Actually it is different. As a union member I have one vote, just like everybody else in the union. As a share holder, I only have votes in proportion of my stock to everybody else. Hell many stocks are 'non-voting' shares so you have zero input.
Or to use my example, how much vote do you think the average share holder of Koch industries has? oh wait they are private....
well a *successful* bribe involves consent among both parties. I can still offer a bribe and have it rebuffed and reported to authorities. I'm still guilty and the receiver of my offer shows off his ethical standards.
While I don't think it's fair to compare unions representing 100k's of people for making contributions that benefit them, to the contributions of the 2 Koch brothers which in no way represent the interests of their workers I will grant that in theory the issue is the same on both sides.
As a serious question, on the issue that both sides give political money to candidates:
Why is it even legal to give money to an organization associated with a politician? Last I checked that was a 'bribe'. I know the free speech angle, but a bribe is just money for a particular action; how is that conceptually different from giving money to a politicians PAC? It's not like they don't give the donors preferential treatment right?
I mean if I give money to 'Tony' so that his brother 'Luigi' might go do something I like and Luigi is my representative...that would clearly be illegal wouldn't it?
Not trying to be snarky here, seriously asking the legal ideas behind this. I'd actually prefer that there be *no* money in politics. Buy all the ads you want I don't care, but if a politician takes money from *anybody* that should be a conflict of interest shouldn't it?
As one of my other posts on this thread said. You can cooperate and avoid the hassle since you have an alibi or other information that says your property wasn't being operated by you. However, the general tone of the posts has been, 'fuck the cops, they have to prove it was me so I'm not listening'. If you pull that attitude with cops, they are *very* good at finding you a new place to sleep that night.:) of course we're mostly talking civil cases here anyway, but you get the point.
And I never said we had to stay at current technology levels. Again, plenty of energy hits the earth, we just need to work on our ability to capture it.
It's hard, but I believe we can do it. But we won't if we don't try.
by god, it's 'hard'. we should just quit and not try.
Sorry, I'll actually try to solve the issues. The OP's point was that there isn't enough solar energy to meet our needs. I, and you, clearly demonstrated there is many times over enough energy available.
"We *can* filter the coal exhaust "
not in any practical or long serving way.
You know what? I said that, though perhaps not clear enough for you. It isn't practical, but it *is* possible. It is *not* possible to adequately contain a failed uranium nuclear reaction as we're finding out. I suspect it would be similarly hard with thorium, but the tech is different meaning the likelihood is lower. Not zero though.
Nuclear power is a wide range of technologies.
Fair to point that out. I think its pretty clear we're talking about the current nuclear tech here though.
And you know what? sustainable power at the volume we need isn't practical at this time.
So what you're saying is because we haven't invested in either renewable sources or thorium reactor/molten salt type technologies...we don't have them.
maybe you should actually read the reports. They specifically didn't use the sea water at first because they were trying other options that weren't working. They even referred to sea water as 'the last resort'.
That says they waited and tried other things first that wouldn't ruin the reactors.
Doing some googling shows the first sea water injection was the day after the quake at a single one of the reactors. The next one I can find was not until the following Monday. The others after that. So for a variety of reasons they didn't use sea water initially in all the cases. They tried to get pumps working etc. as I've said.
Perhaps they simply didn't have enough equipment to simultaneously pump at all 4 troubled reactors, but they didn't use the sea water initially at all of the reactors.
From I have read, thorium was studied but not pursued for exactly that reason, no bomb material output.
What I've also read about thorium is that it still has on major issue - material capable of containing the hot caustic molten salts successfully for decades with little to no maintenance. Otherwise thorium does seem like a much better alternative.
Makes sense. I wasn't taking into account our current 'speed' sitting here on this rock:)
While you probably don't have to apply a full 30km/s d-v, just shooting somewhat backward so that the gravity well of the sun captures it means some significant fraction of it.
more power hits the earth in terms of sunlight in a single HOUR than we use in an entire YEAR as a PLANET. Simply a matter of collecting it (easyish) and storing it for night time (harder).
I even give you sources for my claims:
From Solar Energy Absorbed
The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year. In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year. Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass. The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.
There won't be a single replacement solution. But using renewable sources we can easily meet our current and future power needs.
There are plasma power plants that actually do this, burning all the trash at such high levels as to completely gasify the waste. Still needs filtering but we're doing some of this already.
