The public was never allowed to attend portions of meetings where safeguards info was presented. That has not changed. The fact that something so obvious eluded you gives me a better understanding of your behavior. You are as predictable as the nightly shutdown of solar power.
Your ignorance in glaring. In reality, there has been very little change in the way the NRC handles safeguards information since before 9/11. It was of course evaluated like everything, and undergoes occasional refinement, but the basic approach has been adequate and remains the same. If anything, other departments of government took note of how the NRC handles safeguards info.
I suppose, you could explain exactly what changes you think took place in their handling of this information since 9-11? I'm sure you can coherently explain it on your own, without the need to simply sling links, correct?
I have my own experience, points and opinions, I don't need to copy others', particularly in a mindless fashion. You just sling links, which requires little thought or effort of any kind. Its kind of pathetic in my opinion.
Why do we get a gloom and doom post on the front page from this guy every day?
Besides, this is a non-story:
He doesn't care about the content, the agenda is to submit items in quantity and hope many just read the headlines. Unfortunately, some of those that accept articles here are willing to oblige that behavior.
So, three times in three years, hackers get by the first line of defense (humans) and access some servers. They are identified and stopped each time. Not too bad considering the number of nutjobs out there that target them. It might actually be considered impressive. The NRC hires a lot of contractors, so the human element will always be a challenge, just like any other organization of that nature.
The funny thing is, most NRC information is publicly available through their on-line document library. There is a very small amount of redacted intellectual property from various vendors that one might get a hold of, but any of those items are not really much different than the public information or useful to competitors. Doubts are any of these hackers would be able to do anything with it, as competitors generally already know what each other really are doing.
Safeguards & security information could theoretically be of value to a terrorist, but is not kept on any of these common servers. It is kept in isolated, stand-alone file rooms with isolated individual computers & file cabinets and controlled access.
In addition, it would make sense for certain on-line accounts to provide options for access in case of death or incapacitation. Particularly those with backup data storage, and probably email as well.
I wonder if they have any issues with moisture from constantly cycling in outside air? Its being heated, so I guess it won't condense, but still seems like it could be a concern over the long term. Is the air filtered? Particulates would be another concern, or would they just do some sort of cleaning?
It is that simple. Unfortunately there are too many people that listen to this guy because he tells them exactly what they want to hear. He makes good money doing it, kind of like the PTL Club of green energy.
If they really wanted to help traffic, they would install green light cameras that took pictures of people who sit still well after the light turns green, then post them to a public shame wall.
That is what you derive from your cherry picking. Fine. There are plenty more legitimate sources that discuss the range of real issues, and give indication of the costs associated. The fact that your Rocky Mountain man doesn't even come close to recognizing them, much less address them on any level, indicated he's no expert, which was my original point.
Certainly some load management can help and I've never said it would not, but there is a point of practicality where the costs get unmanageable, and/or the impact on usage becomes a big problem. That's one example of the kind of considerations any solution must include and directly address. Glossing over, cherry picking, and slinging links to things non-credible articles just because they align with how you would like things to be isn't being part of any type of solution. You are a distraction and an annoyance. Dig in to the real challenges, discuss them openly, and consider them when proposing solutions, and then maybe you can add value to the the discussion. But I imagine you'll continue to do what you do.
On that note, I'll leave you with the last reply, as I have already wasted too much time.
As a software engineer, you should know to stick with what you know. You clearly don't understand the issues involved with grid management, your oversimplifications give it away. If you've never heard of VAR flow management & don't know how that affects grid frequency, don't know the difference between inductive and resistive loads and their impacts on the grid, and don't understand the fundamental differences between the distribution part of the grid, the transmission part, and how those interact, then you are welcome to engage me with some point that makes sense.
I won't talk about software with you, even though I am a long time computer geek, because I know where my limits are. I'd be more likely to ask you questions.
Why would any respected organization or individual response to this guy's drivel.
Plenty out there to read, that is credible and provide a glimpse at some of the issues.
