Yes. Because rockets never crash and splash their contents over miles and miles of area.
Shooting it into space via rockets is DUMB. And at the current $10,000 per pound, prohibitively expensive. Currently, there's about 75 KILOTONS of spent nuclear fuel in the US alone.
So 165,347,000 pounds * 10,000 = $1,653,470,000,000
So, 1.6 TRILLION dollars for a dumb, risky, dangerous method of possible waste disposal.
A better plan would be to reprocess fuel until it cooks down into very short-lived isotopes, then store it for a few years/decades till it goes inert.
Honestly. I think that the BEST option would be for AV vendors to classify GWX is malware. It basically IS malware. It sets up on a system more or less without user request. It performs a lot of unauthorized tasks under the hood. It's misappropriating system resources to do this. And it actively fights user-mandated removal from your system.
It's all about the Pentiums, baby Uhh, uh-huh, yeah Uhh, uh-huh, yeah It's all about the Pentiums, baby It's all about the Pentiums, baby It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby) It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby) Yeah
What y'all wanna do? Wanna be hackers? Code crackers? Slackers? Wastin' time with all the chatroom yakkers? 9 to 5, chillin' at Hewlett Packard? Workin' at a desk with a dumb little placard? Yeah, payin' the bills with my mad programming skills. Defraggin' my hard drive for thrills. I got me a hundred gigabytes of RAM. I never feed trolls and I don't read spam. Installed a T1 line in my house. Always at my PC, double-clickin' on my mizouse. Upgrade my system at least twice a day. I'm strictly plug-and-play, I ain't afraid of Y2K. I'm down with Bill Gates, I call him "Money" for short. I phone him up at home and I make him do my tech support. It's all about the Pentiums, what? You've gotta be the dumbest newbie I've ever seen. You've got white-out all over your screen. You think your Commodore 64 is really neato? What kinda chip you got in there, a Dorito? You're usin' a 286? Don't make me laugh. Your Windows boots up in what, a day and a half? You could back up your whole hard drive on a floppy diskette. You're the biggest joke on the Internet. Your database is a disaster. You're waxin' your modem, tryin' to make it go faster. Hey fella, I bet you're still livin' in your parents' cellar. Downloadin' pictures of Sarah Michelle Gellar. And postin' "Me too!" like some brain-dead AOL-er. I should do the world a favor and cap you like Old Yeller. You're just about as useless as jpegs to Hellen Keller
It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby) It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby) It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby) It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby)
Now, what y'all wanna do? Wanna be hackers? Code crackers? Slackers Wastin' time with all the chatroom yakkers? 9 to 5, chillin' at Hewlett Packard?
Uh, uh, loggin' in now Wanna run wit my crew, hah? Rule cyberspace and crunch numbers like I do? They call me the king of the spreadsheets. Got 'em printed out on my bedsheets. My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks. But it was obsolete before I opened the box. You say you've had your desktop for over a week? Throw that junk away, man, it's an antique. Your laptop is a month old? Well that's great. If you could use a nice, heavy paperweight. My digital media is write-protected. Every file inspected, no viruses detected. I beta tested every operation system. Gave props to some, and others? I dissed 'em. While your computer's crashin', mine's multitaskin'. It does all my work without me even askin'. Got a flat-screen monitor forty inches wide wide. I believe that your says "Etch-A-Sketch" on the side. In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, "alt.total-loser". Your motherboard melts when you try to send a fax. Where'd you get your CPU, in a box of Cracker Jacks? Play me online? Well, you know that I'll beat you. If I ever meet you I'll control-alt-delete you. What? What? What? What? What?
It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby) It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby) It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby) It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby) Now, what y'all wanna do? Wanna be hackers? Code crackers? Slackers Wastin' time with all the chatroom yakkers? 9 to 5, chillin' at Hewlett Packard? What??
I basically look at this as Microsoft's major problem. Instead of building a stable ecosystem of products, they're constantly (and consistently) in "churn and burn" mode. As such, as a Good Little Consumer, you should buy the sam
Okay, I beg the pardon of the PETA folks (actually no I don't...*Kicks a kitten*). But it's a fucking animal that died in public waterway and was autopsied on the public dime.
