actually it will still work out better. Because the long constant driving is a fairly low energy need/high economy situation. The systems also can pull energy from the drive train while your driving.
My Civic does this when I'm almost out of battery charge, it uses the transmission to charge the battery when its not under heavy load. If you need to hit the accelerator it stops the charging and gives you the full power of the drive train.
its the same concept in a slightly different implementation. You take energy generated during a period of high economy (constant cruising) and store it for reuse during low economy (acceleration/climbing).
The full electric (PHEV's) will do this by default, charging the batteries using the range extender gas engine when power needs are below the generated power.
think of it as buying something when its on sale for use at time when its not on sale. You get the benefit of a lower price without the penalty having to buy it right when you need it.
Not having been to Scotland (yet!) I won't argue about the terrain;-) So it's entirely possible a hybrid wouldn't be a great solution; nobody is claiming they are the complete end all be all for every situation.
As for how long it takes, I don't follow your question. In current hybrids the extra 'weight' is the battery, the transmission additions, and the regenerative breaking apparatus. For the 10-15% weight penalty you get to recoup energy from 100% the kinetic energy you've *already* spent getting the car moving. Obviously it's not 100%, but even if it's 60% you're still ahead of the game in terms of net energy. Its going to be wasted if you don't recapture, so why not?
It does work, I get 20-30% better fuel economy than a standard Honda Civic.
When you start talking full electric's with range extenders (PHEVs), then you won't have the mountain climb problems since all the propulsion is done by the electric motors. The gas engine just supplies the electricity. So those will work for your situation as there isn't any loss in power except when the gas runs out...which is no different than regular cars;-)
remember that most people don't *need* an SUV either. Your point about not being near a train or plane is a valid concern based on the US geography; i.e. very big. But lots and lots of people live close enough to other transportation options to make the electrics/hybrid's a viable market.
A hybrid's only failing (I own a 2003 Civic Hybrid) is sustained major mountain climbs. The gas engine is smaller because of the electric motors doing part of the work. When the 'juice' runs out, your left climbing with an underpowered car. But it does climb them just fine, just slower since it loses the electric boost after a while. Most people don't climb Pikes Peak very often though...so this isn't a major concern.
The range extended hybrids likely won't have this problem since they will run completely on electricity and the gas engine simply providing the electricity for the electric motors when the batteries are depleted. (same as diesel electric locomotives...the diesels never actually 'drive' the train)
You're complaint about hybrids not being able to carry the battery and electric motor is complete hooey. The 'extra' weight is something like 10-15% of the vehicle weight. By doing this you get to recapture 100% of the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle. This is how hybrids work, capture wasted or cheaply generated power, and reuse it in times of high power need.
The all electric vehicles will certainly have this ability as well...it would be stupid not to have it.
I've also read that the newer 'mega' windmills actually are much safer for birds as they turn more slowly and use gearing to ramp up rotational energy for power generation.
maybe 'bigger is better' isn't such a bad thing;-)
Agreed, that was my first thought too. Isn't this exactly *the point* of simulations? to condition us to respond to certain stimuli without having to say be shot down or have both engines quit taking off from NY?
the artificial eyes are closer than you think. I've read a couple recent stories about people who have one fake eye that want to get a USB camera modified to fit inside the glass eye.
Would they have to 'click' every time they blink? lol hate to sit next to them in the theater!
But seriously, I think a *lot* of people would have a problem with secret photos even if they aren't distributed. It's more of the personal violation issue, because now there is always a risk they will become public...not to mention the blackmail potential.
in the end this is gov't policing manners (a bad thing) to the Nth as a previous poster stated.
I swear this was already a law as pretty much everything that takes a pictures already *does* this.
Or, just as likely, the manufacturers don't want a lawsuit by a 'victim' of the sneaky picture taking. Which goes to prove, the gov't doesn't need to do this.
Crap, do I have to give a credit to lawyers for once?
Actually it would be useful on a submersible vehicle.
Much like a paddle doesn't work well underwater, since you can't pull it out of the water to move it forward, this would have the same problems. But what if you have enclosed spaces of air under water like under a dome shaped object. Now you have surface water....under water. The weight of the craft keeps it underwater, and yet you have an air space by which to use your paddle, or in this case the electric charges to affect surface tension.
