Agreed. Plex has its place, but why complicate things unnecessarily? I was looking to see if this had file and network storage support, looks like the base version does not.
I wonder, if the Fire is truly android based, if a version of XBMC or other player software could eventually come to fruition.
Don't believe everything you see, or at least don't assume it gives you the whole picture. Safety systems have multiple backups. Simple failures as you described are not enough to disable the plants' ability to shutdown safely. Fire pumps are a last resort, they are not credited safety systems for shutting down a plant under any design accident scenarios, and therefore not necessarily designed to meet seismic requirements. They are their for fires. If you are down to your fire pumps for cooling, you've already lost the battle.
There were other nuclear units that got hit hard by the earthquake, all functioned as design and had no problems. Only the Fukushima units inundated by the tsunami had shutdown problems.
At Fukushima, the shutdown was occurring properly following the earthquake. Soon after that, the tsunami hit, taking out the emergency diesel generators and rendering the battery backup systems inoperable ( as they were flooded.) This lack of power left no working safety systems for heat removal even though they were otherwise physically intact and able to perform their function after the quake. What happened after the tsunami is exactly what you would expect to happen with all those systems unavailable.
Actually it has now emerged that the fatal damage was due to the earthquake, not the tsunami.
Sorry but this is completely fabricated. The safety systems in place were operable after the quake. The tsunami took out all backup power, leaving those safety systems useless.
There is a lot of margin in the seismic design. In reality, plants can handle a much higher seismic even than they are "rated for".
I'm big on NN, but I do admit there are good points made for market driven forces to allow buildup of delivery services. That breaks down with the lack of competition at the ISP level. I assume its similar in Europe as the US.
Riddle me this. If Netflix pays and ISP for delivering its content with quality...should not all subscribers to that ISP, regardless of what plan they signed up for, get Netflix at the highest possible bandwidth?
Imagine telling a child that he or she can never return home to Tomioka because it has been turned into a storage facility for radioactive soil from other regions. Imagine the psychological devastation.
Kids are a lot more resilient than that. My house burned down when I was a kid. We were left with nothing. Yeah, it sucked, but it was a life lesson. I can look back and see that life goes on.
It is time that we close the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant in California, which sits above multiple faults capable of producing the type of quake that destroyed Fukushima Daichi.
Wrong. The Tsunami caused the plant to fail, not the quake. In the case of Diablo, if there is no credible chance of a Tsunami inundating the plant, then it is fine. I can assure you it can well withstand a major quake.
It seems to me that the root of the Fukushima disaster was the decision to build a nuclear power plant in a place where there was even the remotest chance of Tsunami damage.
Yes, this is the fundamental mistake. Alternatively, it might better be described as, 'don't put a nuclear plant where a tsunami can affect it unless it is designed to handle it." In the case of Fukushima, you have a plant that was essentially under water, but not designed to operate under water. The result is quite easy to predict.
Not to mention being shut down earlier than planned due to a vitriolic political environment coupled with the price pressure of shale gas and excessive subsidization of renewables.
For those that speak of nuclear subsidies...on a $ per KWh generated basis, nuclear subsidies are nowhere close to other energy technologies.
I don't know why gold is the comparative of choice. Nobody is using gold currency. How about paper currency? That would be a more appropriate comparison. Paper currency is worth a lot more than the paper its printed on. There is added cost in producing paper that is 'secure' (hard to reproduce), but its value is much greater than what it takes to produce it, and its not based on gold or any other physical material.
Yes, they seem to be claiming a huge increase in fuel efficiency. I don't see anything about capturing the emissions. You have to wonder how well these cars will perform for say, the SUV.
Most folks probably assume the calculation favors whichever solution they favor. The problem is we don't really have the complete energy and carbon cycle for any power source, when you include raw material mining and processes, through construction transportation, delivery, efficiency. I'd love to see that study performed by a neutral party.
But if one truly cares about reduction in carbon emissions, and is not beholden to the electric car as the only solution they will consider, then an extremely low carbon emission gas vehicle should be welcomed. I have my doubts, but if they could produce such a vehicle at a cost competitive with existing gas vehicles, they could be mass adapted much quicker than electrics, and even if they emit more CO2 per car (given the total cycle calculation), the total carbon reduction could be far greater in a much shorter timeframe. It might also provide a bridge till electric cars and the needed infrastructure are mass market ready.