People who wish to know have a right to that information.
I want to know what mental defective thought "medical privacy" was an appropriate excuse.
Again, modern reactors and fuel reprocessing will drastically cut waste. But I find that a lump of controllable nuclear waste is VASTLY preferable to blowing tons of carbon up a smokestack.
And yes. Ripping up concrete pads isn't exactly rocket science. But it still can be costly.
As I stated elsewhere. Sure, cleanup for an EOL reactor from the 70's is expensive as hell.
Newer reactor designs are smaller, cleaner, more contained, and easier/cheaper to decommission and remove. Also, what waste IS produced is far more short-lived, meaning storage requirements are cheaper.
Additionally, if reprocessing fuel wasn't banned (via graft in politics), nuclear waste would be far less of an issue even today.
1: Try growing stuff on the concrete pad below a wind turbine. And see what safety regulations say about dropping either of these in areas that are public spaces. And for PV solar, no, you REALLY can't use the land for much else. Because it's covered in panels.
Also, let's look at land use vs output capacity.
Oyster Creek in New Jersey is a 636 MW facility on 880 acres that annually puts about 5077 GWH of power into the surrounding grid.
Then there's Topaz Solar Farm, largest PV solar facility in the US, built across 9 square miles (5760 acres). It has a nameplate capacity of 550 MW. In reality it only puts around 1100 GWH of power into the surrounding grid, making it a 125 MW facility on average
2: Several facilities I know of in the midwest are spec'ed for a set lifetime and the land is leased only for a certain amount of time. And replacement of turbines and PV surface is neither trivial, nor inexpensive. Look at Oyster Creek (longest running nuclear facility in the US). It's been running since 1 December 1969. 45 years. A PV facility will have had to have been resurfaced 3-5 times in the same period. Just from panel decay.
3: Again, you're looking at cleaning up old Gen1 and Gen2 facilities. Modern reactor designs are simpler, smaller, safer and in the end, far easier to clean up. The main problem is, we're still looking building 1970's Rube Goldberg monstrosities. A modern molten salt reactor is roughly the size of two tractor trailers, and will pump out about 500 MW once it's dialed in. And no need for an 800 acre facility just to have enough water on hand to cool the reactor. This basically means you can drop one just about any place you can drop a concrete pad.
4: No, nuclear reactors are NOT mass produced already. You can purchase one of a number of designs commercially. But that's NOT the same thing as mass production.
5: Okay, a wind facility can get by with less security, as you just want to make sure the general public doesn't go fiddling with the equipment. So you put up a gate, a bunch of NO TRESSPASSING signs and have a couple of rent-a-cops patrol to make sure nobody's hopping fences. Nuclear requires an actual security system, as the consequences of getting in and fiddling with a nuclear reactor are a bit nastier. Big flipping deal.
6: Basically this argument is a repeat of #3.
7: Actually, waste storage for a couple hundred years is easier (and cheaper) than trying to design and build something that would, hopefully, last tens or hundreds of thousands. So, if you have a facility that, in a couple hundred years, gets broken open in a quake, no biggie. Because the contents are inert.
So, because there's a cool-down time on a reactor, I'm a liar or a dupe?
Take a look at the designs for molten salt reactors. Basically the fail state for them drains the reaction chamber and is essentially an off-switch for power generation. Sure, the fuel needs time to actually cool off (thermally).
But hey, so does the molten salt (or other thermal medium) in a non-PV solar plant too.
And, again, PV solar and wind simply aren't as stable and dependable a power generation platform. This is why you can't use them for baseline power.
They said "SCALES BETTER". Not necessarily "costs less".
In terms of land-use, nuclear has between 4 and 6 times the energy density per installation. And that stays fairly constant over the life of the reactor. PV Solar and wind have diminishing output over their lifetime due to component aging. Not familiar enough with non-PV solar facilities to know about component wear, though they're operating on a principal similar to molten salt reactors. So I'd guess their maintenance costs could be comparable (note I said COMPARABLE, not IDENTICAL, meaning one could be used to form an educated guess about the other).
