Not to worry, we can all just stop giving to charities that used to help folks with health problems. And we can feel even better that we are paying for some folks who don't even want health care.
My first thoughts... the ocean currents are not the cause. Its the damn shape of the continents and ocean floor that is the real cause. Oh, wait, its the tectonic forces over millions of years... but hang on, its more the heat resulting from gravitational compression that.....oh no, basic physics is to blame for this unfairness.
If you are saying the total cost to your business & workers for healthcare & related taxes and fees are lower than they were before, then I think you are in small minority or a very unique situation. If it is simply a matter of shifting more of that cost to the employees, then in the end you will pay one way or another, as they will want compensation to counter their increase costs. My company is paying about the same out of their pocket this coming year, but employees are getting hit pretty hard.
Its pretty awesome stuff for the insurance companies though! When you mandate everyone must buy a product, that product price will increase. Next step is artificial price controls, followed by decreasing service quality. Yippee.....
But again, although the negatives are greater, there are also positives... people spending money while they'd otherwise be at work, maybe working some side jobs or taking advantage of other opportunities. There is also less spending and a slowing of debt accumulation. There will be increased spending coming as well.
As long as you see all sides, you get it. The sum total of the immediate impact may be less or more than 24B, but given our ability to accurately model economic flow, I doubt anyone really knows. In the end, its just noise in the big picture. Our futures were not impacted in any meaningful way by that economic disturbance.
$24b is probably conservative to some extent, depending on if S&P was counting only the duration of the shutdown or was extrapolating for future aftereffects.
You mean like the aftereffect of the government spending at an increased rate to make up for lost time? Or does your equation only allow for the negatives?
It would more accurately be described as a $24B "shift" than a loss. The spending will happen through a different path and schedule, but it will happen. Along then way, there are positive and negative impacts, and you can see both, none, or all, depending on what you choose to look for.
On the flip side, some of those who were getting a little time off may have been out spending some money. If contractors were furloughed under the terms of their contract, then they should not consider themselves as screwed.
The chemical reactions that drive battery output tend to work better at higher temperatures. Maybe the newer technologies have reduced this impact, but I'd guess you would want to keep you battery above a certain temperature. IF your were not charging, it could keep itself heated at the expense of some stored energy.
But what about hot climates? How much does running the Air Conditioning impact an electric vehicle's range? I would guess that the impact is quite large.
Agreed. And what about cost reduction through standardization? How can it be cost effective to have to design and manufacture different batteries for every car model on the market? How could oddly shaped components be manufactured cheaper than a design where shape is designed to minimize manufacturing cost. And what is the cost of every car factory becoming a battery factory as well rather than having centralized manufacturing? Inquiring minds want to know.
I'm sorry, but that reference is absolutely ridiculous. I can do it one better, lets just all quit using power all-together and we can get by with one windmill each for pumping water from wells.
Please, I hate it when these academia 'think tanks' show us how they have it all figured out and those idiots that have been managing the industry for years don't have a clue. There is a reason these guys are not managers at electric utilities and instead are just talking about dream scenarios.
If you want to explain it, go ahead, but I am so freaking tired of folks who go out and find some BS article or paper that has no validation whatsoever and just post it without making any kind of statement or point that gives any indication if they even know what they are posting. Have you taken even the slightest critical look it?
To a certain extent, yes, tritium leakage could have been reduced or eliminated if certain maintenance activities were identified and executed. But seeing as we are dealing primarily with drainage systems and an issue that appeared slowly over time, that is easier said than done.
I don't have the facts on your false testimony claim (along with the "quite a lot of" to make is sound as bad as possible), but I admit the whole thing at VY was handled poorly and ignored/minimized too long and that someone may have stated false facts. I am disappointed in their response big time. Too bad that some folks in the industry feel the need to get so defensive about certain issues. Its a reaction in part to those factions that continuously portray issues to be much greater than they are, and the general public can no longer get a sense which issues they should really be concerned with.
