What escapes me is the importance of this revelation. Online polls are about as unscientific and irrelevant as you can get in the polling world.
The importance is online polls were repeatedly cited by the Trump campaign to show support for Trump. Yes, even though they are unscientific and frequently gamed.
With our media's philosophy of "we can't possibly point out just how stupid this is", stories were written as if Trump was as popular as the online polls indicated. Or at least there were stories about how online polls conflicted with real polls.
Which then builds a narrative about a candidate. Which then influences who people vote for.
Tip: If you think you've come across a totally awesome legal loophole based on using certain words, you haven't come across a loophole and the judge will be very annoyed at your pedantry.
SWIFT (the network that actually does inter-bank transfers) crosses state lines. So unless your bank's processing center and the destination bank's processing center happen to be in the same state, the transaction will cross state lines.
Also, credit card purchases are not actually processed in your state (unless you're in SD or DE). Even then the money from the credit card company will probably cross state lines when it is sent to the seller's bank.
Finally, your bank may contract out payment processing of various types. And that contractor may or may not be located within the same state as your bank.
The reason this is impossible for the consumer to deal with is there's no way for the consumer to know the location(s) where their transaction will be processed. Even if the bank processes most transactions within your state, the consumer can't guarantee that a particular transaction was not sent to a backup site in another state.
CO2 in the atmosphere is not economically viable either... and yet here we are.
You're kidding, right? Dumping CO2 in the atmosphere is extremely economically viable. That's why we've been doing it for hundreds of years.
It's going to cause problems in the future, but not for power plants dumping CO2 into the atmosphere....at least if those power plants aren't low-lying.
The knowledge is already out there and is NOT being shared with those who are considered "untrustworthy"
The knowledge is not particularly complicated, and not that hard to work out from the fundamental physics that is public. Assuming they can build a research reactor.
And a reprocessing plant would be a lovely research reactor.
Also, there's treaties involved in the countries that are already in the "nuclear club". So it's not just "keeping it away from Iran".
What is nice is that one reprocessing plant could create fuel for the entire world
if you pretend shipping nuclear fuel over all over the planet is safe, and doesn't release CO2. (Long-range shipping isn't going to be leaving fossil fuels anytime soon. They need the energy density.)
I guess you can have your acidic oceans and humid dank atmosphere brightened up by eventually having enough solar power to reduce the CO2 output into the atmosphere.
So much better to start planning to build nuclear plants that won't come online for 20-30 years while doing nothing.
No, Macron wants to do that. The report I quoted was the people doing the math and showing his plan isn't economically viable. Which is why his plan hasn't gone anywhere.
These hopeful projections -- backed by no real data, I might add
Except the historical trend of pricing......
In that amount of time we will certainly have entirely new ways of working with nuclear energy too
You guys made this promise when pebble beds were all the rage and totally going to change everything. How'd that turn out? Oh wait...not so well. And that...not so well repeated over and over again for every exciting new nuclear technology. How 'bout we stop pretending the next one will be the one that breaks the trend, and wait for you folks to actually break the trend?
There is no time in recorded history that human energy consumption has ever dropped -- ever
You have somewhat of a point about waste, which is not nil -- but it would be vastly improved over today's situation, and I trust people like the French to come up with real-world solutions, as they have for many decades now.
....except for coming up with a solution for waste for decades now.
With PV and battery storage, we also have the issue of "rare earth" minerals
There are no rare earth metals required for solar panels, nor in lithium batteries....and that's assuming we'd be dumb enough to use lithium chemistry in a grid-scale battery. (When size and weight don't matter, use something cheaper)
You're probably thinking of neodymium magnets in some wind turbines, but ferrite gets the job done there too. Just a little larger and slightly less efficient.
Yes, because everyone knows that once batteries go dead, we just pop them in the microwave and eat them to avoid pollution.
And we dispose of nuclear waste by.........?
Btw, reprocessing isn't going to be the solution. Reprocessing plants are nuclear weapons plants, so they're limited by treaties and who gets to be in the "nuclear club".
US already has nuclear weapons, therefore they're a viable solution in the US.
The US also has treaty obligations that restrict reprocessing. So no, it isn't a viable solution at this time. So do most of the other countries you listed.
The non-proliferation argument is basically bullshit, especially since states that already have weapons can reprocess for states that don't.