1: Think Wind and Solar projects aren't being subsidized, you're nuts.
2: Sure, a solar plant might be cheaper, initially. But, output, over time will be lower than if you'd dedicated the land to a nuclear facility. Wind also has to deal with wear and tear. Also, the CLEANUP COSTS of a wind facility, in most cases, are actually pushed by the power company back on the land owner. So, you have an even gross of windmills on your land. When the facility eventually EOL's, how much does it cost to remove 144-ish thick concrete pads?
Additionally, costs can be brought down through mass production means. Right now, pretty much every reactor is a "one off" or a "kitbash" (a standard desgin that's been modified in situ)
3: Education costs? You mean teach people that nuclear != Bombs? Or you mean staff training? You basically have some form of staff training for any power generation system out there (if you think that large scale solar and wind don't have some fairly steep training, you haven't been paying attention).
4: All power facilities in this day and age have security costs and issues. And, if we move to Thorium MSRs, we remove much of the threat of someone trying to steal fissionable material or blow a reactor.
5: Decomissioning costs. Part of that is the fact that currently active reactors are giant Rube Goldberg nightmares with designs from the 70's based on tech from the 50's. Modern reactors are orders of magnitude simpler and built with the entire power generation lifecycle in mind.
6: Endless waste storage. One of the beauties of MSRs. What little waste actually needs to be stored only needs to be stored for a couple hundred years. Not 10,000. Moreover, most of that radiologic fuel is only a step up from inert. Also, let's talk about all the waste produced manufacturing solar and wind facilities? You know, the costs being paid by the Chinese people because its government currently doesn't give a shit about. On top of that, were reprocessing of nuclear fuel NOT, stupidly, prohibited, much of what is currently sitting in parking lots and locked rooms could be used AGAIN. Reducing the amount of overall waste, and ensuring that the remainders, though quite "hot" (radiologically speaking) would be extremely short-lived. Additionally, some of it can be used in a constant cycle between MSR style reactors and more traditional uranium-based boiling water reactors.
Basically, nuclear, done right could be a massive boon to our power industry. Done wrong, yeah, it's a cluster fuck.
But renewables simply are NOT going to get us there.
Hell, the biggest obstacle, overall, is the shitty, all-but-nonexistent state of the national power grid. A better power distribution system on a national level WOULD allow for better, faster adoption of renewables. As renewable power could be generated in bulk in places where such things make complete sense, and the power could be distributed to places where installing renewable power would never, ever pay back even its initial costs.
Monster wind farms in Texas, crazy amounts of solar out in the southwest region. Then sell in places like Montana, Idaho, Michigan, etc.
Advances in power storage are going to be needed too. Because we can't afford to simply pump water uphill everyplace that needs to store power. This would help reduce the bursty nature of such renewable systems. And I'm sorry, natural gas isn't the answer (there's still CO2 produced there!)
Even then, we still need a known-steady form of baseline power.
If we're decarbonizing, it's basically nuclear or nothing.
> and is more consistent than wind power. No, it is NOT. nuclear power plants go offline unplanned.
Learn to read. They didn't say nuclear plants don't go offline.
Merely that the power output is more stable and consistent. Nuclear plants DON'T go into shutdown every couple days. Wind, however, can be hit or miss for days.
Too little, the turbine doesn't turn. Too much and you have to lock it down because you're burn the turbine. Then you have all these plants burning natural gas as a fallback instead.
What Mr. Agenda is ignoring is, if there's a move to decarbonize by 2050, there just flat-out isn't *ANY* replacement.
Solar and Wind simply can't grow enough, and is encumbered by the emissions in natural gas.. Power storage won't be there. We're already at peak Hydro.
Nothing. Not even all the technologies together and given a financial kick in the pants.
At this point, decarbonizing by 2050 AIN'T gonna happen.
