Actually the question of whether it's anthropogenic is largely irrelevant. As amelioration regimens would likely need to start with anthropogenic sources in the first place.
In short, who CARES whose fault it is. Let's just clean the shit up!
Will this create problems when trying to root out bad actors? Sure!
The thing is, there's no such thing as perfect safety. No matter how hard law enforcement agencies try.
So, the American public can grow a pair, and realize that the government CANNOT protect them in all situations. They can then choose whether or not they will act with more circumspection and awareness of the dangers inherent in their surroundings. And they'll accept the fact that sometimes bad things happen regardless of how much effort was put into prevention.
Or we can simply have ever-greater encroachment on people's liberties. And bad shit will CONTINUE to happen, regardless of how much effort is put into prevention.
To my eyes, it appears that almost nobody actually IS actually DOING anything. It's just lots of talking/shouting at this point.
And how is wanting REAL, tangible action on climate change somehow "downplaying threats".
It's like going over to a friend's house and they're constantly bitching about the leak in the roof.
At some point, you get fed up and tell them to fix it themselves or get it fixed!
I know the problems are big. I know the problems are VERY (VERY VERY VERY) not simple.
I just want to get *started* so we're not all just standing here 20, years from now, with our dicks in our hands, with nothing accomplished and people still screaming about the negative consequences of climate change.
I don't wanna tell my brother's kids that we're leaving them a shithole of a planet that's pretty much doomed to runaway greenhouse effect and all the nasty stuff that follows on from there.
I don't give a shit that there are still dumbfucks out there that don't believe it's happening. You can't fix stupid. And no amount of screaming at them is going to do it either. They just dig their heels in a DERP on.
So let's stop trying to negotiate with mental defectives and just get to work.
What I'm saying is we see a lot of people TALKING about global warming, and precious few people actually doing a goddamn thing about it.
You spouting off facts about rising temperatures and ocean acidification accomplishes nothing, because you think I'm a climate denialist. So you go into full on didactic dumbfuck mode and start spewing factoids like Wikipedia was put under high pressure and then sprung a leak. The problem is, I'm NOT a climate denialist. I realize there's a problem. What I want to know is are we going to do something to ameliorate this problem? Or are we just going to stand here wringing our hands about how fucked we are?
Terrorists. Terrorists are coming to kill you all and drop you off buildings, chop off your head, etc, etc, e*YAWN*
Global Warming. We're all going to cook. We're all going to die. Floods, storms, we're doomed. Doomed I say! DOOOOOOOOMED!
FUD. All of it.
We keep getting "warnings" about this crap. But when challenged to actually DO something, scientists, politicians, etc immediately perform a rectal thumb insert. But they're more than happy to keep taking our money for this sick fear culture. Heaven forefend if the cash flow stops to The Church of Oh Shit!
Shit or get off the pot. Stop "warning" us about it and fucking DO something.
Basically, they announce that they're "at war" with someone.
The target gets crudely doxed by stuff you can find on the internet readily, maybe DDOS'ed for a day or two, then Anonymous's legion of script kiddies declare "victory".
A $15 an hour minimum wage means that solutions that job-replacement solutions that were too expensive to justify at a lower wage have now moved into the "sensibly affordable" range.
And people who run "studies" like this are ignorant shitheads.
And people who write summaries like "Study says" are slack-jawed mouth breathers. Because studies don't "say" anything. And this study was basically "in the opinion of the lackwits we interviewed"
Sorry, but the Internet isn't a fucking democracy. Nor a popularity contest. So your average majority of ignorant luddites (including every single politician currently sitting in office, as well as those waiting in the wings) have exactly DICK to actually say about technology implementation.
Sure, they can THINK their word and opinion means something. It isn't even worth the effort it takes to simply ignore them as the clueless blowhard jackasses they really are.
It's their damn network, they need to maintain it or get the fuck out of the state.
