The existing RBMKs have undergone significant changes, from safety systems all the way to the core design. Its essentially a different design, or at least a significantly adapted one. A re-creation of such an event would take a long list of intentional actions taken by a team of people for that purpose.
But compared to the typical PWR/BWR, they do fall short.
So what is the purpose of this submission? Chernobyl cleanup and management is an interesting topic, but little useful info is put forth here. An update on construction and a rehash of what we already know. Just a vehicle to put forth an accusation of lying about concrete volumes that doesn't appear to have a basis.
Chernobyl is a huge mess that fortunately can't and won't be replicated due to design differences in existing plants.
I like the suggestion, as at least its a step in the right direction of designating ISPs as common carriers. But that's a slippery slope the ISPs won't dare allow.
Models are good when all of the relevant inputs and variables are known and included. Even simple systems are often difficult to model accurately. For climate models, it seems scientists are discovering new inputs/variables on a regular basis. Modeling is necessary and even imperfect models can help us understand what may happen, particularly when it comes to assessing the impacts of certain changes on an isolated basis. Of course, nothing happens on an isolated basis. I do hate it when folks "over predict" the eventual impact of warming without admitting the great uncertainty that is included.
Many models have been designed to somewhat accurately mimic our historical records, but that approach can be misleading, as the modelers are striving for the correct output regardless of the correct input, kind of a 'self fulfilling prophecy'. Good science requires discipline, and there are scientists out there that have the right discipline, and those who don't. There is good science happening, and there are flags that tell you who is practicing it and who isn't. Look for those that understand and admit the uncertainties along with their results, and realize the importance of communicating them.
The best way to know if a model is working is to leave it untouched and see if it predicts accurately. That takes time, and many don't think we have that time.
Condition based load management can be done with load management devices that have been around for decades as well. It can get as smart as you want, but it doesn't solve grid stability issues caused by solar/wind variability, and it causes a variety of problems for many customers. When its 99 degrees, folks want their AC to run, and within one small neighborhood it already averages out to a steady load, shifting doesn't do much at that point.
Industrial and large commercial customer's needs are a significant factor as well. Depending on their load needs, resistive load or inductive loads, the generating profile needs to match. Trying to offset spinning generation with solar of the course of a few hours, per say, causes problems where that balance is shifted. It can be managed to some extent, but it just gets harder and harder if your supply mix is out of whack with your demand mix.
If they can get this car passed by my old Driver Ed teacher, Mrs. Pinnick, then its ready to go!
But seriously, there are so many conditions and variables out there that even the most extensive testing cannot cover all scenarios. And who will be the first company to officially deploy this technology and risk the lawsuits from the first death/mishap.
And if I have to stay behind that obnoxious bike rider for 15 miles because the car is too safe to pass, then I just might.... say something unpleasant.
How much would electricity cost in the USA without energy subsidies and with the negative externalities corrected?
Nowhere near 3 times. Some argue a naturalized cost approach would result in lower costs. I don't necessarily believe that either.
Because they haven't yet embraced smart meters.
A clear misunderstanding of what smart meters are capable of, as well as the fundamentals of grid stability and management. If you want folk's power cutting off at the whim of outside forces, or time based pricing, then there are easier and less costly ways to accomplish that. Even with some of that happening, you can't easily compensate for the huge swings of solar and unpredictability of wind.
The "at all cost" attitude is quite dangerous, particularly when folks don't really understand the feasibility of what they believe is a solution, be it driven by ignorance, fear of the unknown, political stubbornness, inaccurate risk perception, or whatever other emotionally based charges that head humans off in the wrong direction in the name of "doing good". The cleanest of the industrial economies are also those that are the strongest. Weaken an industrial economy and you freeze the move toward things like electric vehicles and significantly reduce a lot of so called "green" measures.
Can't argue with that. Only to add that investments in efficiency can often (not always) have a greater impact than, say, adding solar PV... but that lacks the "look how green I am" factor you get from big panels on your roof.
Reminds me our "water saving" toilets at work. I need to flush them 3 times to everything to go down, and have to deal with the leftovers from those that don't.
