Climate change is real. I have been reading Slahdot since the 90's. I only created an account as a response to the anti-nuclear lies by mdsolar and others. I also work on education software hence the word algebra.
First I meant unspent fuel aka nuclear waste. We only use about 1%-5% of the energy in the fuel rods, hence the word unspent.
Second less than 60 deaths can be attributed to Chernobyl. Luckily the estimated deaths never occurred because the linear no threshold used to estimate radiation deaths is bullshit. More people died today from fossil fuels than have ever died from nuclear energy.
And third we have 4th generation reactors which cannot meltdown. NuScale is building their first Small Modular reactor in Idaho. These reactor have already been certified as being unable to meltdown and has passed phase 1 of the NRC review. They are factory built which will greatly reduce the costs. Are you suggesting we should not build these types of reactors because of an accident in the USSR that killed less than 60 people?
Do you know that climate change is real? And that the leading driver of climate change is from emissions from fossil fuels? And that the top climate scientists have called nuclear energy the only viable path forward on climate change?
Damn you are fucked up in the head. Are you physically incapable of admitting you are wrong? When confronted with facts which contradict your preconceived notions you go straight to kill me.
You must really hate me for supporting nuclear energy. Maybe you should sign in instead of cyber stalking me and threatening me with death. Nuclear energy has saved million of lives. Conversely opposition to nuclear energy has killed 10's of millions. I want people to live. Yeah fuck me right?
Who was injured from the Fukushima plant? No one was injured. Zero, 0, nil. I am glad you care more about the 0 people killed than the 16000 who died during the Tsunami. You are probably a russian troll. Your homophobia is proof of that.
I am full of shit? You are the one conflating an artifact of the Manhattan project in WW2 with the unspent fuel from a nuclear power plant. There is a word for what you just did--lie. Apples and Oranges are different. Nuclear weapons and nuclear energy are different. Damn you are stupid. And for the record no one has ever been harmed from unspent fuel (aka nuclear waste).
I have no problem with nuclear waste in my backyard. If you would be willing to support nuclear energy I would literally put it in my backyard. Hell put in a couple dozen NuScale reactors as well.
Waste is a red herring. It has never harmed anyone in human history. It is only really dangerous if you eat it. Don't eat the heavy metal rod.
According to Finnish Analysis-assuming nuclear waste canisters start leaking waste after a mere 1000 years, a city is built on top of the repository by people who only eat food produced locally and only drink water from local sources and spend 24/365 on the most contaminated spot it is possible one living person in 12000 AD might receive a dose of 0.00018 mSv per year. That is the equivalent to eating 2 bananas. And that is the worst possible case.
Waste is a trivial problem. We can and should recycle it. We can produces 1000's of years of electricity from our unspent fuel.
Thousands of pools around the country waiting to explode is not acceptable.
You said that "breeder reactors don't work." A successful experiment is the only example I need to prove your statement false.
You are changing the goal posts by now saying "viable commercial reactor" which is also not true. The US fast-neutron breeder reactor project was shutdown by the Clinton administration as a favor to the fossil fuel industry. It was never an issue with technical feasibility or commercial viability. The Russians have a successful breeder reactor called the BN-800 reactor which they are exporting all over the world. Bill Gates is also building a viable commercial reactor, a Traveling Wave Reactor, in China. There are also a lot of companies building small modular reactors such as NuScale. All of these learned from the Experimental Breeder Reactor II.
Do facts just get in the way of your preconceived notions?
Other than the fact that breeder reactors don't work, it's a good theory.
The United States built one in Idaho called the experimental breeder reactor II . It worked and was the worlds first 4th generation reactor. So yes breeder reactors do work. The real issue with nuclear is that it would make fossil fuels obsolete which is why the fossil fuel industry has spent billions convincing "useful idiots" like yourself that nuclear is bad. That is why the project was shutdown. Not because it did not work, but because the fossil fuel industry did not want any competition from meltdown proof reactors that can recycle waste.
Last time I check nuclear energy does not dump any pollution into the environment. It is the only source of energy(except hydro) that is required to control 100% of its waste products.
Waste is a red herring. It has never harmed anyone in human history. It is only really dangerous if you eat it. Don't eat the heavy metal rod.
According to Finnish Analysis-assuming nuclear waste canisters start leaking waste after a mere 1000 years, a city is built on top of the repository by people who only eat food produced locally and only drink water from local sources and spend 24/365 on the most contaminated spot it is possible one living person in 12000 AD might receive a dose of 0.00018 mSv per year. That is the equivalent to eating 2 bananas.
Waste is a trivial problem. We can and should recycle it. We can produces 1000's of year of electricity from our unspent fuel.
So yes nuclear energy is 100% clean you stupid fucktard
Except Apple is not 100% renewable. Purchasing renewable credits is not the same thing as being 100% renewable. The goal of course is to be 100% clean which includes nuclear energy. Samsung uses a lot of nuclear energy being in South Korea.
