How dare you paint me as that strawman you disgusting weasel - I have never submitted an article on energy issue to this site let alone anti-nuclear or pro-solar.
FWIW, I was not referring to you. I don't think you have an agenda or motivation. The point was, don't assign an agenda or motivation to me when you have no evidence and while you seem to accept it from others when its blatantly obvious......
10 years can be a sufficient turnaround time for nuclear. Why are you trying to mislead and say it takes 20? What is your motivation?
As for as worldwide expansion, just read the news. Great Britain, Jordan, India, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, are some of the other countries besides the US very actively pursing nuclear and in contracting phases, in addition to the increased building going on in China. France and Finland are building plants as well. Meanwhile, in South America, Angra is now contracted to be completed. All this at a time when the global economy is tremendously depressed. So I am not misleading anybody. I share my knowledge here just like anybody else. I have been pretty clear about my positions. If you want to inquire about motivation, how about questioning the motivation of a member who submits anti-nuclear articles, pro-solar articles on almost a daily basis. I have never submitted a single article on any side of these issues. Maybe you question my motivation simply because you do not see things the same way?
While you are right, a lot of reactor designs are based on previously built designs, in the case of Comanche Peak, MHI is offering the APWR which is Pressurized Water Reactor technology and not the Boiling Water Reactor technology which comprise the GE line, and of which the Fukushima reactors are an early model. Two completely different designs. The turbines are generally interchangeable, you could use any brand turbine on the APWR provided it is large enough.
I agree that we should fully explore the benefits of thorium reactors. Note that there are Uranium based fuels that also do not suffer from melt down. This can be seen in the high temperature gas reactors, such as the pebble bed, for example.
The ideal situation would be to re-process used fuel. In that scenario, fuel supply would be plentiful for about as long as you want to project. Under the existing structure, with little re-processing, the known Uranium supplies are plentiful, but I don't know what the amount really is. I feel comfortable saying we could go for centuries, but again, I have not looked up the number.
A slow economy and depressed energy prices due to shale gas have certainly delayed plans for new nuclear. As we shut down more coal plants and when the economy picks up, we will be faced with the choice of becoming heavily dependant on gas, or building more nuclear. Shale gas prices will rise as our dependency increases. some dream that solar and wind can fill the huge gap but as most if us know it simply can't. Meanwhile, the worldwide expansion of nuclear continues, and appears to be picking up steam.
Side note: The reactors at Fukushima are GE design, not Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, as some readers might conclude from the author's attempt to tie the two together.
Factor in age and miles driven per vehicle if you want apples to apples. I would guess the average gas vehicle is logging a whole lot more miles per year. I would also guess that the rate of fires in 2 year old or less gas vehicles is much lower. So we really don't have a good comparative number.
It is a new technology....Tesla will figure it out and make fixes where needed.
I agree. My ONLY point was that this number of fires is most definitely statistically significant. It can't be ignored, and I am sure Tesla is all over it. It may be that nothing needs to change to address any of the cause cases. It may be that there is some common factor that contributes to the fire even if the physical impacts were very different. I'd say any issues, if found, can be fixed with a little engineering.
Good points. I realized powder retention/re-use would be an issue, but I thought fusing would be less of one if the materials were chosen properly. Guess there is more work to be done.
An interesting capability of this type of additive manufacturing is the ability to change the metal alloy content in different parts of a single solid piece, adding another way to adjust the overall properties of the final product.
As for making guns, well, its a good way to get attention.
All I know is that this furloughed worker debate is meaningless in the context of this article unless someone actually believes that the website would have worked properly if they had those 3 more weeks.
Correction....I should have said 10,000, or a town with about 10,000 vehicles that are regularly, because that is closer to the average number of Teslas on the road over the last 2 years, assuming they have been selling at a steady rate.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how brilliant they would be without competition?
How dare you paint me as that strawman you disgusting weasel - I have never submitted an article on energy issue to this site let alone anti-nuclear or pro-solar.
FWIW, I was not referring to you. I don't think you have an agenda or motivation. The point was, don't assign an agenda or motivation to me when you have no evidence and while you seem to accept it from others when its blatantly obvious......
I can see your ears are closed. Resorting to insults is a typical tactic for those who do not want to have a true discussion. I'm done here, good day.