As much as the NIMBYs and BANANAs want to scream it down, nuclear power is NECESSARY for humanity's future. So are various Solar, Wind and Wave. But the renewables simply CANNOT be baseline power. And, even with 50 years of foreseeable improvement, I don't expect power storage to become a truly ubiquitous commodity in the power industry.
Okay, I DO understand the point that content producers make that it cuts into their revenue. And I DO believe they should be paid for their labors.
But that doesn't mean I'm going to work a second job just to turn the proceeds over to them.
Malvertising is a ubiquitous, ongoing problem. And I'm not exposing any systems I have control over to that. Because the amount of work it takes to clean up from that sort of infection is VERY non-trivial. And if it causes me to lose data on a business machine? Oh HELL no!
Current internet advertising is a dirty, disease-ridden whore, and ad blockers are condoms.
The problem is, making them "more reliable" simply means that they're still more unreliable than an identical weapon that isn't so encumbered by the "smart" technology.
Honestly, were I to own a gun, I'd be far less worried about someone firing it AT me than I would about some rube goldberg system stopping me from being able to fire it when I NEED to be able to fire it.
A: Less dependable is a given. A firearm, on it's own, is more or less 100% dependable. Adding an electronics system to it automatically introduces a possible point of failure (or if the gun type is somehow undependable, ANOTHER point of failure). QED.
B: Okay, take a proven gun design. Re-engineer it to accommodate an additional electronics system. Cost of re-engineering and the electronics have to be paid for someplace. QED.
C: A standard firearm has only a couple things you need to do once you're sighted (if you even need to sight it). Clean, load, fire, unload. Maintaining power to an auth system is additional maintenance. QED.
These arguments have gone round and round and round before. Please don't assume you're bringing up anything new, interesting or even correct.
Outlook isn't the fucking problem, exchange and its bastardised architecture is.
No. Outlook is also a fucking problem.
The architecture of the data stores is an ongoing cluster-fuck. A single-file data file-based data store that's simply allowed to grow into obscene, unstable, performance destroying sizes. More-over, if you crash one of the files, your chances of actually recovering anything is somewhere between "Pray for a miracle" and "Just start over".
Not-so-lil Kim and his cronies are playing with fire here. If they think the US is going to accept their psychotic little cult-of-personality kleptocracy developing nuclear capability and the ability to actually lob one into the US, they're even nuttier than they've been reported to be.
It's as if they're begging to be carpet-bombed back into the stone age.
Oh that's right! More unfunded mandates, in an attempt to legislate by someone who isn't a legislator!
I normally ignore LaPierre and the NRA. But he put up a great point.
People, good people, in Obama's home town, Chicago, get shot day in and day out by gangbangers, thugs, and assorted lowlifes. So where are the fucking tears for them? And what's he done for THEM in the last seven years while he was rectally inserting his thumbs whilst seated?
But mention Sandy Hook and WOW! Out comes the waterworks!
We already have SHITLOADS of gun control laws on the books. Most of which simply aren't enforced.
If we're going to throw money at gun control, throw it at the laws already on the books and get the enforcement FUNDED!
No! Let's pour pointless money into STUDIES on shit that's already been studied TO DEATH, resurrected, and studied to death AGAIN.
And let's mandate more shit and basically hope that the magical unicorn farts blow in the right direction and result in money falling out of nowhere!
This kinda shit is why I don't own a gun. This kind of idiocy makes me want to shoot the asshole in charge.
Slashdot Mirror
I hear he's going to a VERY exclusive David Bowie concert though.
So it can't be all bad!
Dropped off a building.
Stabbed by Robin Hood.
He played Rasputin (we all know how that went...)
Bitten by a snake.
Now cancer...
Poor dude just couldn't win!
#7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yes. Because rockets never crash and splash their contents over miles and miles of area.
Shooting it into space via rockets is DUMB. And at the current $10,000 per pound, prohibitively expensive. Currently, there's about 75 KILOTONS of spent nuclear fuel in the US alone.
So 165,347,000 pounds * 10,000 = $1,653,470,000,000
So, 1.6 TRILLION dollars for a dumb, risky, dangerous method of possible waste disposal.