Here's some stuff to start with to give you a sense of what needs to be considered, not overlooked.
https://www.nae.edu/Publicatio...http://www05.abb.com/global/sc...
So, you are basically repeating what this guys says about his own qualifications, and his misconception on how effective load shifting can be in a practical sense, and somehow feel you are making a point?
I am already dug in. I am an electrical engineer. I know power transmission, distribution and generation. I know when people understand the basic issues at hand and I can sense BS when I see it. I don't care if you believe me or not, you shouldn't, I'm just a guy on a message board. But, you can check on this guy's background and see he has no experience in power engineering or generation, nor anyone else in his self initiated "institute". If writing papers and speaking at places is your idea of an expert qualification, then fine. Follow him blindly. Don't question anything he says. He is, after all, an almost physicist, and a scientist even! And he makes pretty charts and diagrams ta boot! You are right, he's the all knowing energy savant, you should worship at his feet.
So, one event he's not even registered for (according to previous post), one is sponsored by his own institute, and the third is a college 'summit' set up by a student committee. I didn't say this guy won't get some play, he will, but that doesn't make him an expert.
For the time I wasted responding to your drivel, I can only blame myself. See ya.,
Sure, technology shifts have costs, and they are not ignored, they must be understood and considered, which is my point. There is a point where cost becomes a barrier. It is easy to propose idealistic solutions and ignore the total cost.
As to phase change materials, that technology exists but hasn't yet become cost effective. Maybe someday it will be able to help a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
The public was never allowed to attend portions of meetings where safeguards info was presented. That has not changed. The fact that something so obvious eluded you gives me a better understanding of your behavior. You are as predictable as the nightly shutdown of solar power.
If you think that is clever, you are fooling yourself. I hope you are more honest with your solar customers than you are with yourself.
Yup, just as I figured. No point, a link to go with it.
You could have found it on your own;
http://slashdot.org/~Mr+D+from...
Actually, I have submitted articles. I just don't try to drive the content of this site to fulfill and agenda. Its simply a scummy thing to do.
Your ignorance in glaring. In reality, there has been very little change in the way the NRC handles safeguards information since before 9/11. It was of course evaluated like everything, and undergoes occasional refinement, but the basic approach has been adequate and remains the same. If anything, other departments of government took note of how the NRC handles safeguards info.
I suppose, you could explain exactly what changes you think took place in their handling of this information since 9-11? I'm sure you can coherently explain it on your own, without the need to simply sling links, correct?
I have my own experience, points and opinions, I don't need to copy others', particularly in a mindless fashion. You just sling links, which requires little thought or effort of any kind. Its kind of pathetic in my opinion.
Why do we get a gloom and doom post on the front page from this guy every day? Besides, this is a non-story:
He doesn't care about the content, the agenda is to submit items in quantity and hope many just read the headlines. Unfortunately, some of those that accept articles here are willing to oblige that behavior.
So, three times in three years, hackers get by the first line of defense (humans) and access some servers. They are identified and stopped each time. Not too bad considering the number of nutjobs out there that target them. It might actually be considered impressive. The NRC hires a lot of contractors, so the human element will always be a challenge, just like any other organization of that nature.
The funny thing is, most NRC information is publicly available through their on-line document library. There is a very small amount of redacted intellectual property from various vendors that one might get a hold of, but any of those items are not really much different than the public information or useful to competitors. Doubts are any of these hackers would be able to do anything with it, as competitors generally already know what each other really are doing.
Safeguards & security information could theoretically be of value to a terrorist, but is not kept on any of these common servers. It is kept in isolated, stand-alone file rooms with isolated individual computers & file cabinets and controlled access.
I don't see really why this is any kind of news.
In addition, it would make sense for certain on-line accounts to provide options for access in case of death or incapacitation. Particularly those with backup data storage, and probably email as well.
Oh, come on; everything's more futuristic in a geodesic dome.
Pyramids used to be the future.