3 times the electricity cost of the US, INCREASING CO2 emissions with the nuclear slowdown. Grid stability becoming a big problem. Expected increasing costs due to lack of revenues from nuclear tax. That doesn't even take in to account the costs they will start incurring in the next decade to replace/maintain aging wind and solar assets.
Spending a huge amount of money on a marginally effective and expensive solution doesn't equate to success, although it may appear that way to those who just see the panels and turbines and think all is wonderful.
I think if you've had an Itunes/store account for a while its no problem, but try creating a new one now so that you can just download free apps and they require a credit card or a gift card. There is a workaround but you'd never figure it out without googling around.. Apple certainly steers customers toward providing that card number.
I use Android devices simply due to cost. Wife has Iphone, its nice. No bias here, Android had a lot of ground to make up wrt market share, I just thought they were further along and that tablets, rather than phones, where the place where more share was being taken... I got that backwards.
Kindle is not a good Android representation. I have 3 different Android tablets..they all 'just work'. Never saw any need to pay more cause I got what I need. I did get super frustrated trying to add some free apps to wife's iphone without giving them a credit card number. Had to run through all kinds of hoops. That was a huge turnoff for me, but the phone works fine for the wife...she's happy, I'm happy.
Slashdot Mirror
such an event would take a long list of intentional actions taken by a team of people
Which is precisely what happened at V.I. Lenin Nuclear Power Station, a.k.a Chernobyl.
Not with the intention of failure. The list of actions that led to failure at Chernobyl was actually very short. It was way too easy.
The existing RBMKs have undergone significant changes, from safety systems all the way to the core design. Its essentially a different design, or at least a significantly adapted one. A re-creation of such an event would take a long list of intentional actions taken by a team of people for that purpose.
But compared to the typical PWR/BWR, they do fall short.
So what is the purpose of this submission? Chernobyl cleanup and management is an interesting topic, but little useful info is put forth here. An update on construction and a rehash of what we already know. Just a vehicle to put forth an accusation of lying about concrete volumes that doesn't appear to have a basis.
Chernobyl is a huge mess that fortunately can't and won't be replicated due to design differences in existing plants.
I like the suggestion, as at least its a step in the right direction of designating ISPs as common carriers. But that's a slippery slope the ISPs won't dare allow.
Very interesting. Thanks.
Already, chickens are about 10x more efficient for production of meat calories than beef is..
Cows, chickens, whatever. Just leave pigs out of it. BACON RULES!
Models are good when all of the relevant inputs and variables are known and included. Even simple systems are often difficult to model accurately. For climate models, it seems scientists are discovering new inputs/variables on a regular basis. Modeling is necessary and even imperfect models can help us understand what may happen, particularly when it comes to assessing the impacts of certain changes on an isolated basis. Of course, nothing happens on an isolated basis. I do hate it when folks "over predict" the eventual impact of warming without admitting the great uncertainty that is included.
Many models have been designed to somewhat accurately mimic our historical records, but that approach can be misleading, as the modelers are striving for the correct output regardless of the correct input, kind of a 'self fulfilling prophecy'. Good science requires discipline, and there are scientists out there that have the right discipline, and those who don't. There is good science happening, and there are flags that tell you who is practicing it and who isn't. Look for those that understand and admit the uncertainties along with their results, and realize the importance of communicating them.
The best way to know if a model is working is to leave it untouched and see if it predicts accurately. That takes time, and many don't think we have that time.
It is NOT climate change anymore. It is called climate disruption.
And the scientists are not really racing either, more like 'considering'.
Hey, I want my cheeseburger in paradise, even if it's in Long Island.
Global warming was always a terrible name because the imagery was all wrong.
The imagery was not created by the name. We need to call stuff what it is, not what invokes an image.
Well if you really need 3 TB, then yeah, you have a hard choice to make..
Why make a choice? Just get both. SSD for the OS, HDD for storage. A good balance of cost and performance.