A better plan would be to reprocess fuel until it cooks down into very short-lived isotopes, then store it for a few years/decades till it goes inert.
Freedom of speech/assembly.
Moreover, it's a blatant cash grab.
Please, step into your designated cell. Your imprisonment for things you might do will begin in a second you potentially violent scumbag!
*BANG*BANG*BANG*BANG*
Sorry! We determined you were too much of a risk to our safety. You have been eliminated. Good bye!
Honestly. I think that the BEST option would be for AV vendors to classify GWX is malware.
It basically IS malware. It sets up on a system more or less without user request. It performs a lot of unauthorized tasks under the hood. It's misappropriating system resources to do this. And it actively fights user-mandated removal from your system.
It's all about the Pentiums, baby
Uhh, uh-huh, yeah
Uhh, uh-huh, yeah
It's all about the Pentiums, baby
It's all about the Pentiums, baby
It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby)
It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby)
Yeah
What y'all wanna do?
Wanna be hackers? Code crackers? Slackers? Wastin' time with all the chatroom yakkers? 9 to 5, chillin' at Hewlett Packard? Workin' at a desk with a dumb little placard?
Yeah, payin' the bills with my mad programming skills. Defraggin' my hard drive for thrills.
I got me a hundred gigabytes of RAM. I never feed trolls and I don't read spam.
Installed a T1 line in my house. Always at my PC, double-clickin' on my mizouse.
Upgrade my system at least twice a day. I'm strictly plug-and-play, I ain't afraid of Y2K.
I'm down with Bill Gates, I call him "Money" for short. I phone him up at home and I make him do my tech support.
It's all about the Pentiums, what?
You've gotta be the dumbest newbie I've ever seen. You've got white-out all over your screen.
You think your Commodore 64 is really neato? What kinda chip you got in there, a Dorito?
You're usin' a 286? Don't make me laugh. Your Windows boots up in what, a day and a half?
You could back up your whole hard drive on a floppy diskette. You're the biggest joke on the Internet.
Your database is a disaster. You're waxin' your modem, tryin' to make it go faster.
Hey fella, I bet you're still livin' in your parents' cellar. Downloadin' pictures of Sarah Michelle Gellar. And postin' "Me too!" like some brain-dead AOL-er. I should do the world a favor and cap you like Old Yeller. You're just about as useless as jpegs to Hellen Keller
It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby)
It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby)
It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby)
It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby)
Now, what y'all wanna do?
Wanna be hackers? Code crackers? Slackers
Wastin' time with all the chatroom yakkers?
9 to 5, chillin' at Hewlett Packard?
Uh, uh, loggin' in now
Wanna run wit my crew, hah? Rule cyberspace and crunch numbers like I do?
They call me the king of the spreadsheets. Got 'em printed out on my bedsheets.
My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks. But it was obsolete before I opened the box.
You say you've had your desktop for over a week? Throw that junk away, man, it's an antique.
Your laptop is a month old? Well that's great. If you could use a nice, heavy paperweight.
My digital media is write-protected. Every file inspected, no viruses detected.
I beta tested every operation system. Gave props to some, and others? I dissed 'em.
While your computer's crashin', mine's multitaskin'. It does all my work without me even askin'.
Got a flat-screen monitor forty inches wide wide. I believe that your says "Etch-A-Sketch" on the side.
In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, "alt.total-loser".
Your motherboard melts when you try to send a fax. Where'd you get your CPU, in a box of Cracker Jacks?
Play me online? Well, you know that I'll beat you. If I ever meet you I'll control-alt-delete you.
What? What? What? What? What?
It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby)
It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby)
It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby)
It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby)
Now, what y'all wanna do?
Wanna be hackers? Code crackers? Slackers
Wastin' time with all the chatroom yakkers?
9 to 5, chillin' at Hewlett Packard?
What??
I basically look at this as Microsoft's major problem. Instead of building a stable ecosystem of products, they're constantly (and consistently) in "churn and burn" mode. As such, as a Good Little Consumer, you should buy the sam
Okay, I beg the pardon of the PETA folks (actually no I don't...*Kicks a kitten*).