It seems like this would be a real bonus to release a bunch of autonomous drones to go out and study something in deep water, let them travel around slowly doing their observations, no human intervention needed.
in thinking about 'natural areas', consider the wind farms will be 'creating' new natural areas in the form of the pilings in the water. Ocean life is always attracted to them, barnacles and reef type micro organisms, smaller fish to feed on the micro's and for protection, larger fish for dining on the smaller fish, etc..
I'd say it's fair to say that windmills have a significantly smaller environmental impact than oil production facilities. Once they are up, they don't do anything except sit there and spin...oil rigs continue to produce waste and always have the possibility of an oil spill. the windmill's worse case is it falls over.
I think comparing the number of kills by bridges/buildings/antennas to the number of kills by Wind Turbines is a bit unfair bridges/buildings/antennas outnumber turbines by well over an order of magnitude...
The bridges/etc. are stationary objects, where as the turbine blades can move quite fast especially at the tips. Another reason comparing kills might problematic.
The concept gets interesting when you consider we're going to have to build many many many more turbines to make a sizeable dent in our energy demand.
I'm all in favor of the turbines, but some concerns can be valid if properly voiced too.
And yours didn't question you reading Playboy at 9 years old?
My parents restricted the hours I watched TV and kept tabs on what I watched. They took an interest in what I did and with whom I did it. Reading was things that they provided or I asked for (and they approved before I got).
Is that really so hard to comprehend? It's called childhood, your parents are responsible for you (and liable to a pretty wide degree).
Indeed many things can happen outside of a parents view, but the stuff that's inside their OWN HOUSE, they have to own up to responsibility for.
if only the *parents* out there shared a similar view...
Now, most parents do indeed want to keep kids away from it, yet they willingly turn over the keys (computer) and let kids drive the Indy 500 (internet). They just can't be bothered to actually administer and moderate what their kids are doing.
Yes yes people are busy, but if you're that busy, why did you have kids in the first place? I don't want my access to whatever material I see as reasonable restricted simply because someone else refuses to take their own responsibility.
good point. But that also assumes the code is disclosed 'publicly'.
In all likelyhood, as others have posited, it will only be released under a sealed order for the relevant experts to analyze. So no code for anyone not involved in the trial, and short of doing time for violating the judge's order no code for other states.
Your point about cars is valid but doesn't apply here.
In the car analogy it's the operation of the device that has different rules based on location. As such people make one device that meets all standards.
In this situation, the only issue is unrelated to the operation of the device. The same device can be used in both FL and GA, but only FL requires that it disclose source code. If the contract with GA doesn't require it, the same company doesn't have to produce it.
There's no claim that refusing a breathalyzer will get you off scottfree. Simply that you won't have evidence against you that you were drunk. Less evidence means, in theory, less chance of being convicted. Your license is going to be suspended unless you pass the, possibly faulty, test.
That said, the only people likely to avail themselves of the refusal option are those who either know they are drunk, or have enough prior convictions to make fighting it a more attractive option.
I would say the argument can't be made. The examples you've cited are materially different. They are single point push systems, rather than a p2p pulling system.
You only get your updates from one place, the original source. (Or in the case of linux distro's you get the validation/CRC check from one place)
The article is about an automated distributed response, hence you have to trust much more than the person you're getting it from. You have to trust the entire chain.
The Blizzard example is a better one. I'd say that a lack of exploits against it isn't a good measure of it's suitability though. Distribution of fixes (bittorrent) is rather easy, ensuring the security/authenticity of said stuff isn't nearly so.
It works fine the *real* world. The one where its done when it's done and meets your requirements competently.
I'd call it unreal, to expect a bug free, optimized, intuitive application with anything *but* an intensive and robust requirements/design period. Most projects don't have the time, so everything is shortchanged in the goal of the ship date. Complaining about what the outcome is after you subvert that is like complaining your house fell down when they used balsawood twigs instead of 2x4's.
And to define a waterfall, just read the friggin word, water 'falls'. it doesn't say how much or whether it has to be x feet high. A 'rapids' is just a long series of very small waterfalls.
If you have to get from point a to point b along a line, do you want just one shot to get it right, or have multiple adjustable shots so that you end up closer to your actual goal?
Agile dev is good, but it's also damn hard to find people well versed in it to make it successful.
Hopefully in the same way we as a species *didn't* ask that question about burning fossil fuels for our energy needs.
