Yes, this is intentional anti-nuclear scaremongering. Look at the AP and Reuters reports. Every one of them starts out with a headline that says something about nuclear explosion or meltdown and then goes straight into saying that 10,000 people have died and several thousands are missing and cities were "flattened" and on and on about hydrogen (bomb) explosions and just complete utter bullshit.
Yeah they require the grid. Mostly because even one reactor requires a huge load. But these reactors already have steam turbines to power backup cooling pumps. Batteries are needed for the control systems, but the main driver is the excess heat itself. There's really no reason they should have failed. Batteries shipped in by helicopters could have kept them going indefinitely.
The only problem is that they seem content to let an entire generation build helper robots for old people instead of upgrading critical infrastructure, like nuclear reactors.
Yes, they blow up and leak and might kill a few hundred people, or even a thousand.
Meanwhile, wood frame houses collapse and are washed away and kill ten times that amount.
So gather up all of your smelly hippie friends and form a human chain to protest people living in houses instead of teepees, because that would make more sense than protesting nuclear power.
Chinese don't recycle because of belief in socialism, they recycle because of the profit motive.
Sort of. The Chinese belief in socialism led directly to overpopulation, which led to resource depletion, which led to belief in capitalism and population controls.
So, compared with 100 years ago, Chinese today aren't really "profiting" by having to recycle other people's trash. They're just un-fucking their economy from decades of mismanagement.
It's like someone punching you in the face and then saying you're 'profiting' from reconstructive surgery.
We could also wind up with a back-yard reactor providing enough fuel from clippings and algae to give the average family most of it's commute and heating fuel.
Do you suppose there might be some fundamental philosophical difference between catholics, mormons and jews that might justify higher per-capita resource consumption on the part of the latter?
The primary function of an economy is not to create jobs. It is to satisfy demand. Some people demand labor, others will sacrifice their time and skill for money.
That's just the same thing. I demand labor to help build my robot army. What happens to that labor once the robots are built? It's a humongous negative externality built right into the flawed assumptions of almost every idiot economist on the planet.
Capitalism will fail? Fail to be replaced by what exactly?
The glorious workers revolution, comrade.
Oops, I forgot that happened nearly a century ago. And wage-labor capitalism failed several decades ago in developed countries like the US, once global free trade took hold. The only remnants of "capitalism" left to fail are crony-capitalism and state-capitalism, probably in that order.
Yes, Krugman is an idiot who believes that job creation is the primary function of an economy. In fact a large portion (majority?) of economists have been trained in this view, known as Keynesianism.
But that doesn't mean the government from which I am withdrawing doesn't have a right to put up a fight.
Actually, it does... since the concept of rights is based upon that which is morally justifiable, not just that which is possible. It is possible to "put up a fight" about all sorts of ridiculous things, but that doesn't make it a right. Forcing others to be a part of a government in which they have no interest can in no way be considered a right, but is a rather clear violation of individuals' right to self-determination.
This is a technology site and all, but that really doesn't give you any excuse for sleeping through high school civics.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to understand clearly and concisely why it has not been possible after so many days to maintain levels of coolant.
Supposedly the pump control room was flooded but yeah after three days that's really not much excuse.
Yes, this is intentional anti-nuclear scaremongering. Look at the AP and Reuters reports. Every one of them starts out with a headline that says something about nuclear explosion or meltdown and then goes straight into saying that 10,000 people have died and several thousands are missing and cities were "flattened" and on and on about hydrogen (bomb) explosions and just complete utter bullshit.
Yeah they require the grid. Mostly because even one reactor requires a huge load. But these reactors already have steam turbines to power backup cooling pumps. Batteries are needed for the control systems, but the main driver is the excess heat itself. There's really no reason they should have failed. Batteries shipped in by helicopters could have kept them going indefinitely.
Negative population growth is not a problem.
The only problem is that they seem content to let an entire generation build helper robots for old people instead of upgrading critical infrastructure, like nuclear reactors.
Cool story, bro.
But what does wasting trillions of dollars blowing shit up and killing people have to do with successful technical management?
They have them. Unfortunately they're about as effective as automatic brakes on a freight train.
Time to use that bridge to cross the fucking Rubicon.
Yes, they blow up and leak and might kill a few hundred people, or even a thousand.
Meanwhile, wood frame houses collapse and are washed away and kill ten times that amount.
So gather up all of your smelly hippie friends and form a human chain to protest people living in houses instead of teepees, because that would make more sense than protesting nuclear power.
Chinese don't recycle because of belief in socialism, they recycle because of the profit motive.
Sort of. The Chinese belief in socialism led directly to overpopulation, which led to resource depletion, which led to belief in capitalism and population controls.
So, compared with 100 years ago, Chinese today aren't really "profiting" by having to recycle other people's trash. They're just un-fucking their economy from decades of mismanagement.
It's like someone punching you in the face and then saying you're 'profiting' from reconstructive surgery.
We could also wind up with a back-yard reactor providing enough fuel from clippings and algae to give the average family most of it's commute and heating fuel.
Not unless your backyard is several acres.
with an efficiency that is probably comparable to solar panels.
The efficiency of biodiesel is at best 1/10 that of solar panels. Not that it matters, though.
If Kevin Costner has taught us anything, it's that postmen are weasely bastards who cannot be trusted.
Not billions, no, but hundreds of thousands per year, as long as the price of crude remains above $70/bbl or so:
http://www.dynamotive.com/2010/09/28/dynamotive-to-restart-operations-at-its-biooil-plant-in-guelph-ontario-canada/
Moving the food to the people costs money
Not money... but I'll give you one guess as to what it requires...
If plants are eating grass then I think we should probably look into that problem instead.
"We" aren't doing anything. I'm using my grass to create food, and fuel, and whatever else I need. You can use your grass however you want.
Do you suppose there might be some fundamental philosophical difference between catholics, mormons and jews that might justify higher per-capita resource consumption on the part of the latter?
You forgot:
* The consumer economy ("We're out of cheeseburgers, let's go liberate another oil field.")"Cold Warriors Still Losing Infowar"
The primary function of an economy is not to create jobs. It is to satisfy demand. Some people demand labor, others will sacrifice their time and skill for money.
That's just the same thing. I demand labor to help build my robot army. What happens to that labor once the robots are built? It's a humongous negative externality built right into the flawed assumptions of almost every idiot economist on the planet.
Capitalism will fail? Fail to be replaced by what exactly?
The glorious workers revolution, comrade.
Oops, I forgot that happened nearly a century ago. And wage-labor capitalism failed several decades ago in developed countries like the US, once global free trade took hold. The only remnants of "capitalism" left to fail are crony-capitalism and state-capitalism, probably in that order.
You don't have to do "random stuff". You just have to increase your investment timeframe.
In what fantasy land future would people with no capital ever be better off than those with capital?
Yes, Krugman is an idiot who believes that job creation is the primary function of an economy. In fact a large portion (majority?) of economists have been trained in this view, known as Keynesianism.
But that doesn't mean the government from which I am withdrawing doesn't have a right to put up a fight.
Actually, it does... since the concept of rights is based upon that which is morally justifiable, not just that which is possible. It is possible to "put up a fight" about all sorts of ridiculous things, but that doesn't make it a right. Forcing others to be a part of a government in which they have no interest can in no way be considered a right, but is a rather clear violation of individuals' right to self-determination.
This is a technology site and all, but that really doesn't give you any excuse for sleeping through high school civics.