But it's a fucking animal that died in public waterway and was autopsied on the public dime.
People who wish to know have a right to that information.
I want to know what mental defective thought "medical privacy" was an appropriate excuse.
Again, modern reactors and fuel reprocessing will drastically cut waste. But I find that a lump of controllable nuclear waste is VASTLY preferable to blowing tons of carbon up a smokestack.
And yes. Ripping up concrete pads isn't exactly rocket science. But it still can be costly.
As I stated elsewhere. Sure, cleanup for an EOL reactor from the 70's is expensive as hell.
Newer reactor designs are smaller, cleaner, more contained, and easier/cheaper to decommission and remove. Also, what waste IS produced is far more short-lived, meaning storage requirements are cheaper.
Additionally, if reprocessing fuel wasn't banned (via graft in politics), nuclear waste would be far less of an issue even today.
1: Try growing stuff on the concrete pad below a wind turbine. And see what safety regulations say about dropping either of these in areas that are public spaces. And for PV solar, no, you REALLY can't use the land for much else. Because it's covered in panels.
Also, let's look at land use vs output capacity.
Oyster Creek in New Jersey is a 636 MW facility on 880 acres that annually puts about 5077 GWH of power into the surrounding grid.
Then there's Topaz Solar Farm, largest PV solar facility in the US, built across 9 square miles (5760 acres). It has a nameplate capacity of 550 MW. In reality it only puts around 1100 GWH of power into the surrounding grid, making it a 125 MW facility on average
2: Several facilities I know of in the midwest are spec'ed for a set lifetime and the land is leased only for a certain amount of time. And replacement of turbines and PV surface is neither trivial, nor inexpensive. Look at Oyster Creek (longest running nuclear facility in the US). It's been running since 1 December 1969. 45 years. A PV facility will have had to have been resurfaced 3-5 times in the same period. Just from panel decay.
3: Again, you're looking at cleaning up old Gen1 and Gen2 facilities. Modern reactor designs are simpler, smaller, safer and in the end, far easier to clean up. The main problem is, we're still looking building 1970's Rube Goldberg monstrosities. A modern molten salt reactor is roughly the size of two tractor trailers, and will pump out about 500 MW once it's dialed in. And no need for an 800 acre facility just to have enough water on hand to cool the reactor. This basically means you can drop one just about any place you can drop a concrete pad.
4: No, nuclear reactors are NOT mass produced already. You can purchase one of a number of designs commercially. But that's NOT the same thing as mass production.
5: Okay, a wind facility can get by with less security, as you just want to make sure the general public doesn't go fiddling with the equipment. So you put up a gate, a bunch of NO TRESSPASSING signs and have a couple of rent-a-cops patrol to make sure nobody's hopping fences. Nuclear requires an actual security system, as the consequences of getting in and fiddling with a nuclear reactor are a bit nastier. Big flipping deal.
6: Basically this argument is a repeat of #3.
7: Actually, waste storage for a couple hundred years is easier (and cheaper) than trying to design and build something that would, hopefully, last tens or hundreds of thousands. So, if you have a facility that, in a couple hundred years, gets broken open in a quake, no biggie. Because the contents are inert.
So, because there's a cool-down time on a reactor, I'm a liar or a dupe?
Take a look at the designs for molten salt reactors. Basically the fail state for them drains the reaction chamber and is essentially an off-switch for power generation.
Sure, the fuel needs time to actually cool off (thermally).
But hey, so does the molten salt (or other thermal medium) in a non-PV solar plant too.
And, again, PV solar and wind simply aren't as stable and dependable a power generation platform. This is why you can't use them for baseline power.
They said "SCALES BETTER". Not necessarily "costs less".
In terms of land-use, nuclear has between 4 and 6 times the energy density per installation. And that stays fairly constant over the life of the reactor. PV Solar and wind have diminishing output over their lifetime due to component aging. Not familiar enough with non-PV solar facilities to know about component wear, though they're operating on a principal similar to molten salt reactors. So I'd guess their maintenance costs could be comparable (note I said COMPARABLE, not IDENTICAL, meaning one could be used to form an educated guess about the other).
