There are plenty of inland plants. Yes, some coastal plant could affected in decades if waters rise at the worst predicted rates, but the point is that everything else on the coast will also be affected. Its not a nuclear issue.
BTW, plants are not sited on the coast to "limit the risk of radiation exposure over land".
What does this have to do with nuclear? Nothing. Here's news.....sea rise will impact solar installations that are on the coast. It will also affect donut shops.
Is the solar lobby really this desperate? Why are the stupidest articles with desperate attempts to twist reality to make some kind of statement about nuclear energy generally posted by the same person?
How do you know? Did the general public know what was going on at hanford when it was active? or did the horrible details only come out later?
The "cold war" programs that were the greatest contributor to the problems are no longer in place, or have been heavily re-tasked. Where in that past that behavior was routine, today it is criminal. There is a regulatory structure in place now that didn't exist 50 years ago that tightly controls waste just as in the public sector. The major facilities that have capability to produce such waste are generally known, it would be difficult to hide any output.
One could always imagine that there is some super secret program going on where they are just dumping waste and burying it, and its a negative nobody can prove. But from a practical standpoint, it would be a losing proposition for all involved these days and there is no reason to risk it. Actually, our federal labs & workers these days are very environmentally & safety conscious.
They are the last real competitor to terrestrial cable tv.
My thoughts as well. Not to mention they have inside track on NFL Sunday Ticket. Since AT&T has the wireless broadband infrastructure and also DSL, they are the only company that will be able to keep Comcast/TWC in check.
However the man made activity that has a huge impact here is fire fighting. This has been known for many decades. The problem is that the natural cycle of fires leads to smaller fires. These smaller fires prevent fuel from accumulating and they provide a patchwork of natural firebreaks to a degree......
Excellent point, that was one of my first thoughts as I read the headline. Its claims like this that cause many people that exercise common sense to raise doubts about all GW claims. Alarmists would do us all a favor and tone it down a bit.
The problem is they were not stored in engineered facilities. There are many kinds of waste they are dealing with, and each type requires different solutions. Had they spent as much time and money engineering the waste facilities as they did on weapons development and related research, there wouldn't be anything near the mess they have now.
There is a real mess with a history that goes back to the cold war and years of so called "priorities" that gave them an excuse to just leave dumps, pools, and tanks full of all kinds of bad stuff, including radioactive waste.
There is cleanup work underway, its been fairly steady since at least the early 90's, but the bureaucracy and mentality of establishment-ism kills momentum and makes everything harder than it has to be. Lots of people getting paid to sit around and "manage", few actually doing the work. In defense of some, the mess is so bad that they have to work out very elaborate solutions and move slowly to prove they are working. Setbacks happen. But its way too slow. There are too many people that know they'll keep getting a paycheck if they drag it out.
Fortunately, we are no longer creating more messes like Hanford, Rocky Flats, etc.
It depends on how you define 'deserve'. If you define it as getting the appropriate & expected result of one's actions, then I'd say he deserved it, as you should expect to get killed if you raise a gun at a cop. If by deserve you mean he got an appropriate punishment for his action, then I'd say he didn't deserve it.
From the document, it says for this training excersize, "we elected to use a completely impossible scenarios that could never be mistaken as a 'real plan'.
He has a point. Within the citing for rejection is the statement;......
" and worse from the climate sceptics media side. "
It indicates a possible bias, and media reaction should never be a criteria for determining what has scientific merit.
Its also interesting that they guy has a reasonably 'reputable' career history, and also is quite up-front about his views. Yet this one instance is enough for many folks here to trash him, call him a crackpot and other names.
Maybe his paper is total crap. I guess he's got enough attention to get it circulated by other means if he wants.
Are submissions that support the generally accepted views on GWT given the same level of scrutiny? They could do some good to show similar rejections of those papers.
The question in the title should read " fuel cell or battery" not "fuel cell or electric".
Why don't we wait till we have an even remotely cost and performance effective fuel cell & fuel storage system for this purpose before asking the question.
^what you are proposing is not too much different from when they "de-regulated" the long distance phone companies, but then required local carriers to allow access to their infrastructure. Its an interesting approach with a host of impacts, both good and bad, although it has nothing to do with the suggestion that profits be regulated, which was what my responses were about.
State and local governments generally are at the heart of regulation of utilities at the service level. Unfortunately, they've signed their souls away and the price to get them back is hefty.
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of inland plants. Yes, some coastal plant could affected in decades if waters rise at the worst predicted rates, but the point is that everything else on the coast will also be affected. Its not a nuclear issue.
BTW, plants are not sited on the coast to "limit the risk of radiation exposure over land".
What does this have to do with nuclear? Nothing. Here's news.....sea rise will impact solar installations that are on the coast. It will also affect donut shops.
Is the solar lobby really this desperate? Why are the stupidest articles with desperate attempts to twist reality to make some kind of statement about nuclear energy generally posted by the same person?