If they want money from the state (ESPECIALLY a sum like 100 million, they better have a fiber replacement strategy in hand when they come begging for the money.
Outlining right of a militia isn't what is going on in 2A.
It's recognizing the role played in America's war of independence by irregular troops coming in out of the general populace. And, because such troops came self-armed and trained in many cases, the Continental Army wasn't required to arm or give them more than cursory training.
The framers of the Constitution and its Amendments understood the vital role they played, and how badly things would have gone without them.
As such, they codified 2A to make sure that, if need be, the general populace could legally put its hands on firearms on an ad hoc basis and a government bent on re-establishing Tyranny would have to deal with its own laws in this regard.
I'm talking about molten salt reactors. Drain the fuel into a dump tank and the reaction shuts down.
Yes, you have radioactive byproducts that need to be removed. But it's a matter of removing parts that are already meant to be replaceable as part of normal operational cycle.
Basically the reactor vessel and the dump tanks are all contained inside a containment vessel that's dropped into a concrete well.
When it's time to service the reactor, you simply swap the entire containment vessel out for a new one, with the original being shipped back and refurbished. Decommissioning is the same process, without dropping in a new component.
This also allows reactors to be upgraded during normal operational lifetimes as technology points to a better way to do certain things.
MSRs have a default state of "off". You simply CANNOT have a meltdown, as the fuel is ALREADY in a molten state BY DESIGN. And shutting down the reaction causes the fuel to "freeze" essentially. Also, unless you somehow manage to nullify gravity, there's nothing stopping a depowered MSR from popping it's plug and dropping the fuel into a dump tank and out of the reaction chamber.
This isn't "new tech". This is simple, elegant design.
And yes, a reactor with a default state of "off" IS possible.
Now, if you were talking about a solid fuel boiling water reactor, sure. You'd be right.
But I'm not talking about a solid fuel BWR.
If a reaction in an MSR gets too hot, it cooks the frozen salt plug to the dump tank. It dumps the fuel. The reaction stops. The reactor cools and the fuel hardens.
If the reactor loses power, the frozen salt plug stops being actively cooled, the plug melts. It dumps the fuel. The reaction stops. The reactor cools and the fuel hardens.
And you can dump the salt solution into a brand new reactor. But without the initial catalyzation, the fuel just cools off and hardens.
So yes, it's possible to build a reactor with a default state of "off".
You realize there are roughly 100 nuclear reactors going in the US. And the majority of them have had not one major safety issue in their entire lifespan right?
And that newer reactor technologies are far simpler and have a default state of "off".
Adding the kind of safety precautions you require for current solid-fuel reactors to such devices is largely pointless.
And, believe it or not, physical security for such plants is usually not that expensive.
The expense in nuclear power comes from the hostile regulatory environment that's been created. And all the NIMBY legal challenges brought up for each and every reactor commissioned.
People need to stop thinking about nuclear reactors as bombs.
Unless we figure out fusion power quickly (which I'm doubtful of), fission power, combined with existing hydro and thermal solar is our best bet for stable baseline power in this country. Renewables like PD solar and wind power, as well as power storage solutions, are best left to cover demand peaks.
The problem is that so few people know anything more than "nuclear = bomb" and "radiation will kill you", that it's created this vast climate of FUD around nuclear power.
And all they say when you mention nuclear power is "Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima".
None of these were failures intrinsic to the reactor.
Chernobyl: Idiots disabling safety equipment and fucking around with the reactor.
TMI: Human error compounded by bad control indicators.
Fukushima: A company cheaping out and not listening to civil engineering with regards to a sea wall meant to stave off large waves.
We're also talking about reactors based on decades-old technology and Rube Goldberg systems to stave off every possible problem an engineer could envision.
Rather than just designing a reactor with a default state of "off".
More modern reactor designs take this sort of thing into account.