1: Think Wind and Solar projects aren't being subsidized, you're nuts.
2: Sure, a solar plant might be cheaper, initially. But, output, over time will be lower than if you'd dedicated the land to a nuclear facility. Wind also has to deal with wear and tear. Also, the CLEANUP COSTS of a wind facility, in most cases, are actually pushed by the power company back on the land owner. So, you have an even gross of windmills on your land. When the facility eventually EOL's, how much does it cost to remove 144-ish thick concrete pads?
Additionally, costs can be brought down through mass production means. Right now, pretty much every reactor is a "one off" or a "kitbash" (a standard desgin that's been modified in situ)
3: Education costs? You mean teach people that nuclear != Bombs? Or you mean staff training? You basically have some form of staff training for any power generation system out there (if you think that large scale solar and wind don't have some fairly steep training, you haven't been paying attention).
4: All power facilities in this day and age have security costs and issues. And, if we move to Thorium MSRs, we remove much of the threat of someone trying to steal fissionable material or blow a reactor.
5: Decomissioning costs. Part of that is the fact that currently active reactors are giant Rube Goldberg nightmares with designs from the 70's based on tech from the 50's. Modern reactors are orders of magnitude simpler and built with the entire power generation lifecycle in mind.
6: Endless waste storage. One of the beauties of MSRs. What little waste actually needs to be stored only needs to be stored for a couple hundred years. Not 10,000. Moreover, most of that radiologic fuel is only a step up from inert. Also, let's talk about all the waste produced manufacturing solar and wind facilities? You know, the costs being paid by the Chinese people because its government currently doesn't give a shit about. On top of that, were reprocessing of nuclear fuel NOT, stupidly, prohibited, much of what is currently sitting in parking lots and locked rooms could be used AGAIN. Reducing the amount of overall waste, and ensuring that the remainders, though quite "hot" (radiologically speaking) would be extremely short-lived. Additionally, some of it can be used in a constant cycle between MSR style reactors and more traditional uranium-based boiling water reactors.
Basically, nuclear, done right could be a massive boon to our power industry.
Done wrong, yeah, it's a cluster fuck.
But renewables simply are NOT going to get us there.
Hell, the biggest obstacle, overall, is the shitty, all-but-nonexistent state of the national power grid.
A better power distribution system on a national level WOULD allow for better, faster adoption of renewables. As renewable power could be generated in bulk in places where such things make complete sense, and the power could be distributed to places where installing renewable power would never, ever pay back even its initial costs.
Monster wind farms in Texas, crazy amounts of solar out in the southwest region. Then sell in places like Montana, Idaho, Michigan, etc.
Advances in power storage are going to be needed too. Because we can't afford to simply pump water uphill everyplace that needs to store power. This would help reduce the bursty nature of such renewable systems. And I'm sorry, natural gas isn't the answer (there's still CO2 produced there!)
Even then, we still need a known-steady form of baseline power.
If we're decarbonizing, it's basically nuclear or nothing.
> and is more consistent than wind power.
No, it is NOT. nuclear power plants go offline unplanned.
Learn to read. They didn't say nuclear plants don't go offline.
Merely that the power output is more stable and consistent. Nuclear plants DON'T go into shutdown every couple days.
Wind, however, can be hit or miss for days.
Too little, the turbine doesn't turn.
Too much and you have to lock it down because you're burn the turbine.
Then you have all these plants burning natural gas as a fallback instead.
Basically.
What Mr. Agenda is ignoring is, if there's a move to decarbonize by 2050, there just flat-out isn't *ANY* replacement.
Solar and Wind simply can't grow enough, and is encumbered by the emissions in natural gas..
Power storage won't be there.
We're already at peak Hydro.
Nothing. Not even all the technologies together and given a financial kick in the pants.
At this point, decarbonizing by 2050 AIN'T gonna happen.