But why it the tritium leak thing such a big deal? I know it sounds bad if you don't know the real facts, amounts, impacts.
I will never claim the industry is not without fault. Name one that is. I am just saying the risks are not as they are often portrayed. Tritium is a great example of that.
You can't ignore the need for baseload generation and come up with a solution in any meaningful timeframe. I admit, it would be very convenient if we could.
Thanks and good point. Analogies like this are never perfect, but I think my example is pretty fair overall. Tritium leakage is not ignored, it has been well analyzed. For some plants, 100% stoppage of it is pretty hard to accomplish, but analysis shows it is not a safety issue operationally. The debate over the environmental impact is out there. It is pretty benign and the quantities are small. That's another discussion.
I forgot to add... violations are often self-identified and reported. So a plant with more self identified violations could possibly just be policing themselves with greater scrutiny.
As a person who works in the nuclear power industry, I can explain some factors.
First, plant inspectors are moved on a regular basis, and there is enough involvement from various other NRC reviewers and experts to keep a check.
Second, the threshold for violations is so low that it is pretty much impossible to not have any. Only a small percentage of violations have safety significance, and most of those have low safety significant. Most violations are cited because they may be potential indicators of a drop in safety. By setting the threshold this low the NRC keeps operating performance within a conservatively safe margin.
Third, a final citing for a violation depends a lot on the plant's response to the initial finding. If a plant shows deference to the finding, cannot adequately explain its occurrence, or shows that there was some known programmatic fault that enabled the condition, they are more likely to get cited with a violation in the end. Some plant owners can be a bit short when responding to what they may perceive as a petty finding.
Fourth, plants that have a history of violation often get added scrutiny, therefore there is bit of a circular effect.
The utilities that own plants in the southeast are, in my opinion, the best at both preventing conditions that are potential violations and also at responding to findings. Fleet owners often do a little bit better job than single unit owners (but there are exceptions). I can tell you with certainty, those plants that are falling off the mark get exposed by both the NRC as well as INPO, and nobody lets up until they get back to a state of operational excellence with and appropriate safety culture.
If folks in other occupations got a comparable level of scrutiny as nuclear plant workers and operators do, they would probably start with tens of violations or more an hour.
If car inspections were held at that same level of scrutiny, you would have to immediately park your car if air pressure dropped.001 psi in a tire, and could not use it again until you found the cause of the problem, repaired it, and put in place safeguards to ensure it was not likely to ever happen again. Then prepare a lengthy report, have it reviewed with great scrutiny and hopefully approved by the regulator. Then you would likely receive a fine because you did not discover it yourself.
We, in the nuclear industry, welcome this level of scrutiny. It is part of our lives and culture.
I am not an evil, fire breathing, money hungry fiend. I grew up in the mountains of North Carolina. A Sierra club member in my teens, I'd hike the trails and clean up other people's trash, carrying it out with me. I care as much as anyone about our environment. All sources of power have their pros and cons. Nuclear waste is a serious one for my industry, but if you compare on a true scale of impact and risk, it is hands down the best path forward for baseload generation.
Sorry for that last preachy part, couldn't help myself. Cheers.
You can find comparable demos if you had the resources.
Regardless, schools are state run, not federal. A big difference. There is a lot of variance between states and even counties in quality of management. Some states are much better managing their finances than others. Some have nearly balanced budgets while others are deep in the red. So I'd agree there are some examples where public schools do better, but its nowhere near across the board.
And public schools don't often reflect land cost in their operating budgets either. Furthermore, if a private school saves cost in creative ways such as re-purposing an existing facility, more power to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to worry, we can all just stop giving to charities that used to help folks with health problems. And we can feel even better that we are paying for some folks who don't even want health care.
Which platform did they use to implement this ?
Democratic, I believe.
The web coding is a lot like the Obama-care act; nobody knows whats in it.
Whatever the reason, it is completely unfair and we must to something about it. I think a global precipitation tax is a good place to start.