Additionally, people gripe about the amount of nuclear waste being produced. Never mind that most reactors based on this older technology consume, at best, 5% of the actual "fuel" in the medium (rods, pellets, etc) before the medium is removed from the reactor.
With reprocessing, that fuel can continue to be used for extended periods of time. Resulting in far less long-lived waste, and the remainder being waste that is only being radioactive in the short term.
The worst route I ever had was actually given out by Rand McNally the one year (as they adjust for construction).
From Chicago to Virginia. Once I hit Pennsylvania, I got sent down roads that were technically a highway. The road's name changed a dozen times, twists and turns and switchbacks all over the place, and I went through every one horse town in eastern PA, WV and VA.
For the drive back home, I picked up an actual road atlas and dead-reckoned my way back across major expressways.
...and then off a cliff, maybe a couple hundred feet high.
Damn...
Shit like this is why you never, never NEVER trust your GPS and turn your head off.
The worst GPS has ever done me is send me down a county route in a truck too big for it. Next worst was directing me a mile out of my way east from a light, make an elaborate U-turn, then come back up to a place that was directly kitty-corner WEST of the light.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously.
Don't
give
a
flying
fuck.
Sick of hearing about "We have this symptom!"
Okay. Treat the fucking disease already!
"But wait! We have ANOTHER symptom to tell you about!"
Okay! Treat the fucking disease!
"Pardon me sir! Do you have a moment to talk about your lord and savior, we have ANOTHER symptom?"
*Facepalm*
Actually the question of whether it's anthropogenic is largely irrelevant.
As amelioration regimens would likely need to start with anthropogenic sources in the first place.
In short, who CARES whose fault it is. Let's just clean the shit up!
I think you misread what I was saying.
Treating the populace like prisoners and pre-judged criminals in no way keeps people "safer".
All it does is slowly occlude their rights.
The government only has whatever power the populace allows them to take. However, once taken, it's almost impossible to recover.
Now, we can continue to allow the government to completely regiment the lives of its citizens, all in the name of fear.
Or we can realize that this sort of thing is NOT how we want our country run and stop it from happening.
Still true today.
Will this create problems when trying to root out bad actors? Sure!
The thing is, there's no such thing as perfect safety. No matter how hard law enforcement agencies try.
So, the American public can grow a pair, and realize that the government CANNOT protect them in all situations.
They can then choose whether or not they will act with more circumspection and awareness of the dangers inherent in their surroundings.
And they'll accept the fact that sometimes bad things happen regardless of how much effort was put into prevention.
Or we can simply have ever-greater encroachment on people's liberties.
And bad shit will CONTINUE to happen, regardless of how much effort is put into prevention.
So we have a choice:
* Liberty and danger?
OR
* Tyranny and danger?
PICK ONE!
To my eyes, it appears that almost nobody actually IS actually DOING anything. It's just lots of talking/shouting at this point.
And how is wanting REAL, tangible action on climate change somehow "downplaying threats".
It's like going over to a friend's house and they're constantly bitching about the leak in the roof.
At some point, you get fed up and tell them to fix it themselves or get it fixed!
I know the problems are big.
I know the problems are VERY (VERY VERY VERY) not simple.
I just want to get *started* so we're not all just standing here 20, years from now, with our dicks in our hands, with nothing accomplished and people still screaming about the negative consequences of climate change.
I don't wanna tell my brother's kids that we're leaving them a shithole of a planet that's pretty much doomed to runaway greenhouse effect and all the nasty stuff that follows on from there.
I don't give a shit that there are still dumbfucks out there that don't believe it's happening. You can't fix stupid. And no amount of screaming at them is going to do it either. They just dig their heels in a DERP on.
So let's stop trying to negotiate with mental defectives and just get to work.
What "strawman"?
What I'm saying is we see a lot of people TALKING about global warming, and precious few people actually doing a goddamn thing about it.
You spouting off facts about rising temperatures and ocean acidification accomplishes nothing, because you think I'm a climate denialist.