I am of the same thinking, that we really couldn't possibly do much harm to the Sun. Ironic in that maybe in this case the idea of putting our waste 'over there' might be an actually workable idea. instead of just pushing the problem down the road a short distance like we do with most things today.
a few thousand nukes? try again. The proposed systems provide power for 20,000 ppl. In the US alone that means 17,500, worldwide it would be 350k (assuming 350 million ppl in US and 7 billion total); and of course those numbers are only going up.
That's a wee bit more than 'a few thousand'.
Your concern that there's no interest on my part in learning about the consequences of large scale deployments isn't fair. I've never said there isn't room for investigation. Windmills have been around far longer than cars so the effects of them are fairly well understood. My trees example was to show that wind has been 'robbed' of it's energy for millenia, it's not a new thing. Burning fossil fuels was a new thing and has significant quantifiable outputs. What 'outputs' are there from windmills or solar panels?
The most obvious 'output' from a solar panel is heat, since they are in the sun and generally dark in color. Since humans have paved or built up far more area than solar panels will use, we've already had the impact, the fraction more isn't likely to cause problems. This too can be investigated and if found to be otherwise mitigated via technologies such as using films on buildings and other existing structures to compensate.
The nuclear sheds *will* fail, everything manmade does eventually. Other posters on this thread have mentioned that the Soviet Union tried this and people are still being exposed to radiation today as those old devices are decaying and not being maintained. What preventative measures do you propose in that case? If the gov't of an area disintegrates, how will the nukes be maintained properly? Windmills and panels will eventually fall down, but they don't kill swaths of area when they do.
We're not going to agree here obviously, but nukes are not the answer in my opinion.
I'm specifically asking for *any* evidence of your claims and yet you keep saying 'because' with no facts to back it up. Do you have any studies/evidence/hints of effect that windmills produce any significant effect on the environment whatsoever? where does your belief that it would cause problems come from? ditto for solar panels. We know quite well the 'effects' of nuclear power; clean air/water-boom-oops.
The trees argument is a perfectly valid rebuttal to your claim that robbing the wind of its energy is bad for the environment. Trees have been doing just that for billions of years. Your response argument was about cars and CO2. Talk about illogical....
Will manufacturing infrastructure components cause environmental pollution? you bet. You don't think your nuclear plants spring out of thin air do you?
Billions of windmills/solar panels? I haven't seen any proposals that require that many. Millions? still seems high, but I'll go with that. An order of magnitude lower. With solar, heck new (existing) technologies allow our buildings/windows to generate solar power via film coatings, so vast panel farms won't even be necessary.
So we're somewhat even there. Both proposals produce emissions in their creation.
Nuclear is only low 'impact' if you don't consider the waste aspect. These reactors don't deal with the waste issue. They still need to be dealt with at end of life.
Nuclear also has a limited lifetime, whereas the wind and solar don't; at least not as long as the sun burns.
The one added benefit of wind/solar? no known potential to explode...but you knew that;-)
since you're first response fully ignored the main premise of my rebuttal of #1, I'd be careful about the 'learning' comments;-)
My point to #4, if draining energy out of the wind is a problem, you need to explain why trees and other natural wind resistors haven't caused problems already. Bird kills are something that is still being debated about windmills I believe for example but that's not a wind energy drain issue.
As for solar energy, the sunlight is making it into our environment with the exception of a few feet (between the solar array and the ground) so heat effects (changes) are likely nil. Since the collectors are located in already very arid areas, little vegetation will be deprived of its sunlight. Since these types of solar arrays currently exist without much in the way of established negative effects, again, please provide the mechanism for the problems that you expect.
Humans will always affect the earth, that much I think we can agree on. But saying that using the wind or sunlight will be worse for the environment than lots of localized nuclear power sources? again I can't see it and you haven't provided any evidence furthering that argument.
As I said, just my fantasy world. The logistics of getting the waste from site to sun are as you point out, non-trivial.
My question was simply about the effects the waste might have on the Sun itself.
Also a comment on the irony that while people back in the early 1900's never imagined we'd actually be able to affect the earth's climate significantly using oil/coal, my fantasy world equivalent of 'just throw it in the sun' might actually be something we could do without serious consequences to the Sun itself.
Slashdot Mirror
actually it will still work out better. Because the long constant driving is a fairly low energy need/high economy situation. The systems also can pull energy from the drive train while your driving.