Yeah, it's not like ships ever fail to reach their destination for a variety of reasons. And nobody would love a ship full of depleted fuel as a dirty bomb.
Also, shipping isn't going to be getting off fossil fuels anytime soon. So, you're gonna have to include all that CO2 shipping spent fuel around the world, forever, as part of your "carbon neutral" solution.
and develop a rational policy to reprocess nuclear waste
Reprocessing plants are also nuclear weapons plants. Any rational policy would forbid their global use, much less widespread use. Which means you can't use reprocessing as a way to get rid of spent fuel.
You mean the country that's abandoned plants under construction? That says new nuclear plants aren't economically viable? Do you really want us to ask them?
Also, your education seems to have left out what to do with the waste. And no, you can't reprocess it all. First, it's not all spent fuel. Second, a reprocessing plant is also a nuclear weapons plant, which means it's not a practical global solution.
You can complain when you come up with a way to handle the waste stream.
And no, we can't use reprocessing for it all. First, a big chunk of the waste isn't fuel. Second, reprocessing plants are also nuclear weapons plants. So they're not a viable global solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh...Cohen wasn't a candidate for anything. It appears he was trying to get a date or something.
The 2016 election result was within all the major polling group's margin of error.
Trump needed to run the board in the rust belt. It was unlikely, but possible. Polls showed it unlikely, but possible.
10k Clinton supporters show up in MI instead of staying home, and Trump loses. They stayed home.
It helps to make people like you think scientific polls have the same tenuous relationship with reality as online polls.
For example, the 2016 election results were within all the big pollster's MOE.
What escapes me is the importance of this revelation. Online polls are about as unscientific and irrelevant as you can get in the polling world.
The importance is online polls were repeatedly cited by the Trump campaign to show support for Trump. Yes, even though they are unscientific and frequently gamed.
With our media's philosophy of "we can't possibly point out just how stupid this is", stories were written as if Trump was as popular as the online polls indicated. Or at least there were stories about how online polls conflicted with real polls.
Which then builds a narrative about a candidate. Which then influences who people vote for.
If you build nuclear plants, that power is too expensive to use in creating hydrocarbons from CO2.
Also, bunker fuel is not methane. It's way harder to make from atmospheric CO2.
A province is legally considered a state.
Tip: If you think you've come across a totally awesome legal loophole based on using certain words, you haven't come across a loophole and the judge will be very annoyed at your pedantry.
Only if the game is set up such that you can count cards.
Tip: No online gambling site sets up the game such that you can count cards. They're all multi-deck and reshuffled every hand.
SWIFT (the network that actually does inter-bank transfers) crosses state lines. So unless your bank's processing center and the destination bank's processing center happen to be in the same state, the transaction will cross state lines.
Also, credit card purchases are not actually processed in your state (unless you're in SD or DE). Even then the money from the credit card company will probably cross state lines when it is sent to the seller's bank.
Finally, your bank may contract out payment processing of various types. And that contractor may or may not be located within the same state as your bank.
The reason this is impossible for the consumer to deal with is there's no way for the consumer to know the location(s) where their transaction will be processed. Even if the bank processes most transactions within your state, the consumer can't guarantee that a particular transaction was not sent to a backup site in another state.
Time to construct after breaking ground is not time to build the plant from planning stages and site selection.
Time to construct after breaking ground is not time to build the plant from planning stages and site selection. Even in China.
CO2 in the atmosphere is not economically viable either... and yet here we are.
You're kidding, right? Dumping CO2 in the atmosphere is extremely economically viable. That's why we've been doing it for hundreds of years.
It's going to cause problems in the future, but not for power plants dumping CO2 into the atmosphere....at least if those power plants aren't low-lying.
The knowledge is already out there and is NOT being shared with those who are considered "untrustworthy"
The knowledge is not particularly complicated, and not that hard to work out from the fundamental physics that is public. Assuming they can build a research reactor.
And a reprocessing plant would be a lovely research reactor.
Also, there's treaties involved in the countries that are already in the "nuclear club". So it's not just "keeping it away from Iran".
What is nice is that one reprocessing plant could create fuel for the entire world
if you pretend shipping nuclear fuel over all over the planet is safe, and doesn't release CO2. (Long-range shipping isn't going to be leaving fossil fuels anytime soon. They need the energy density.)
I guess you can have your acidic oceans and humid dank atmosphere brightened up by eventually having enough solar power to reduce the CO2 output into the atmosphere.