So you go into full on didactic dumbfuck mode and start spewing factoids like Wikipedia was put under high pressure and then sprung a leak.
The problem is, I'm NOT a climate denialist. I realize there's a problem. What I want to know is are we going to do something to ameliorate this problem? Or are we just going to stand here wringing our hands about how fucked we are?
We need more DOING and less DOOMSAYING.
Terrorists. Terrorists are coming to kill you all and drop you off buildings, chop off your head, etc, etc, e*YAWN*
Global Warming. We're all going to cook. We're all going to die. Floods, storms, we're doomed. Doomed I say! DOOOOOOOOMED!
FUD. All of it.
We keep getting "warnings" about this crap. But when challenged to actually DO something, scientists, politicians, etc immediately perform a rectal thumb insert.
But they're more than happy to keep taking our money for this sick fear culture. Heaven forefend if the cash flow stops to The Church of Oh Shit!
Shit or get off the pot. Stop "warning" us about it and fucking DO something.
The whole hypocritical puritanical streak that runs through this country makes me wish the first settlers here had been porn stars.
It's Anonymous.
Basically, they announce that they're "at war" with someone.
The target gets crudely doxed by stuff you can find on the internet readily, maybe DDOS'ed for a day or two, then Anonymous's legion of script kiddies declare "victory".
Seriously, it's all quite snore-worthy.
A $15 an hour minimum wage means that solutions that job-replacement solutions that were too expensive to justify at a lower wage have now moved into the "sensibly affordable" range.
Are fucking annoying.
And people who run "studies" like this are ignorant shitheads.
And people who write summaries like "Study says" are slack-jawed mouth breathers. Because studies don't "say" anything. And this study was basically "in the opinion of the lackwits we interviewed"
Go jump off a building and tell me that.
I'm not sure if I'll be able to concentrate after being THIS gobsmacked...
Fuck. This is like saying "Water is wet." or "Fire is hot." or "Politicians are full of shit."
It's pretty much a given. Like gravity.
Sorry, but the Internet isn't a fucking democracy.
Nor a popularity contest.
So your average majority of ignorant luddites (including every single politician currently sitting in office, as well as those waiting in the wings) have exactly DICK to actually say about technology implementation.
Sure, they can THINK their word and opinion means something.
It isn't even worth the effort it takes to simply ignore them as the clueless blowhard jackasses they really are.
Fuck you!
It's their damn network, they need to maintain it or get the fuck out of the state.
If they want money from the state (ESPECIALLY a sum like 100 million, they better have a fiber replacement strategy in hand when they come begging for the money.
Outlining right of a militia isn't what is going on in 2A.
It's recognizing the role played in America's war of independence by irregular troops coming in out of the general populace.
And, because such troops came self-armed and trained in many cases, the Continental Army wasn't required to arm or give them more than cursory training.
The framers of the Constitution and its Amendments understood the vital role they played, and how badly things would have gone without them.
As such, they codified 2A to make sure that, if need be, the general populace could legally put its hands on firearms on an ad hoc basis and a government bent on re-establishing Tyranny would have to deal with its own laws in this regard.
You're thinking current solid fuel reactors.
I'm talking about molten salt reactors. Drain the fuel into a dump tank and the reaction shuts down.
Yes, you have radioactive byproducts that need to be removed. But it's a matter of removing parts that are already meant to be replaceable as part of normal operational cycle.
Basically the reactor vessel and the dump tanks are all contained inside a containment vessel that's dropped into a concrete well.
When it's time to service the reactor, you simply swap the entire containment vessel out for a new one, with the original being shipped back and refurbished. Decommissioning is the same process, without dropping in a new component.
This also allows reactors to be upgraded during normal operational lifetimes as technology points to a better way to do certain things.
And for "Nonetheless they (failures) happened"
So when a guy drives a car into a wall at 90 miles an hour, do you blame the car?
Nope.
