuclear waste.
Safety: More people die from the pollution of a single large coal burning plant every year than die from the radiation of every nuclear plant for the last 50 years.
Waste: Currently Coal puts more radiation into the environment every year than nuclear waste does. Even this waste can be processed, refined and reused until all that is left is some hot ash that can be contained for a few centuries until it becomes inert. It is the failure to continue nuclear development that is causing the waste issue.
answered questions: Why do we want it? elimination of CO2 and particulate waste from fossil fuels, energy independence from nations that in many cases rightfully hate us, removal of the hazard of unspent nuclear fuel by using it.
Hydro power destroys our rivers and is causing the extinction of many fish species.
BioMass is selling our food supply for energy, raping the soil of nutrients and depleting our aquifers of water that wont be replenished for hundreds of thousands of years.
Wind is unreliable and both wind and solar are easily damaged by harsh weather.
Nuclear funding has been slashed, projects abandoned, research discontinued for the last 30 years. You imagined investments in nuclear technology that could have been better spent do not exist.
Note: I am still pro solar and geothermal though. Combine them with a health dose of new nuclear power and we will be doing very well.
Fusion is awesome, let me know when it actually produces energy instead of sucking it up. By all means, keep up the research. But it isn't a solution that can actually be implemented.
Solar thermal uses no rare materials, it principally uses steel, aluminum, glass and copper. Using a heat retention reservoir of molten salt or oil and you can avoid the battery issue by keeping the boilers running at night and cloudy days on stored energy.
Its right up there next to feeder-breeder reactors in things I want to see happen with power generation.
That sounds a lot more like the fossil fuel industry to me.
Unfortunately, I fear you are right. :(
I partially agree with you. Though Obama hasn't really shown his colors either way in regards to nuclear power (unless I missed that, been to busy to do much news recently), I expect him to do exactly what every president since carter has (including Reagan and both Bush's) and utterly ignore it as an option.
Photovoltaic solar is currently and will likely remain a niche market due to cost to manufacture and rareness of materials (rare earth metals, etc) for the higher performing panels.
Solar thermal is generally much better than PV for large scale energy production, as it uses proven technology, and does not require batteries to produce power at night or for a few days of reduced light (the thermal mass of molten salts can keep the boilers going for some time, depending on the design and insulation of course).
Nuclear plants have an advantage over solar thermal in that they are largely impervious to hazardous weather and use much less space for a given amount of power, particularly in more northern or overcast areas.
Solar thermal is a fairly good option for base load and massive scaling. Using a thermal reservoir allows continued energy production at night and cloudy days. It requires no exotic materials or manufacture processes like photovoltaic, it can use the same turbines, generators and boilers used in conventional plants. Its drawbacks are the space it takes up (not relevant in the desert) and being fragile to adverse weather (hail, tornadoes, thunderstorms, etc).
absolutely correct.
The facts are still on the side of the pro nuclear camp.
"Dangerous Nuclear Waste" of the old plants remains active for thousands of years, we can't really be sure to contain it for that long.
Once fully processed through feeder-breeder plants, the waste will be of two types.
1: almost non reactive with a half life of hundreds of thousands of years. Its about as dangerous as normal granite.
2: highly radioactive stuff with half lives of decades, the stuff will be decomposed and safe after about 2 centuries. We can build safe containment sure to last that long.
Nope, it will increase the need to build more feeder-breeder reactors to use up the 99% fuel content remaining in that so called "nuclear waste".
I vote for nuclear power in my backyard. I welcome it with open arms. Hell, I wouldn't mind a couple hundred watt generator in my basement.