I wonder if they have any issues with moisture from constantly cycling in outside air? Its being heated, so I guess it won't condense, but still seems like it could be a concern over the long term. Is the air filtered? Particulates would be another concern, or would they just do some sort of cleaning?
The cost of caring for elderly _____ is expected to rise;
...and the list goes on.
1) Nuclear Plants
2) Houses
3) Windmills
4) Cars
5) Solar Installations
6) People
7) Factories
8) Roads
9) Bridges
Another amazingly useful submission to slashdot.
It is that simple. Unfortunately there are too many people that listen to this guy because he tells them exactly what they want to hear. He makes good money doing it, kind of like the PTL Club of green energy.
If they really wanted to help traffic, they would install green light cameras that took pictures of people who sit still well after the light turns green, then post them to a public shame wall.
That is what you derive from your cherry picking. Fine. There are plenty more legitimate sources that discuss the range of real issues, and give indication of the costs associated. The fact that your Rocky Mountain man doesn't even come close to recognizing them, much less address them on any level, indicated he's no expert, which was my original point.
Certainly some load management can help and I've never said it would not, but there is a point of practicality where the costs get unmanageable, and/or the impact on usage becomes a big problem. That's one example of the kind of considerations any solution must include and directly address. Glossing over, cherry picking, and slinging links to things non-credible articles just because they align with how you would like things to be isn't being part of any type of solution. You are a distraction and an annoyance. Dig in to the real challenges, discuss them openly, and consider them when proposing solutions, and then maybe you can add value to the the discussion. But I imagine you'll continue to do what you do.
On that note, I'll leave you with the last reply, as I have already wasted too much time.
no, there is no 'agreeing or disagreeing' in those papers, they are a discussion of the challenges which you so conveniently ignore,
As a software engineer, you should know to stick with what you know. You clearly don't understand the issues involved with grid management, your oversimplifications give it away. If you've never heard of VAR flow management & don't know how that affects grid frequency, don't know the difference between inductive and resistive loads and their impacts on the grid, and don't understand the fundamental differences between the distribution part of the grid, the transmission part, and how those interact, then you are welcome to engage me with some point that makes sense.
I won't talk about software with you, even though I am a long time computer geek, because I know where my limits are. I'd be more likely to ask you questions.
Why would any respected organization or individual response to this guy's drivel. Plenty out there to read, that is credible and provide a glimpse at some of the issues. Here's some stuff to start with to give you a sense of what needs to be considered, not overlooked. https://www.nae.edu/Publicatio... http://www05.abb.com/global/sc...
OK, you wanted a link. I'm bending my general rule just for you.
http://www.mikehourigan.com/ke...
Its always refreshing to see that some people 'get it' and can present fluent points to back it up. thx.
So, you are basically repeating what this guys says about his own qualifications, and his misconception on how effective load shifting can be in a practical sense, and somehow feel you are making a point?
I am already dug in. I am an electrical engineer. I know power transmission, distribution and generation. I know when people understand the basic issues at hand and I can sense BS when I see it. I don't care if you believe me or not, you shouldn't, I'm just a guy on a message board. But, you can check on this guy's background and see he has no experience in power engineering or generation, nor anyone else in his self initiated "institute". If writing papers and speaking at places is your idea of an expert qualification, then fine. Follow him blindly. Don't question anything he says. He is, after all, an almost physicist, and a scientist even! And he makes pretty charts and diagrams ta boot! You are right, he's the all knowing energy savant, you should worship at his feet.
So, one event he's not even registered for (according to previous post), one is sponsored by his own institute, and the third is a college 'summit' set up by a student committee. I didn't say this guy won't get some play, he will, but that doesn't make him an expert.
For the time I wasted responding to your drivel, I can only blame myself. See ya.,
Sure, technology shifts have costs, and they are not ignored, they must be understood and considered, which is my point. There is a point where cost becomes a barrier. It is easy to propose idealistic solutions and ignore the total cost.
As to phase change materials, that technology exists but hasn't yet become cost effective. Maybe someday it will be able to help a bit.