*Organ Sting*
But there's a zillion to one chance it could!!!
This has nothing to do with "new tech fetishism".
MSRs have a default state of "off". You simply CANNOT have a meltdown, as the fuel is ALREADY in a molten state BY DESIGN. And shutting down the reaction causes the fuel to "freeze" essentially. Also, unless you somehow manage to nullify gravity, there's nothing stopping a depowered MSR from popping it's plug and dropping the fuel into a dump tank and out of the reaction chamber.
This isn't "new tech". This is simple, elegant design.
And yes, a reactor with a default state of "off" IS possible.
Now, if you were talking about a solid fuel boiling water reactor, sure. You'd be right.
But I'm not talking about a solid fuel BWR.
If a reaction in an MSR gets too hot, it cooks the frozen salt plug to the dump tank. It dumps the fuel. The reaction stops. The reactor cools and the fuel hardens.
If the reactor loses power, the frozen salt plug stops being actively cooled, the plug melts. It dumps the fuel. The reaction stops. The reactor cools and the fuel hardens.
And you can dump the salt solution into a brand new reactor. But without the initial catalyzation, the fuel just cools off and hardens.
So yes, it's possible to build a reactor with a default state of "off".
A typo of PV (Photovoltaic)
As safe as possible.
You realize there are roughly 100 nuclear reactors going in the US. And the majority of them have had not one major safety issue in their entire lifespan right?
And that newer reactor technologies are far simpler and have a default state of "off".
Adding the kind of safety precautions you require for current solid-fuel reactors to such devices is largely pointless.
And, believe it or not, physical security for such plants is usually not that expensive.
The expense in nuclear power comes from the hostile regulatory environment that's been created. And all the NIMBY legal challenges brought up for each and every reactor commissioned.
People need to stop thinking about nuclear reactors as bombs.
Yes.
Unless we figure out fusion power quickly (which I'm doubtful of), fission power, combined with existing hydro and thermal solar is our best bet for stable baseline power in this country.
Renewables like PD solar and wind power, as well as power storage solutions, are best left to cover demand peaks.
The problem is that so few people know anything more than "nuclear = bomb" and "radiation will kill you", that it's created this vast climate of FUD around nuclear power.
And all they say when you mention nuclear power is "Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima".
None of these were failures intrinsic to the reactor.
Chernobyl: Idiots disabling safety equipment and fucking around with the reactor.
TMI: Human error compounded by bad control indicators.
Fukushima: A company cheaping out and not listening to civil engineering with regards to a sea wall meant to stave off large waves.
We're also talking about reactors based on decades-old technology and Rube Goldberg systems to stave off every possible problem an engineer could envision.
Rather than just designing a reactor with a default state of "off".
More modern reactor designs take this sort of thing into account.
Additionally, people gripe about the amount of nuclear waste being produced. Never mind that most reactors based on this older technology consume, at best, 5% of the actual "fuel" in the medium (rods, pellets, etc) before the medium is removed from the reactor.
With reprocessing, that fuel can continue to be used for extended periods of time. Resulting in far less long-lived waste, and the remainder being waste that is only being radioactive in the short term.
The worst route I ever had was actually given out by Rand McNally the one year (as they adjust for construction).
From Chicago to Virginia. Once I hit Pennsylvania, I got sent down roads that were technically a highway.
The road's name changed a dozen times, twists and turns and switchbacks all over the place, and I went through every one horse town in eastern PA, WV and VA.
For the drive back home, I picked up an actual road atlas and dead-reckoned my way back across major expressways.
...and then off a cliff, maybe a couple hundred feet high.
Damn...
Shit like this is why you never, never NEVER trust your GPS and turn your head off.
The worst GPS has ever done me is send me down a county route in a truck too big for it.
Next worst was directing me a mile out of my way east from a light, make an elaborate U-turn, then come back up to a place that was directly kitty-corner WEST of the light.