My Civic does this when I'm almost out of battery charge, it uses the transmission to charge the battery when its not under heavy load. If you need to hit the accelerator it stops the charging and gives you the full power of the drive train.
its the same concept in a slightly different implementation. You take energy generated during a period of high economy (constant cruising) and store it for reuse during low economy (acceleration/climbing).
The full electric (PHEV's) will do this by default, charging the batteries using the range extender gas engine when power needs are below the generated power.
think of it as buying something when its on sale for use at time when its not on sale. You get the benefit of a lower price without the penalty having to buy it right when you need it.
Not having been to Scotland (yet!) I won't argue about the terrain ;-) So it's entirely possible a hybrid wouldn't be a great solution; nobody is claiming they are the complete end all be all for every situation.
;-)
As for how long it takes, I don't follow your question. In current hybrids the extra 'weight' is the battery, the transmission additions, and the regenerative breaking apparatus. For the 10-15% weight penalty you get to recoup energy from 100% the kinetic energy you've *already* spent getting the car moving. Obviously it's not 100%, but even if it's 60% you're still ahead of the game in terms of net energy. Its going to be wasted if you don't recapture, so why not?
It does work, I get 20-30% better fuel economy than a standard Honda Civic.
When you start talking full electric's with range extenders (PHEVs), then you won't have the mountain climb problems since all the propulsion is done by the electric motors. The gas engine just supplies the electricity. So those will work for your situation as there isn't any loss in power except when the gas runs out...which is no different than regular cars
remember that most people don't *need* an SUV either. Your point about not being near a train or plane is a valid concern based on the US geography; i.e. very big. But lots and lots of people live close enough to other transportation options to make the electrics/hybrid's a viable market.
A hybrid's only failing (I own a 2003 Civic Hybrid) is sustained major mountain climbs. The gas engine is smaller because of the electric motors doing part of the work. When the 'juice' runs out, your left climbing with an underpowered car. But it does climb them just fine, just slower since it loses the electric boost after a while. Most people don't climb Pikes Peak very often though...so this isn't a major concern.
The range extended hybrids likely won't have this problem since they will run completely on electricity and the gas engine simply providing the electricity for the electric motors when the batteries are depleted. (same as diesel electric locomotives...the diesels never actually 'drive' the train)
You're complaint about hybrids not being able to carry the battery and electric motor is complete hooey. The 'extra' weight is something like 10-15% of the vehicle weight. By doing this you get to recapture 100% of the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle. This is how hybrids work, capture wasted or cheaply generated power, and reuse it in times of high power need.
The all electric vehicles will certainly have this ability as well...it would be stupid not to have it.
I've also read that the newer 'mega' windmills actually are much safer for birds as they turn more slowly and use gearing to ramp up rotational energy for power generation.
;-)
maybe 'bigger is better' isn't such a bad thing
Agreed, that was my first thought too. Isn't this exactly *the point* of simulations? to condition us to respond to certain stimuli without having to say be shot down or have both engines quit taking off from NY?
the artificial eyes are closer than you think. I've read a couple recent stories about people who have one fake eye that want to get a USB camera modified to fit inside the glass eye.
Would they have to 'click' every time they blink? lol hate to sit next to them in the theater!
But seriously, I think a *lot* of people would have a problem with secret photos even if they aren't distributed. It's more of the personal violation issue, because now there is always a risk they will become public...not to mention the blackmail potential.
in the end this is gov't policing manners (a bad thing) to the Nth as a previous poster stated.
Did you RTFA? It's a bill introduced by a single House Rep from NY. With no co-sponsors.
But thanks for letting us know your opinion of Obama...
I swear this was already a law as pretty much everything that takes a pictures already *does* this.
Or, just as likely, the manufacturers don't want a lawsuit by a 'victim' of the sneaky picture taking. Which goes to prove, the gov't doesn't need to do this.
Crap, do I have to give a credit to lawyers for once?
A nice simple EMF pulse should do the trick...I'm sure they won't see any negative side affects to this eiter...
Actually it would be useful on a submersible vehicle.
Much like a paddle doesn't work well underwater, since you can't pull it out of the water to move it forward, this would have the same problems. But what if you have enclosed spaces of air under water like under a dome shaped object. Now you have surface water....under water. The weight of the craft keeps it underwater, and yet you have an air space by which to use your paddle, or in this case the electric charges to affect surface tension.