So much better to start planning to build nuclear plants that won't come online for 20-30 years while doing nothing.
That's funny . . . looks like they're expanding 19 existing sites
No, Macron wants to do that. The report I quoted was the people doing the math and showing his plan isn't economically viable. Which is why his plan hasn't gone anywhere.
These hopeful projections -- backed by no real data, I might add
Except the historical trend of pricing......
In that amount of time we will certainly have entirely new ways of working with nuclear energy too
You guys made this promise when pebble beds were all the rage and totally going to change everything. How'd that turn out? Oh wait...not so well. And that ...not so well repeated over and over again for every exciting new nuclear technology. How 'bout we stop pretending the next one will be the one that breaks the trend, and wait for you folks to actually break the trend?
There is no time in recorded history that human energy consumption has ever dropped -- ever
Uh......you sure 'bout that?
You have somewhat of a point about waste, which is not nil -- but it would be vastly improved over today's situation, and I trust people like the French to come up with real-world solutions, as they have for many decades now.
....except for coming up with a solution for waste for decades now.
With PV and battery storage, we also have the issue of "rare earth" minerals
There are no rare earth metals required for solar panels, nor in lithium batteries....and that's assuming we'd be dumb enough to use lithium chemistry in a grid-scale battery. (When size and weight don't matter, use something cheaper)
You're probably thinking of neodymium magnets in some wind turbines, but ferrite gets the job done there too. Just a little larger and slightly less efficient.
Yes, because everyone knows that once batteries go dead, we just pop them in the microwave and eat them to avoid pollution.
And we dispose of nuclear waste by.........?
Btw, reprocessing isn't going to be the solution. Reprocessing plants are nuclear weapons plants, so they're limited by treaties and who gets to be in the "nuclear club".
It might be more useful to invest in, for example, carbon sequestration tech in the short term instead
Trees have already been invented.
The National Ignition facility is also dangerous as it means they will likely lose containment
Uh.....they ran it at full power starting in 2012. We're still here, and there were no containment failures nor underground ignition.
Ya might wanna cut back on the physics theories from video games.
US already has nuclear weapons, therefore they're a viable solution in the US.
The US also has treaty obligations that restrict reprocessing. So no, it isn't a viable solution at this time. So do most of the other countries you listed.
The non-proliferation argument is basically bullshit, especially since states that already have weapons can reprocess for states that don't.
Yeah, it's not like ships ever fail to reach their destination for a variety of reasons. And nobody would love a ship full of depleted fuel as a dirty bomb.
Also, shipping isn't going to be getting off fossil fuels anytime soon. So, you're gonna have to include all that CO2 shipping spent fuel around the world, forever, as part of your "carbon neutral" solution.
Your stat starts from breaking ground. My stat starts at the planning/site selection stage.
It takes thirty years because most of it is spent fighting off nuisance law suits and quasi-astroturfed protests from the likes of the Sierra Club.
This theory breaks down when you remember it still takes 30 years in countries that are not the United States.
and develop a rational policy to reprocess nuclear waste
Reprocessing plants are also nuclear weapons plants. Any rational policy would forbid their global use, much less widespread use. Which means you can't use reprocessing as a way to get rid of spent fuel.
Ask the French
You mean the country that's abandoned plants under construction? That says new nuclear plants aren't economically viable? Do you really want us to ask them?
Also, your education seems to have left out what to do with the waste. And no, you can't reprocess it all. First, it's not all spent fuel. Second, a reprocessing plant is also a nuclear weapons plant, which means it's not a practical global solution.
You can complain when you come up with a way to handle the waste stream.
And no, we can't use reprocessing for it all. First, a big chunk of the waste isn't fuel. Second, reprocessing plants are also nuclear weapons plants. So they're not a viable global solution.
The waste stream of nuclear also blows the pants of batteries.
There are alternative nuclear technologies under development. They need better support and investment.
This is exactly what they said about pebble beds. And then we built them. And they turnout out to be awful in practice.
That pattern has repeated itself with every exciting new nuclear technology to date.
With that track record, putting all our eggs in the exciting new nuclear technology basket would be insane.
To reach the target within three decades, the world would have to add about 3.3 trillion more kilowatt-hours of clean energy every year.
It takes about 30 years to build one nuclear power plant.
When arguing that an alternative is too slow to construct, you really shouldn't be pushing something that is even slower to construct.