Nobody seems to be asking the most important question: What more can we expect in return for the continued operation? That answer should drive the decision. It may not cost much to keep it going, but if we've pretty much exhausted any meaningful return, then what is the point of putting more $$ into it. OTOH, if they think there is a lot more information we can gain beyond what we already have, then extend the operation appropriately.
Whether the "world is flat" was a fully accepted principal or not through all societies, or what time its acceptance came to pass, is of less import to my point than the progress of human activity, where its passing was inevitable based on what became common knowledge. You can try to make more of it if you wish, but that was not intended. There was not a defined point in time where beliefs in any given society could be cited as transitioning from "that of the ignorant" to "scientific". That progress in the understanding of what we observe in the world around us varied from one group to the next is even more irrelevant.
I suppose the list of what science is 'settled' would likely vary from person to person. In that regard, what is actually settled would need to be common to all those lists. If settled means we see no possibility that it could change, then maybe some science is settled to most. If that is your point, then I would concur. It is in our inability to see all possibilities that I hold the door slightly open on any given scientific principal, however impossible it is to imagine it not being absolutely correct.
I came up through public education back in the 70s. When evolution was taught, it was made clear up front that it was a theory, that some didn't accept it for religious or other reasons, then the basis for the theory was taught. That worked for me to decide for myself and works just fine today. Sure, there was always controversy, but folks on both side had to make it a political battleground. Some atheists push to have religious references removed through schools and government, scaring the crap out of religious conservatives , who respond by trying to push religion back in everywhere possible, thereby scaring the crap out of the atheists. The chicken and egg battle continues, while moderates on both sides just shake their heads in frustration.
Science is never settled. But it can be accepted by the large majority given overwhelming evidence. The world was once flat.
If this is true, then this is a really profound discovery that could help millions of people.
What I'm wondering, is why no other society, that we know of, has discovered this low-tech, yet seemingly incredibly useful thing previously?
Maybe because all of the other materials and equipment required to make it work.
Seeing as we have the ability to detect traces of a fart on Jupiter, I think we should EXPECT to see traces of just about everything we do in the oceans at some level or another. Naturally, some of those chemicals may have properties that cause them to concentrate in certain regions.
The ongoing studies being done by the DOE are showing that embrittlement should not be a hurdle. The problem is that behavior curves had not been developed for 80 years of aging for the materials of concern. Ongoing experience plus R&D allows for extending those curves through proven methods. Still more work to do. Of course, if needed, simple annealing can take care of embrittlement. (simple in concept, quite a bit more challenging & costly to implement in the plant.). Cracking in welds can be easily seen via existing examination techniques, and repair methods already exist and have been used.
Concrete is a bigger challenge. More work needs to be done on irradiated concrete aging. That work is in progress. By the time the first plants hit 60 years, that data will be solid and reliable for understanding longer term behavior. That work is important.
Those are generic aging issues. Each individual plant could have specific issues of its own, like aged cabling, so the process of renewal must be thorough. Fortunately for the industry, great margins were designed into the plants to begin with, and many of the critical components can be replaced in part or in whole.
What will likely play out is the some plants will retire at the end of their extended service period, just like any asset. Some of those might shut down a bit early if they have equipment problems that are too costly to repair for ongoing safe operation. Those that have the best performance will be likely candidates for another license renewal, which is typically 20 years. The utility industry is wary of becoming too dependent on gas. Extension of safe operating life of nuclear plants and/or new nuclear are the only viable options assuming coal is dying, or unless storage for wind power can be made economical.
Slashdot Mirror
transcode? no thanks. that's not any way forward.
players should play any format and play it well.
Agreed. Plex has its place, but why complicate things unnecessarily? I was looking to see if this had file and network storage support, looks like the base version does not.
I wonder, if the Fire is truly android based, if a version of XBMC or other player software could eventually come to fruition.
Don't believe everything you see, or at least don't assume it gives you the whole picture. Safety systems have multiple backups. Simple failures as you described are not enough to disable the plants' ability to shutdown safely. Fire pumps are a last resort, they are not credited safety systems for shutting down a plant under any design accident scenarios, and therefore not necessarily designed to meet seismic requirements. They are their for fires. If you are down to your fire pumps for cooling, you've already lost the battle.