The same capital used to support the mining, extraction, shipment, processing, security, construction, and removal and storage of nuclear fission plants could build 20-40 times as much in actual renewables which have longer lifespans and far lower negative impacts.
That is total bullshit. Germany has spent $250,000,000,000+ on renewables, and their electricity grid is still 10x dirtier than their neighbor France(France is 75% nuclear btw). The average energy bill in Germany is one of the highest in Europe while France has one of the lowest. And in no way do renewables have a longer life span than nuclear energy.
FTFY : It's all about capital investment. As the capital flows into 4th generation nuclear energy, economies of scale force the market to replace older, less efficient, energy sources(solar, wind, coal, gas). The capital must flow!
We cannot reduce greenhouse gasses significantly without new nuclear. We have known that for more than 5 decades. Renewables can't even keep up with bitcoin, let alone power our grid 24/7.
Thankfully a company based in Oregon, http://www.nuscalepower.com/ , just completed phase 1 NRC review ahead of schedule. Their reactor is a type of small modular reactor. It can be built on an assembly line like an airplane and then shipped anywhere in the world. The economics of scale will reduce the cost significantly(for both operator and consumer). It is meltdown proof. Meaning even if you tried to cause a meltdown you would fail. Their first plant will be in Idaho for an Utah energy company.
Sorry no experience with TDD(Telecommunication Device for the Deaf). Supporting auditory impairments is much easier the visual impairments. I am sure there is software/hardware that will meet your mothers needs.
Apple is really good with accessibility in all of their products. I develop educational apps for iOS, and I am required by law to make my software Americansd with Disabilities Act compliant. Apple software makes this easy. Their Voiceover technology makes most things compatible. A standardized braille system will continue to make my job easier.
I have worked with several kids who are visually impaired, and they are inseparable from their iPhones.
The better solution would be to keep Diablo Canyon open past its planned 2024/2025 shutdown. The reactors are the best in the world. Reopen the San Onofre power station in San Diego -- even if we only open it at half capacity.
We also need to restart construction of the Sun Desert Nuclear power plant near Blythe. We could purchase 96 NuScale nuclear reactors. NuScale reactors should also be installed at the Rancho Seco Complex near Sacramento.
If we do this California's electricity could be nearly carbon free by 2030. If we go with solar-roofs we will still be polluting and will have wasted a lot of money.
Slashdot Mirror
I must have hit a nerve to piss you off this much. Haha. I am not going to change my position.
Climate change is real. I have been reading Slahdot since the 90's. I only created an account as a response to the anti-nuclear lies by mdsolar and others. I also work on education software hence the word algebra.
Fuck you dead baby asshole
I said no one was harmed from waste(unspent fuel) which is a true statement. Less than 60 died in Chernobyl and thats is it world wide.
You are the dead baby asshole. When you lost the moral debate you showed me pictures of dead babies and blamed me for them. Fuck you.
First I meant unspent fuel aka nuclear waste. We only use about 1%-5% of the energy in the fuel rods, hence the word unspent.
Second less than 60 deaths can be attributed to Chernobyl. Luckily the estimated deaths never occurred because the linear no threshold used to estimate radiation deaths is bullshit. More people died today from fossil fuels than have ever died from nuclear energy.
And third we have 4th generation reactors which cannot meltdown. NuScale is building their first Small Modular reactor in Idaho. These reactor have already been certified as being unable to meltdown and has passed phase 1 of the NRC review. They are factory built which will greatly reduce the costs. Are you suggesting we should not build these types of reactors because of an accident in the USSR that killed less than 60 people?
Do you know that climate change is real? And that the leading driver of climate change is from emissions from fossil fuels? And that the top climate scientists have called nuclear energy the only viable path forward on climate change?
No one has been harmed by nuclear waste. And no one is going to die from Fukushima. And I have done my research.
Damn you are fucked up in the head. Are you physically incapable of admitting you are wrong? When confronted with facts which contradict your preconceived notions you go straight to kill me.
Climate change is real. There is a reason the top climate scientists support nuclear energy and the fossil fuel industry opposes it.
You must really hate me for supporting nuclear energy. Maybe you should sign in instead of cyber stalking me and threatening me with death. Nuclear energy has saved million of lives. Conversely opposition to nuclear energy has killed 10's of millions. I want people to live. Yeah fuck me right?
Who was injured from the Fukushima plant? No one was injured. Zero, 0, nil. I am glad you care more about the 0 people killed than the 16000 who died during the Tsunami. You are probably a russian troll. Your homophobia is proof of that.
I am full of shit? You are the one conflating an artifact of the Manhattan project in WW2 with the unspent fuel from a nuclear power plant. There is a word for what you just did--lie. Apples and Oranges are different. Nuclear weapons and nuclear energy are different. Damn you are stupid. And for the record no one has ever been harmed from unspent fuel (aka nuclear waste).