It seems like this would be a real bonus to release a bunch of autonomous drones to go out and study something in deep water, let them travel around slowly doing their observations, no human intervention needed.
in thinking about 'natural areas', consider the wind farms will be 'creating' new natural areas in the form of the pilings in the water. Ocean life is always attracted to them, barnacles and reef type micro organisms, smaller fish to feed on the micro's and for protection, larger fish for dining on the smaller fish, etc..
I'd say it's fair to say that windmills have a significantly smaller environmental impact than oil production facilities. Once they are up, they don't do anything except sit there and spin...oil rigs continue to produce waste and always have the possibility of an oil spill. the windmill's worse case is it falls over.
I think comparing the number of kills by bridges/buildings/antennas to the number of kills by Wind Turbines is a bit unfair bridges/buildings/antennas outnumber turbines by well over an order of magnitude... The bridges/etc. are stationary objects, where as the turbine blades can move quite fast especially at the tips. Another reason comparing kills might problematic.
The concept gets interesting when you consider we're going to have to build many many many more turbines to make a sizeable dent in our energy demand.
I'm all in favor of the turbines, but some concerns can be valid if properly voiced too.
And yours didn't question you reading Playboy at 9 years old?
My parents restricted the hours I watched TV and kept tabs on what I watched. They took an interest in what I did and with whom I did it. Reading was things that they provided or I asked for (and they approved before I got).
Is that really so hard to comprehend? It's called childhood, your parents are responsible for you (and liable to a pretty wide degree).
Indeed many things can happen outside of a parents view, but the stuff that's inside their OWN HOUSE, they have to own up to responsibility for.
if only the *parents* out there shared a similar view...
Now, most parents do indeed want to keep kids away from it, yet they willingly turn over the keys (computer) and let kids drive the Indy 500 (internet). They just can't be bothered to actually administer and moderate what their kids are doing.
Yes yes people are busy, but if you're that busy, why did you have kids in the first place? I don't want my access to whatever material I see as reasonable restricted simply because someone else refuses to take their own responsibility.
Navy SysEngr: Well the good news is the ship has been pwned and is sending out spam
Admiral: That's the 'Good news'? what the hell is the bad news?
Navy SysEngr: It's being delivered by ICBM...
good point. But that also assumes the code is disclosed 'publicly'.
In all likelyhood, as others have posited, it will only be released under a sealed order for the relevant experts to analyze. So no code for anyone not involved in the trial, and short of doing time for violating the judge's order no code for other states.
Your point about cars is valid but doesn't apply here.
In the car analogy it's the operation of the device that has different rules based on location. As such people make one device that meets all standards.
In this situation, the only issue is unrelated to the operation of the device. The same device can be used in both FL and GA, but only FL requires that it disclose source code. If the contract with GA doesn't require it, the same company doesn't have to produce it.
There's no claim that refusing a breathalyzer will get you off scottfree. Simply that you won't have evidence against you that you were drunk. Less evidence means, in theory, less chance of being convicted. Your license is going to be suspended unless you pass the, possibly faulty, test.
That said, the only people likely to avail themselves of the refusal option are those who either know they are drunk, or have enough prior convictions to make fighting it a more attractive option.
I would say the argument can't be made. The examples you've cited are materially different. They are single point push systems, rather than a p2p pulling system.
You only get your updates from one place, the original source. (Or in the case of linux distro's you get the validation/CRC check from one place)
The article is about an automated distributed response, hence you have to trust much more than the person you're getting it from. You have to trust the entire chain.
The Blizzard example is a better one. I'd say that a lack of exploits against it isn't a good measure of it's suitability though. Distribution of fixes (bittorrent) is rather easy, ensuring the security/authenticity of said stuff isn't nearly so.
It works fine the *real* world. The one where its done when it's done and meets your requirements competently.
I'd call it unreal, to expect a bug free, optimized, intuitive application with anything *but* an intensive and robust requirements/design period. Most projects don't have the time, so everything is shortchanged in the goal of the ship date. Complaining about what the outcome is after you subvert that is like complaining your house fell down when they used balsawood twigs instead of 2x4's.
And to define a waterfall, just read the friggin word, water 'falls'. it doesn't say how much or whether it has to be x feet high. A 'rapids' is just a long series of very small waterfalls.
If you have to get from point a to point b along a line, do you want just one shot to get it right, or have multiple adjustable shots so that you end up closer to your actual goal?
Agile dev is good, but it's also damn hard to find people well versed in it to make it successful.