There were other nuclear units that got hit hard by the earthquake, all functioned as design and had no problems. Only the Fukushima units inundated by the tsunami had shutdown problems.
At Fukushima, the shutdown was occurring properly following the earthquake. Soon after that, the tsunami hit, taking out the emergency diesel generators and rendering the battery backup systems inoperable ( as they were flooded.) This lack of power left no working safety systems for heat removal even though they were otherwise physically intact and able to perform their function after the quake. What happened after the tsunami is exactly what you would expect to happen with all those systems unavailable.
Yeah, I guess I was a bit insensitive to some. However, I would guess the hearing impaired are less likely to "not be paying attention".
Actually it has now emerged that the fatal damage was due to the earthquake, not the tsunami.
Sorry but this is completely fabricated. The safety systems in place were operable after the quake. The tsunami took out all backup power, leaving those safety systems useless.
There is a lot of margin in the seismic design. In reality, plants can handle a much higher seismic even than they are "rated for".
Even gas cars are pretty quiet. I drive up behind parking lot idiots quite often and they don't hear my Camry till I am within several feet.
Its a problem for pedestrians and cyclists. We could just let natural selection solve it for us.
I'm big on NN, but I do admit there are good points made for market driven forces to allow buildup of delivery services. That breaks down with the lack of competition at the ISP level. I assume its similar in Europe as the US.
Riddle me this. If Netflix pays and ISP for delivering its content with quality...should not all subscribers to that ISP, regardless of what plan they signed up for, get Netflix at the highest possible bandwidth?
This issue can't be piecemeal-ed.
So, this is why very few referees suffer from fly bites? I always wondered.
Perhaps you'd care to mention which photos you believe are stunning? They all look distinctly average to me.
The ones where you see all that radiation.
I have one question, would you eat sushi in Hawaii?
Absolutely not. I hate sushi. I would not eat it on a plane, I would not eat it on a train.
But I'd eat most other kinds of seafood. I'd eat it in Hawaii and, I'd even it in Japan.
Imagine telling a child that he or she can never return home to Tomioka because it has been turned into a storage facility for radioactive soil from other regions. Imagine the psychological devastation.
Kids are a lot more resilient than that. My house burned down when I was a kid. We were left with nothing. Yeah, it sucked, but it was a life lesson. I can look back and see that life goes on.
It is time that we close the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant in California, which sits above multiple faults capable of producing the type of quake that destroyed Fukushima Daichi.
Wrong. The Tsunami caused the plant to fail, not the quake. In the case of Diablo, if there is no credible chance of a Tsunami inundating the plant, then it is fine. I can assure you it can well withstand a major quake.
It seems to me that the root of the Fukushima disaster was the decision to build a nuclear power plant in a place where there was even the remotest chance of Tsunami damage.
Yes, this is the fundamental mistake. Alternatively, it might better be described as, 'don't put a nuclear plant where a tsunami can affect it unless it is designed to handle it." In the case of Fukushima, you have a plant that was essentially under water, but not designed to operate under water. The result is quite easy to predict.
Not to mention being shut down earlier than planned due to a vitriolic political environment coupled with the price pressure of shale gas and excessive subsidization of renewables.
For those that speak of nuclear subsidies...on a $ per KWh generated basis, nuclear subsidies are nowhere close to other energy technologies.
I don't know why gold is the comparative of choice. Nobody is using gold currency. How about paper currency? That would be a more appropriate comparison. Paper currency is worth a lot more than the paper its printed on. There is added cost in producing paper that is 'secure' (hard to reproduce), but its value is much greater than what it takes to produce it, and its not based on gold or any other physical material.
Yeah, I guess so, that looks like a small SUV. Just checked the specs, gas mileage doesn't look super impressive.
Yes, they seem to be claiming a huge increase in fuel efficiency. I don't see anything about capturing the emissions. You have to wonder how well these cars will perform for say, the SUV.
Most folks probably assume the calculation favors whichever solution they favor. The problem is we don't really have the complete energy and carbon cycle for any power source, when you include raw material mining and processes, through construction transportation, delivery, efficiency. I'd love to see that study performed by a neutral party.