My first thoughts... the ocean currents are not the cause. Its the damn shape of the continents and ocean floor that is the real cause. Oh, wait, its the tectonic forces over millions of years... but hang on, its more the heat resulting from gravitational compression that.....oh no, basic physics is to blame for this unfairness.
You forgot to close with the obligatory "MUAHAHAHA!"
If you are saying the total cost to your business & workers for healthcare & related taxes and fees are lower than they were before, then I think you are in small minority or a very unique situation. If it is simply a matter of shifting more of that cost to the employees, then in the end you will pay one way or another, as they will want compensation to counter their increase costs. My company is paying about the same out of their pocket this coming year, but employees are getting hit pretty hard.
Its pretty awesome stuff for the insurance companies though! When you mandate everyone must buy a product, that product price will increase. Next step is artificial price controls, followed by decreasing service quality. Yippee.....
Maybe there was not a "sarcastic but some idiots won't figure that out" classification available.
But again, although the negatives are greater, there are also positives... people spending money while they'd otherwise be at work, maybe working some side jobs or taking advantage of other opportunities. There is also less spending and a slowing of debt accumulation. There will be increased spending coming as well.
As long as you see all sides, you get it. The sum total of the immediate impact may be less or more than 24B, but given our ability to accurately model economic flow, I doubt anyone really knows. In the end, its just noise in the big picture. Our futures were not impacted in any meaningful way by that economic disturbance.
"During sleep, the Cerebrospinal fluid fills channels in the brain"
So the "wet dream" is all in your head.......
$24b is probably conservative to some extent, depending on if S&P was counting only the duration of the shutdown or was extrapolating for future aftereffects.
You mean like the aftereffect of the government spending at an increased rate to make up for lost time? Or does your equation only allow for the negatives?
It would more accurately be described as a $24B "shift" than a loss. The spending will happen through a different path and schedule, but it will happen. Along then way, there are positive and negative impacts, and you can see both, none, or all, depending on what you choose to look for.
On the flip side, some of those who were getting a little time off may have been out spending some money. If contractors were furloughed under the terms of their contract, then they should not consider themselves as screwed.
How much does increasing the cost of running a business cost us in the global economy?
How did all that money just leave the economy? Did someone give it away to another country?
damages will be paid using carbon credits, not real money.
The chemical reactions that drive battery output tend to work better at higher temperatures. Maybe the newer technologies have reduced this impact, but I'd guess you would want to keep you battery above a certain temperature. IF your were not charging, it could keep itself heated at the expense of some stored energy.
But what about hot climates? How much does running the Air Conditioning impact an electric vehicle's range? I would guess that the impact is quite large.
Agreed. And what about cost reduction through standardization? How can it be cost effective to have to design and manufacture different batteries for every car model on the market? How could oddly shaped components be manufactured cheaper than a design where shape is designed to minimize manufacturing cost. And what is the cost of every car factory becoming a battery factory as well rather than having centralized manufacturing? Inquiring minds want to know.
I'm sorry, but that reference is absolutely ridiculous. I can do it one better, lets just all quit using power all-together and we can get by with one windmill each for pumping water from wells.
Please, I hate it when these academia 'think tanks' show us how they have it all figured out and those idiots that have been managing the industry for years don't have a clue. There is a reason these guys are not managers at electric utilities and instead are just talking about dream scenarios.
If you want to explain it, go ahead, but I am so freaking tired of folks who go out and find some BS article or paper that has no validation whatsoever and just post it without making any kind of statement or point that gives any indication if they even know what they are posting. Have you taken even the slightest critical look it?
To a certain extent, yes, tritium leakage could have been reduced or eliminated if certain maintenance activities were identified and executed. But seeing as we are dealing primarily with drainage systems and an issue that appeared slowly over time, that is easier said than done.