As much as the NIMBYs and BANANAs want to scream it down, nuclear power is NECESSARY for humanity's future.
So are various Solar, Wind and Wave. But the renewables simply CANNOT be baseline power. And, even with 50 years of foreseeable improvement, I don't expect power storage to become a truly ubiquitous commodity in the power industry.
Okay, I DO understand the point that content producers make that it cuts into their revenue. And I DO believe they should be paid for their labors.
But that doesn't mean I'm going to work a second job just to turn the proceeds over to them.
Malvertising is a ubiquitous, ongoing problem. And I'm not exposing any systems I have control over to that. Because the amount of work it takes to clean up from that sort of infection is VERY non-trivial. And if it causes me to lose data on a business machine? Oh HELL no!
Current internet advertising is a dirty, disease-ridden whore, and ad blockers are condoms.
The problem is, making them "more reliable" simply means that they're still more unreliable than an identical weapon that isn't so encumbered by the "smart" technology.
Honestly, were I to own a gun, I'd be far less worried about someone firing it AT me than I would about some rube goldberg system stopping me from being able to fire it when I NEED to be able to fire it.
A: Less dependable is a given. A firearm, on it's own, is more or less 100% dependable. Adding an electronics system to it automatically introduces a possible point of failure (or if the gun type is somehow undependable, ANOTHER point of failure). QED.
B: Okay, take a proven gun design. Re-engineer it to accommodate an additional electronics system. Cost of re-engineering and the electronics have to be paid for someplace. QED.
C: A standard firearm has only a couple things you need to do once you're sighted (if you even need to sight it). Clean, load, fire, unload. Maintaining power to an auth system is additional maintenance. QED.
These arguments have gone round and round and round before. Please don't assume you're bringing up anything new, interesting or even correct.
Adding all this "smart gun" tech makes an already dependable firearm:
A: Less dependable.
B: More expensive.
C: Higher maintenance.
As such, gun owners (and prospective gun owners) have voted with their dollars NOT to invest in said technologies.
As such, it's a solution in search of a problem.
Now we have a problem. The government handing out taxpayer money to keep these smartgun companies in business.
Seriously. They both suck. So it's like asking which I'd prefer to eat. A bucket of solid shit or a bucket of diarrhea.
So I avoid "mobile" options like the inferior plague they are.
True. I'm really not a fan of the crowded interface either.
Something like Thunderbird is much easier to use.
Outlook isn't the fucking problem, exchange and its bastardised architecture is.
No. Outlook is also a fucking problem.
The architecture of the data stores is an ongoing cluster-fuck.
A single-file data file-based data store that's simply allowed to grow into obscene, unstable, performance destroying sizes.
More-over, if you crash one of the files, your chances of actually recovering anything is somewhere between "Pray for a miracle" and "Just start over".
Not-so-lil Kim and his cronies are playing with fire here.
If they think the US is going to accept their psychotic little cult-of-personality kleptocracy developing nuclear capability and the ability to actually lob one into the US, they're even nuttier than they've been reported to be.
It's as if they're begging to be carpet-bombed back into the stone age.
Oh that's right! More unfunded mandates, in an attempt to legislate by someone who isn't a legislator!
I normally ignore LaPierre and the NRA. But he put up a great point.
People, good people, in Obama's home town, Chicago, get shot day in and day out by gangbangers, thugs, and assorted lowlifes.
So where are the fucking tears for them?
And what's he done for THEM in the last seven years while he was rectally inserting his thumbs whilst seated?
But mention Sandy Hook and WOW! Out comes the waterworks!
We already have SHITLOADS of gun control laws on the books. Most of which simply aren't enforced.
If we're going to throw money at gun control, throw it at the laws already on the books and get the enforcement FUNDED!
No! Let's pour pointless money into STUDIES on shit that's already been studied TO DEATH, resurrected, and studied to death AGAIN.
And let's mandate more shit and basically hope that the magical unicorn farts blow in the right direction and result in money falling out of nowhere!
This kinda shit is why I don't own a gun. This kind of idiocy makes me want to shoot the asshole in charge.