But if one truly cares about reduction in carbon emissions, and is not beholden to the electric car as the only solution they will consider, then an extremely low carbon emission gas vehicle should be welcomed. I have my doubts, but if they could produce such a vehicle at a cost competitive with existing gas vehicles, they could be mass adapted much quicker than electrics, and even if they emit more CO2 per car (given the total cycle calculation), the total carbon reduction could be far greater in a much shorter timeframe. It might also provide a bridge till electric cars and the needed infrastructure are mass market ready.
Its all good..................until your chair catches a virus.
Nobody seems to be asking the most important question: What more can we expect in return for the continued operation? That answer should drive the decision. It may not cost much to keep it going, but if we've pretty much exhausted any meaningful return, then what is the point of putting more $$ into it. OTOH, if they think there is a lot more information we can gain beyond what we already have, then extend the operation appropriately.
Anyone who looked out from a high mountain or a mast top and thought about it for a bit would laugh at anyone who suggested the Earth was flat.
You would think so. Its amazing to see how societal belief systems impact the perception of the surrounding world.
Whether the "world is flat" was a fully accepted principal or not through all societies, or what time its acceptance came to pass, is of less import to my point than the progress of human activity, where its passing was inevitable based on what became common knowledge. You can try to make more of it if you wish, but that was not intended. There was not a defined point in time where beliefs in any given society could be cited as transitioning from "that of the ignorant" to "scientific". That progress in the understanding of what we observe in the world around us varied from one group to the next is even more irrelevant.
I suppose the list of what science is 'settled' would likely vary from person to person. In that regard, what is actually settled would need to be common to all those lists. If settled means we see no possibility that it could change, then maybe some science is settled to most. If that is your point, then I would concur. It is in our inability to see all possibilities that I hold the door slightly open on any given scientific principal, however impossible it is to imagine it not being absolutely correct.
I came up through public education back in the 70s. When evolution was taught, it was made clear up front that it was a theory, that some didn't accept it for religious or other reasons, then the basis for the theory was taught. That worked for me to decide for myself and works just fine today. Sure, there was always controversy, but folks on both side had to make it a political battleground. Some atheists push to have religious references removed through schools and government, scaring the crap out of religious conservatives , who respond by trying to push religion back in everywhere possible, thereby scaring the crap out of the atheists. The chicken and egg battle continues, while moderates on both sides just shake their heads in frustration.
Science is never settled. But it can be accepted by the large majority given overwhelming evidence. The world was once flat.
Horizontal Testicular Misa-Lignment
If this is true, then this is a really profound discovery that could help millions of people. What I'm wondering, is why no other society, that we know of, has discovered this low-tech, yet seemingly incredibly useful thing previously?
Maybe because all of the other materials and equipment required to make it work.
Seeing as we have the ability to detect traces of a fart on Jupiter, I think we should EXPECT to see traces of just about everything we do in the oceans at some level or another. Naturally, some of those chemicals may have properties that cause them to concentrate in certain regions.
Call me when the concentration becomes a problem.
The ongoing studies being done by the DOE are showing that embrittlement should not be a hurdle. The problem is that behavior curves had not been developed for 80 years of aging for the materials of concern. Ongoing experience plus R&D allows for extending those curves through proven methods. Still more work to do. Of course, if needed, simple annealing can take care of embrittlement. (simple in concept, quite a bit more challenging & costly to implement in the plant.). Cracking in welds can be easily seen via existing examination techniques, and repair methods already exist and have been used.
Concrete is a bigger challenge. More work needs to be done on irradiated concrete aging. That work is in progress. By the time the first plants hit 60 years, that data will be solid and reliable for understanding longer term behavior. That work is important.
Those are generic aging issues. Each individual plant could have specific issues of its own, like aged cabling, so the process of renewal must be thorough. Fortunately for the industry, great margins were designed into the plants to begin with, and many of the critical components can be replaced in part or in whole.
What will likely play out is the some plants will retire at the end of their extended service period, just like any asset. Some of those might shut down a bit early if they have equipment problems that are too costly to repair for ongoing safe operation. Those that have the best performance will be likely candidates for another license renewal, which is typically 20 years. The utility industry is wary of becoming too dependent on gas. Extension of safe operating life of nuclear plants and/or new nuclear are the only viable options assuming coal is dying, or unless storage for wind power can be made economical.