I don't have the facts on your false testimony claim (along with the "quite a lot of" to make is sound as bad as possible), but I admit the whole thing at VY was handled poorly and ignored/minimized too long and that someone may have stated false facts. I am disappointed in their response big time. Too bad that some folks in the industry feel the need to get so defensive about certain issues. Its a reaction in part to those factions that continuously portray issues to be much greater than they are, and the general public can no longer get a sense which issues they should really be concerned with.
But why it the tritium leak thing such a big deal? I know it sounds bad if you don't know the real facts, amounts, impacts.
I will never claim the industry is not without fault. Name one that is. I am just saying the risks are not as they are often portrayed. Tritium is a great example of that.
Nice objective and knowledgeable choice of sources there (he said sarcastically).
You can't ignore the need for baseload generation and come up with a solution in any meaningful timeframe. I admit, it would be very convenient if we could.
Thanks and good point. Analogies like this are never perfect, but I think my example is pretty fair overall. Tritium leakage is not ignored, it has been well analyzed. For some plants, 100% stoppage of it is pretty hard to accomplish, but analysis shows it is not a safety issue operationally. The debate over the environmental impact is out there. It is pretty benign and the quantities are small. That's another discussion.
I forgot to add... violations are often self-identified and reported. So a plant with more self identified violations could possibly just be policing themselves with greater scrutiny.
As a person who works in the nuclear power industry, I can explain some factors.
.001 psi in a tire, and could not use it again until you found the cause of the problem, repaired it, and put in place safeguards to ensure it was not likely to ever happen again. Then prepare a lengthy report, have it reviewed with great scrutiny and hopefully approved by the regulator. Then you would likely receive a fine because you did not discover it yourself.
First, plant inspectors are moved on a regular basis, and there is enough involvement from various other NRC reviewers and experts to keep a check.
Second, the threshold for violations is so low that it is pretty much impossible to not have any. Only a small percentage of violations have safety significance, and most of those have low safety significant. Most violations are cited because they may be potential indicators of a drop in safety. By setting the threshold this low the NRC keeps operating performance within a conservatively safe margin.
Third, a final citing for a violation depends a lot on the plant's response to the initial finding. If a plant shows deference to the finding, cannot adequately explain its occurrence, or shows that there was some known programmatic fault that enabled the condition, they are more likely to get cited with a violation in the end. Some plant owners can be a bit short when responding to what they may perceive as a petty finding.
Fourth, plants that have a history of violation often get added scrutiny, therefore there is bit of a circular effect.
The utilities that own plants in the southeast are, in my opinion, the best at both preventing conditions that are potential violations and also at responding to findings. Fleet owners often do a little bit better job than single unit owners (but there are exceptions). I can tell you with certainty, those plants that are falling off the mark get exposed by both the NRC as well as INPO, and nobody lets up until they get back to a state of operational excellence with and appropriate safety culture.
If folks in other occupations got a comparable level of scrutiny as nuclear plant workers and operators do, they would probably start with tens of violations or more an hour. If car inspections were held at that same level of scrutiny, you would have to immediately park your car if air pressure dropped
We, in the nuclear industry, welcome this level of scrutiny. It is part of our lives and culture.
I am not an evil, fire breathing, money hungry fiend. I grew up in the mountains of North Carolina. A Sierra club member in my teens, I'd hike the trails and clean up other people's trash, carrying it out with me. I care as much as anyone about our environment. All sources of power have their pros and cons. Nuclear waste is a serious one for my industry, but if you compare on a true scale of impact and risk, it is hands down the best path forward for baseload generation.
Sorry for that last preachy part, couldn't help myself. Cheers.
You can find comparable demos if you had the resources.
Regardless, schools are state run, not federal. A big difference. There is a lot of variance between states and even counties in quality of management. Some states are much better managing their finances than others. Some have nearly balanced budgets while others are deep in the red. So I'd agree there are some examples where public schools do better, but its nowhere near across the board.
And public schools don't often reflect land cost in their operating budgets either. Furthermore, if a private school saves cost in creative ways such as re-purposing an existing facility, more power to them.