10 years can be a sufficient turnaround time for nuclear. Why are you trying to mislead and say it takes 20? What is your motivation? As for as worldwide expansion, just read the news. Great Britain, Jordan, India, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, are some of the other countries besides the US very actively pursing nuclear and in contracting phases, in addition to the increased building going on in China. France and Finland are building plants as well. Meanwhile, in South America, Angra is now contracted to be completed. All this at a time when the global economy is tremendously depressed. So I am not misleading anybody. I share my knowledge here just like anybody else. I have been pretty clear about my positions. If you want to inquire about motivation, how about questioning the motivation of a member who submits anti-nuclear articles, pro-solar articles on almost a daily basis. I have never submitted a single article on any side of these issues. Maybe you question my motivation simply because you do not see things the same way?
While you are right, a lot of reactor designs are based on previously built designs, in the case of Comanche Peak, MHI is offering the APWR which is Pressurized Water Reactor technology and not the Boiling Water Reactor technology which comprise the GE line, and of which the Fukushima reactors are an early model. Two completely different designs. The turbines are generally interchangeable, you could use any brand turbine on the APWR provided it is large enough.
Good luck getting the world to comply with your views on how we should use energy, even if it were feasible and affordable.
I agree that we should fully explore the benefits of thorium reactors. Note that there are Uranium based fuels that also do not suffer from melt down. This can be seen in the high temperature gas reactors, such as the pebble bed, for example.
Here is a link that confirms my reply.
The ideal situation would be to re-process used fuel. In that scenario, fuel supply would be plentiful for about as long as you want to project. Under the existing structure, with little re-processing, the known Uranium supplies are plentiful, but I don't know what the amount really is. I feel comfortable saying we could go for centuries, but again, I have not looked up the number.
A slow economy and depressed energy prices due to shale gas have certainly delayed plans for new nuclear. As we shut down more coal plants and when the economy picks up, we will be faced with the choice of becoming heavily dependant on gas, or building more nuclear. Shale gas prices will rise as our dependency increases. some dream that solar and wind can fill the huge gap but as most if us know it simply can't. Meanwhile, the worldwide expansion of nuclear continues, and appears to be picking up steam.
Side note: The reactors at Fukushima are GE design, not Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, as some readers might conclude from the author's attempt to tie the two together.
And one day we'll learn how old Teslas perform.
Some damn monkey saw a snake and we've all been scared ever since.
Factor in age and miles driven per vehicle if you want apples to apples. I would guess the average gas vehicle is logging a whole lot more miles per year. I would also guess that the rate of fires in 2 year old or less gas vehicles is much lower. So we really don't have a good comparative number.
It is a new technology....Tesla will figure it out and make fixes where needed.
"OSHA says the change is in line with President Barack Obama's initiative to increase public access to government data."
Or is it company data that is collected by the government?
I am resisting the urge to laugh.
Ha! That is perfectly withing your rights!
I agree. My ONLY point was that this number of fires is most definitely statistically significant. It can't be ignored, and I am sure Tesla is all over it. It may be that nothing needs to change to address any of the cause cases. It may be that there is some common factor that contributes to the fire even if the physical impacts were very different. I'd say any issues, if found, can be fixed with a little engineering.
Good points. I realized powder retention/re-use would be an issue, but I thought fusing would be less of one if the materials were chosen properly. Guess there is more work to be done.
An interesting capability of this type of additive manufacturing is the ability to change the metal alloy content in different parts of a single solid piece, adding another way to adjust the overall properties of the final product.
As for making guns, well, its a good way to get attention.
Yeah, the devil truly is in the details. Even Tesla can't design for that!
All I know is that this furloughed worker debate is meaningless in the context of this article unless someone actually believes that the website would have worked properly if they had those 3 more weeks.
Who feels confident that cyber-security protocols can be effectively managed under these conditions?
Correction....I should have said 10,000, or a town with about 10,000 vehicles that are regularly, because that is closer to the average number of Teslas on the road over the last 2 years, assuming they have been selling at a steady rate.
Your "town of 20k" don't all drive high-performance saloons. Most of them drive old beaters.
In which case you would expect a HIGHER rate of car fires since most happen due to mechanical failures.
-It isn't comparable, because a town of 20k people isn't going to have the same demographics as a suburb of 20k Tesla owners.
This statement makes no sense. The type of person driving a vehicle has no bearing on this discussion.
- in a regular car there would have been injuries in the passenger compartment because they don't have the shielding.
This statement has absolutely no basis, and might only apply to one of the Tesla cases.