Eric Holder: "I Have 'A Vast Amount' of Discretion in Enforcing Laws"
Condition based load management can be done with load management devices that have been around for decades as well. It can get as smart as you want, but it doesn't solve grid stability issues caused by solar/wind variability, and it causes a variety of problems for many customers. When its 99 degrees, folks want their AC to run, and within one small neighborhood it already averages out to a steady load, shifting doesn't do much at that point.
Industrial and large commercial customer's needs are a significant factor as well. Depending on their load needs, resistive load or inductive loads, the generating profile needs to match. Trying to offset spinning generation with solar of the course of a few hours, per say, causes problems where that balance is shifted. It can be managed to some extent, but it just gets harder and harder if your supply mix is out of whack with your demand mix.
If they can get this car passed by my old Driver Ed teacher, Mrs. Pinnick, then its ready to go!
But seriously, there are so many conditions and variables out there that even the most extensive testing cannot cover all scenarios. And who will be the first company to officially deploy this technology and risk the lawsuits from the first death/mishap.
And if I have to stay behind that obnoxious bike rider for 15 miles because the car is too safe to pass, then I just might.... say something unpleasant.
Nowhere near 3 times. Some argue a naturalized cost approach would result in lower costs. I don't necessarily believe that either.
Because they haven't yet embraced smart meters.
A clear misunderstanding of what smart meters are capable of, as well as the fundamentals of grid stability and management. If you want folk's power cutting off at the whim of outside forces, or time based pricing, then there are easier and less costly ways to accomplish that. Even with some of that happening, you can't easily compensate for the huge swings of solar and unpredictability of wind.
The "at all cost" attitude is quite dangerous, particularly when folks don't really understand the feasibility of what they believe is a solution, be it driven by ignorance, fear of the unknown, political stubbornness, inaccurate risk perception, or whatever other emotionally based charges that head humans off in the wrong direction in the name of "doing good". The cleanest of the industrial economies are also those that are the strongest. Weaken an industrial economy and you freeze the move toward things like electric vehicles and significantly reduce a lot of so called "green" measures.
Paying more is not a badge of honor.
Can't argue with that. Only to add that investments in efficiency can often (not always) have a greater impact than, say, adding solar PV... but that lacks the "look how green I am" factor you get from big panels on your roof.
Reminds me our "water saving" toilets at work. I need to flush them 3 times to everything to go down, and have to deal with the leftovers from those that don't.
Look at Germany?
3 times the electricity cost of the US, INCREASING CO2 emissions with the nuclear slowdown. Grid stability becoming a big problem. Expected increasing costs due to lack of revenues from nuclear tax. That doesn't even take in to account the costs they will start incurring in the next decade to replace/maintain aging wind and solar assets.
Spending a huge amount of money on a marginally effective and expensive solution doesn't equate to success, although it may appear that way to those who just see the panels and turbines and think all is wonderful.
I've found that one to two year old tablet models are the best value when purchasing. No need to spend double for a small step change.
^That about sums it up.
Maybe some folks need to have a plane hit a drone and result in some real death before they get it.
I can put your finger on it for you
Wow, that wasn't just putting a finger on it, it was more like a full rectal exam. Use your own finger!
I think if you've had an Itunes/store account for a while its no problem, but try creating a new one now so that you can just download free apps and they require a credit card or a gift card. There is a workaround but you'd never figure it out without googling around.. Apple certainly steers customers toward providing that card number.
I use Android devices simply due to cost. Wife has Iphone, its nice. No bias here, Android had a lot of ground to make up wrt market share, I just thought they were further along and that tablets, rather than phones, where the place where more share was being taken... I got that backwards.
Kindle is not a good Android representation. I have 3 different Android tablets..they all 'just work'. Never saw any need to pay more cause I got what I need. I did get super frustrated trying to add some free apps to wife's iphone without giving them a credit card number. Had to run through all kinds of hoops. That was a huge turnoff for me, but the phone works fine for the wife...she's happy, I'm happy.
Interesting, that does kind of blow up my assumption. There seems something funny about those numbers in wiki though...can't put my finger on it.