I suspect the volcano issue is that you can't cap a volcano...putting structures atop explosive things generally doesn't end well.
without RTFA:-D, by interstellar space do you mean out of the solar system? that would seem to take more energy than sending it down a gravity well wouldn't it? (ignore the earth launch costs obviously for now)
yes I'm well aware that current launch costs are prohibitive. I just find the reversal of the false "we can't pollute that much" argument of old into something that would actually work. Mostly just a thought experiment:)
yes I'm well aware that current launch costs are prohibitive. I just find the reversal of the false "we can't pollute that much" argument of old into something that would actually work. Mostly just a thought experiment:)
Nuclear has few operational issues, but significant failure issues.
Coal has significant operational issues, but few failure issues.
Both have significant 'waste' issues
We *can* filter the coal exhaust to remove the things that cause the more direct deaths. CO2 is perhaps a bigger issue but something that mitigation may be able to handle.
As we're seeing, there simply isn't anyway to 'mitigate' failure of a nuclear reactor. Sure we can take some steps, but when the definition is failure, some of those steps stop working and you're back at square one.
It's a lot easier to mitigate the normal running operation of a system than to mitigate the issues when that system experiences catastrophic disaster.
I'm no fan of coal, but it will be around for decades. I just wish we would use this 'event' to see the true downside of nuclear and move our investment money towards sustainable power.
As a serious question: Is the bottom lined concrete thick enough to stop any radiation from leaking through it? if not, then the 'planned failure mode' has a significant flaw IMO.
likewise, what if the core melts through that concrete?
And I am being serious with these questions and not trying to be snarky. They would seem to be relevant things the design would have considered and we don't generally hear about this from the press or the gov't sadly.
If they were so unconcerned with saving them, why did they wait on the sea water? they could have done that days sooner but didn't because it would render the reactors useless.
Human history is littered with, well, litter. We just push stuff over the next hill or into the river and forget about it. We're starting to run out of room to do this without having side effects of leeching into soils etc.
What I find ironic is that by blasting stuff into the sun, we might just be able to 'push it over that hill' in a manner that won't be an issue for literally billions of years.
While our early ancestors surely said "you don't think we can possibly pollute the entire ocean do you?".
Could we possibly produce enough stuff from this planet that we actually effect the sun in any meaning full way? In terms of scale it seems like we might just be able to get away with blasting our refuse into the sun and not see any significant consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it is different. As a union member I have one vote, just like everybody else in the union. As a share holder, I only have votes in proportion of my stock to everybody else. Hell many stocks are 'non-voting' shares so you have zero input.
Or to use my example, how much vote do you think the average share holder of Koch industries has? oh wait they are private....
well a *successful* bribe involves consent among both parties. I can still offer a bribe and have it rebuffed and reported to authorities. I'm still guilty and the receiver of my offer shows off his ethical standards.
I'm pretty sure attempted bribery is a crime. That's like saying it's not a crime if your bullet bounces off their bulletproof vest.
While I don't think it's fair to compare unions representing 100k's of people for making contributions that benefit them, to the contributions of the 2 Koch brothers which in no way represent the interests of their workers I will grant that in theory the issue is the same on both sides.
As a serious question, on the issue that both sides give political money to candidates:
Why is it even legal to give money to an organization associated with a politician? Last I checked that was a 'bribe'. I know the free speech angle, but a bribe is just money for a particular action; how is that conceptually different from giving money to a politicians PAC? It's not like they don't give the donors preferential treatment right?
I mean if I give money to 'Tony' so that his brother 'Luigi' might go do something I like and Luigi is my representative...that would clearly be illegal wouldn't it?
Not trying to be snarky here, seriously asking the legal ideas behind this. I'd actually prefer that there be *no* money in politics. Buy all the ads you want I don't care, but if a politician takes money from *anybody* that should be a conflict of interest shouldn't it?
Apparently you missed this and this and this and this and this and and and and
As one of my other posts on this thread said. You can cooperate and avoid the hassle since you have an alibi or other information that says your property wasn't being operated by you. However, the general tone of the posts has been, 'fuck the cops, they have to prove it was me so I'm not listening'. If you pull that attitude with cops, they are *very* good at finding you a new place to sleep that night. :) of course we're mostly talking civil cases here anyway, but you get the point.
And I never said we had to stay at current technology levels. Again, plenty of energy hits the earth, we just need to work on our ability to capture it.
It's hard, but I believe we can do it. But we won't if we don't try.
by god, it's 'hard'. we should just quit and not try.
Sorry, I'll actually try to solve the issues. The OP's point was that there isn't enough solar energy to meet our needs. I, and you, clearly demonstrated there is many times over enough energy available.
"We *can* filter the coal exhaust " not in any practical or long serving way.
You know what? I said that, though perhaps not clear enough for you. It isn't practical, but it *is* possible. It is *not* possible to adequately contain a failed uranium nuclear reaction as we're finding out. I suspect it would be similarly hard with thorium, but the tech is different meaning the likelihood is lower. Not zero though.