Yup, just a marketing ploy to charge more for lettuce.
This can be blamed on the throttling of Netflix.
How do you know? Did the general public know what was going on at hanford when it was active? or did the horrible details only come out later?
The "cold war" programs that were the greatest contributor to the problems are no longer in place, or have been heavily re-tasked. Where in that past that behavior was routine, today it is criminal. There is a regulatory structure in place now that didn't exist 50 years ago that tightly controls waste just as in the public sector. The major facilities that have capability to produce such waste are generally known, it would be difficult to hide any output.
One could always imagine that there is some super secret program going on where they are just dumping waste and burying it, and its a negative nobody can prove. But from a practical standpoint, it would be a losing proposition for all involved these days and there is no reason to risk it. Actually, our federal labs & workers these days are very environmentally & safety conscious.
They are the last real competitor to terrestrial cable tv.
My thoughts as well. Not to mention they have inside track on NFL Sunday Ticket. Since AT&T has the wireless broadband infrastructure and also DSL, they are the only company that will be able to keep Comcast/TWC in check.
However the man made activity that has a huge impact here is fire fighting. This has been known for many decades. The problem is that the natural cycle of fires leads to smaller fires. These smaller fires prevent fuel from accumulating and they provide a patchwork of natural firebreaks to a degree......
Excellent point, that was one of my first thoughts as I read the headline. Its claims like this that cause many people that exercise common sense to raise doubts about all GW claims. Alarmists would do us all a favor and tone it down a bit.
The problem is they were not stored in engineered facilities. There are many kinds of waste they are dealing with, and each type requires different solutions. Had they spent as much time and money engineering the waste facilities as they did on weapons development and related research, there wouldn't be anything near the mess they have now.
There is a real mess with a history that goes back to the cold war and years of so called "priorities" that gave them an excuse to just leave dumps, pools, and tanks full of all kinds of bad stuff, including radioactive waste.
There is cleanup work underway, its been fairly steady since at least the early 90's, but the bureaucracy and mentality of establishment-ism kills momentum and makes everything harder than it has to be. Lots of people getting paid to sit around and "manage", few actually doing the work. In defense of some, the mess is so bad that they have to work out very elaborate solutions and move slowly to prove they are working. Setbacks happen. But its way too slow. There are too many people that know they'll keep getting a paycheck if they drag it out.
Fortunately, we are no longer creating more messes like Hanford, Rocky Flats, etc.
It depends on how you define 'deserve'. If you define it as getting the appropriate & expected result of one's actions, then I'd say he deserved it, as you should expect to get killed if you raise a gun at a cop. If by deserve you mean he got an appropriate punishment for his action, then I'd say he didn't deserve it.
From the document, it says for this training excersize, "we elected to use a completely impossible scenarios that could never be mistaken as a 'real plan'.
Interesting. Nice find.
Its always good to think there may be another option on the table.
Hope your dad keeps ahead of it.
When drone trade become illegal, then they can smuggle themselves.
He has a point. Within the citing for rejection is the statement;...... " and worse from the climate sceptics media side. "
It indicates a possible bias, and media reaction should never be a criteria for determining what has scientific merit.
Its also interesting that they guy has a reasonably 'reputable' career history, and also is quite up-front about his views. Yet this one instance is enough for many folks here to trash him, call him a crackpot and other names.
Maybe his paper is total crap. I guess he's got enough attention to get it circulated by other means if he wants.
Are submissions that support the generally accepted views on GWT given the same level of scrutiny? They could do some good to show similar rejections of those papers.
Sorry, but refusing to provide a public forum for crackpots is not a witch-hunt, or McCarthyism. It's science. .
Especially the part about labeling them crackpots.
'We're making a printer that, rather than just being able to load in proprietary materials, you can load in any material you want.
How about bacon? I always wanted to print with bacon.
Great, its enough that my mother in law stays for the weekend. Now I gotta pay for the power to get her home!
Many deaths attributed to coal. Doesn't change anything.
Just pointing out the irony. I see that must have ruffled your feathers a bit.
Multiple confirmed cancer/disease cases directly attributed to the Giheung facility where solar cells are produced. Clean energy for all!
The question in the title should read " fuel cell or battery" not "fuel cell or electric".
Why don't we wait till we have an even remotely cost and performance effective fuel cell & fuel storage system for this purpose before asking the question.
Of course, the appropriate slashdot headline should read "It could be God".
^what you are proposing is not too much different from when they "de-regulated" the long distance phone companies, but then required local carriers to allow access to their infrastructure. Its an interesting approach with a host of impacts, both good and bad, although it has nothing to do with the suggestion that profits be regulated, which was what my responses were about.
State and local governments generally are at the heart of regulation of utilities at the service level. Unfortunately, they've signed their souls away and the price to get them back is hefty.
They are not regulating profit.
You failed to read the post I was responding too, which suggested that profits should be regulated.