Yep I am :)
Hopefully in the same way we as a species *didn't* ask that question about burning fossil fuels for our energy needs.
I am of the same thinking, that we really couldn't possibly do much harm to the Sun. Ironic in that maybe in this case the idea of putting our waste 'over there' might be an actually workable idea. instead of just pushing the problem down the road a short distance like we do with most things today.
a few thousand nukes? try again. The proposed systems provide power for 20,000 ppl. In the US alone that means 17,500, worldwide it would be 350k (assuming 350 million ppl in US and 7 billion total); and of course those numbers are only going up.
That's a wee bit more than 'a few thousand'.
Your concern that there's no interest on my part in learning about the consequences of large scale deployments isn't fair. I've never said there isn't room for investigation. Windmills have been around far longer than cars so the effects of them are fairly well understood. My trees example was to show that wind has been 'robbed' of it's energy for millenia, it's not a new thing. Burning fossil fuels was a new thing and has significant quantifiable outputs. What 'outputs' are there from windmills or solar panels?
The most obvious 'output' from a solar panel is heat, since they are in the sun and generally dark in color. Since humans have paved or built up far more area than solar panels will use, we've already had the impact, the fraction more isn't likely to cause problems. This too can be investigated and if found to be otherwise mitigated via technologies such as using films on buildings and other existing structures to compensate.
The nuclear sheds *will* fail, everything manmade does eventually. Other posters on this thread have mentioned that the Soviet Union tried this and people are still being exposed to radiation today as those old devices are decaying and not being maintained. What preventative measures do you propose in that case? If the gov't of an area disintegrates, how will the nukes be maintained properly? Windmills and panels will eventually fall down, but they don't kill swaths of area when they do.
We're not going to agree here obviously, but nukes are not the answer in my opinion.
I don't want to look?
;-)
I'm specifically asking for *any* evidence of your claims and yet you keep saying 'because' with no facts to back it up. Do you have any studies/evidence/hints of effect that windmills produce any significant effect on the environment whatsoever? where does your belief that it would cause problems come from? ditto for solar panels. We know quite well the 'effects' of nuclear power; clean air/water-boom-oops.
The trees argument is a perfectly valid rebuttal to your claim that robbing the wind of its energy is bad for the environment. Trees have been doing just that for billions of years. Your response argument was about cars and CO2. Talk about illogical....
Will manufacturing infrastructure components cause environmental pollution? you bet. You don't think your nuclear plants spring out of thin air do you?
Billions of windmills/solar panels? I haven't seen any proposals that require that many. Millions? still seems high, but I'll go with that. An order of magnitude lower. With solar, heck new (existing) technologies allow our buildings/windows to generate solar power via film coatings, so vast panel farms won't even be necessary. So we're somewhat even there. Both proposals produce emissions in their creation.
Nuclear is only low 'impact' if you don't consider the waste aspect. These reactors don't deal with the waste issue. They still need to be dealt with at end of life.
Nuclear also has a limited lifetime, whereas the wind and solar don't; at least not as long as the sun burns.
The one added benefit of wind/solar? no known potential to explode...but you knew that
since you're first response fully ignored the main premise of my rebuttal of #1, I'd be careful about the 'learning' comments ;-)
My point to #4, if draining energy out of the wind is a problem, you need to explain why trees and other natural wind resistors haven't caused problems already. Bird kills are something that is still being debated about windmills I believe for example but that's not a wind energy drain issue.
As for solar energy, the sunlight is making it into our environment with the exception of a few feet (between the solar array and the ground) so heat effects (changes) are likely nil. Since the collectors are located in already very arid areas, little vegetation will be deprived of its sunlight. Since these types of solar arrays currently exist without much in the way of established negative effects, again, please provide the mechanism for the problems that you expect.
Humans will always affect the earth, that much I think we can agree on. But saying that using the wind or sunlight will be worse for the environment than lots of localized nuclear power sources? again I can't see it and you haven't provided any evidence furthering that argument.
As I said, just my fantasy world. The logistics of getting the waste from site to sun are as you point out, non-trivial.
My question was simply about the effects the waste might have on the Sun itself.
Also a comment on the irony that while people back in the early 1900's never imagined we'd actually be able to affect the earth's climate significantly using oil/coal, my fantasy world equivalent of 'just throw it in the sun' might actually be something we could do without serious consequences to the Sun itself.