Nuclear power is a wide range of technologies.
Fair to point that out. I think its pretty clear we're talking about the current nuclear tech here though.
And you know what? sustainable power at the volume we need isn't practical at this time.
So what you're saying is because we haven't invested in either renewable sources or thorium reactor/molten salt type technologies...we don't have them.
Utter genius!
maybe you should actually read the reports. They specifically didn't use the sea water at first because they were trying other options that weren't working. They even referred to sea water as 'the last resort'.
That says they waited and tried other things first that wouldn't ruin the reactors.
Doing some googling shows the first sea water injection was the day after the quake at a single one of the reactors. The next one I can find was not until the following Monday. The others after that. So for a variety of reasons they didn't use sea water initially in all the cases. They tried to get pumps working etc. as I've said.
Perhaps they simply didn't have enough equipment to simultaneously pump at all 4 troubled reactors, but they didn't use the sea water initially at all of the reactors.
It could mean something, or nothing.
you know, it could also mean....something ELSE! spooky ;-)
From I have read, thorium was studied but not pursued for exactly that reason, no bomb material output.
What I've also read about thorium is that it still has on major issue - material capable of containing the hot caustic molten salts successfully for decades with little to no maintenance. Otherwise thorium does seem like a much better alternative.
Makes sense. I wasn't taking into account our current 'speed' sitting here on this rock :)
While you probably don't have to apply a full 30km/s d-v, just shooting somewhat backward so that the gravity well of the sun captures it means some significant fraction of it.
more power hits the earth in terms of sunlight in a single HOUR than we use in an entire YEAR as a PLANET. Simply a matter of collecting it (easyish) and storing it for night time (harder).
I even give you sources for my claims:
From Solar Energy Absorbed
The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year. In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year. Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass. The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.
There won't be a single replacement solution. But using renewable sources we can easily meet our current and future power needs.
There are plasma power plants that actually do this, burning all the trash at such high levels as to completely gasify the waste. Still needs filtering but we're doing some of this already.
I suspect the volcano issue is that you can't cap a volcano...putting structures atop explosive things generally doesn't end well.
you think the production costs of the infrastructure are greater than the lifetime energy output? evidence plz?
fair points. Mostly just something I find ironic from a 'green' point of view :)
without RTFA :-D, by interstellar space do you mean out of the solar system? that would seem to take more energy than sending it down a gravity well wouldn't it? (ignore the earth launch costs obviously for now)
yes I'm well aware that current launch costs are prohibitive. I just find the reversal of the false "we can't pollute that much" argument of old into something that would actually work. Mostly just a thought experiment :)
yes I'm well aware that current launch costs are prohibitive. I just find the reversal of the false "we can't pollute that much" argument of old into something that would actually work. Mostly just a thought experiment :)
Nuclear has few operational issues, but significant failure issues.
Coal has significant operational issues, but few failure issues.
Both have significant 'waste' issues
We *can* filter the coal exhaust to remove the things that cause the more direct deaths. CO2 is perhaps a bigger issue but something that mitigation may be able to handle.
As we're seeing, there simply isn't anyway to 'mitigate' failure of a nuclear reactor. Sure we can take some steps, but when the definition is failure, some of those steps stop working and you're back at square one.
It's a lot easier to mitigate the normal running operation of a system than to mitigate the issues when that system experiences catastrophic disaster.
I'm no fan of coal, but it will be around for decades. I just wish we would use this 'event' to see the true downside of nuclear and move our investment money towards sustainable power.
from a diplomatic standpoint, *publicly* telling your own people to get the hell out is a pretty hefty smack upside the head.
As a serious question: Is the bottom lined concrete thick enough to stop any radiation from leaking through it? if not, then the 'planned failure mode' has a significant flaw IMO.
likewise, what if the core melts through that concrete?
And I am being serious with these questions and not trying to be snarky. They would seem to be relevant things the design would have considered and we don't generally hear about this from the press or the gov't sadly.
If they were so unconcerned with saving them, why did they wait on the sea water? they could have done that days sooner but didn't because it would render the reactors useless.
Human history is littered with, well, litter. We just push stuff over the next hill or into the river and forget about it. We're starting to run out of room to do this without having side effects of leeching into soils etc.
What I find ironic is that by blasting stuff into the sun, we might just be able to 'push it over that hill' in a manner that won't be an issue for literally billions of years.
While our early ancestors surely said "you don't think we can possibly pollute the entire ocean do you?".
Could we possibly produce enough stuff from this planet that we actually effect the sun in any meaning full way? In terms of scale it seems like we might just be able to get away with blasting our refuse into the sun and not see any significant consequences.