I have no problem with nuclear waste in my backyard. If you would be willing to support nuclear energy I would literally put it in my backyard. Hell put in a couple dozen NuScale reactors as well.
Thousands of pools around the country waiting to explode is not acceptable.
They can't explode dumbass.
You said that "breeder reactors don't work." A successful experiment is the only example I need to prove your statement false.
You are changing the goal posts by now saying "viable commercial reactor" which is also not true. The US fast-neutron breeder reactor project was shutdown by the Clinton administration as a favor to the fossil fuel industry. It was never an issue with technical feasibility or commercial viability. The Russians have a successful breeder reactor called the BN-800 reactor which they are exporting all over the world. Bill Gates is also building a viable commercial reactor, a Traveling Wave Reactor, in China. There are also a lot of companies building small modular reactors such as NuScale. All of these learned from the Experimental Breeder Reactor II.
Do facts just get in the way of your preconceived notions?
Other than the fact that breeder reactors don't work, it's a good theory.
The United States built one in Idaho called the experimental breeder reactor II . It worked and was the worlds first 4th generation reactor. So yes breeder reactors do work. The real issue with nuclear is that it would make fossil fuels obsolete which is why the fossil fuel industry has spent billions convincing "useful idiots" like yourself that nuclear is bad. That is why the project was shutdown. Not because it did not work, but because the fossil fuel industry did not want any competition from meltdown proof reactors that can recycle waste.
Last time I check nuclear energy does not dump any pollution into the environment. It is the only source of energy(except hydro) that is required to control 100% of its waste products.
Waste is a red herring. It has never harmed anyone in human history. It is only really dangerous if you eat it. Don't eat the heavy metal rod.
According to Finnish Analysis-assuming nuclear waste canisters start leaking waste after a mere 1000 years, a city is built on top of the repository by people who only eat food produced locally and only drink water from local sources and spend 24/365 on the most contaminated spot it is possible one living person in 12000 AD might receive a dose of 0.00018 mSv per year. That is the equivalent to eating 2 bananas.
Waste is a trivial problem. We can and should recycle it. We can produces 1000's of year of electricity from our unspent fuel.
So yes nuclear energy is 100% clean you stupid fucktard
Except Apple is not 100% renewable. Purchasing renewable credits is not the same thing as being 100% renewable. The goal of course is to be 100% clean which includes nuclear energy. Samsung uses a lot of nuclear energy being in South Korea.
Just because you feel something is true, does not make it so. So provide a peer-reviewed source that says supports your bullshit.
The same capital used to support the mining, extraction, shipment, processing, security, construction, and removal and storage of nuclear fission plants could build 20-40 times as much in actual renewables which have longer lifespans and far lower negative impacts.
That is total bullshit. Germany has spent $250,000,000,000+ on renewables, and their electricity grid is still 10x dirtier than their neighbor France(France is 75% nuclear btw). The average energy bill in Germany is one of the highest in Europe while France has one of the lowest. And in no way do renewables have a longer life span than nuclear energy.
FTFY : It's all about capital investment. As the capital flows into 4th generation nuclear energy, economies of scale force the market to replace older, less efficient, energy sources(solar, wind, coal, gas). The capital must flow!
We cannot reduce greenhouse gasses significantly without new nuclear. We have known that for more than 5 decades. Renewables can't even keep up with bitcoin, let alone power our grid 24/7.
Thankfully a company based in Oregon, http://www.nuscalepower.com/ , just completed phase 1 NRC review ahead of schedule. Their reactor is a type of small modular reactor. It can be built on an assembly line like an airplane and then shipped anywhere in the world. The economics of scale will reduce the cost significantly(for both operator and consumer). It is meltdown proof. Meaning even if you tried to cause a meltdown you would fail. Their first plant will be in Idaho for an Utah energy company.
That might be true, but we are talking about accessibility.
Sorry no experience with TDD(Telecommunication Device for the Deaf). Supporting auditory impairments is much easier the visual impairments. I am sure there is software/hardware that will meet your mothers needs.
Apple is really good with accessibility in all of their products. I develop educational apps for iOS, and I am required by law to make my software Americansd with Disabilities Act compliant. Apple software makes this easy. Their Voiceover technology makes most things compatible. A standardized braille system will continue to make my job easier.
I have worked with several kids who are visually impaired, and they are inseparable from their iPhones.
The better solution would be to keep Diablo Canyon open past its planned 2024/2025 shutdown. The reactors are the best in the world. Reopen the San Onofre power station in San Diego -- even if we only open it at half capacity.
We also need to restart construction of the Sun Desert Nuclear power plant near Blythe. We could purchase 96 NuScale nuclear reactors. NuScale reactors should also be installed at the Rancho Seco Complex near Sacramento.
If we do this California's electricity could be nearly carbon free by 2030. If we go with solar-roofs we will still be polluting and will have wasted a lot of money.