mdsolar indicates that he is referring to some estimate rate of 1 such accident in several million. But that sounds like a theoretical rate for a limited class of failure modes under ideal maintenance and regulation conditions. Can't say any more about that until I find out what he's speaking of.
Power consumption is proportional to usage, plus a constant.
But that is the case whether one downloads the music or buys a SD. The latter requires actual movement of physical objects, which I think is more costly relatively speaking.
I see when I googled, an estimate for "large" "loss of coolant accidents" around 5*10^-6 per year per plant. That sounds like your number. It's worth noting that the accident category in question hasn't happened yet since they're speaking of loss of coolant from pipe corrosion and mechanical failure in a plant with proper maintenance and the following of procedures, not the many other sorts of loss of coolant accidents that can happen to a nuclear plant (such as the real world examples caused by earthquakes, incompetence, and poor maintenance).
mdsolar stated that the NRC estimated the odds of a "nuclear accident" at 1 in 10,000 and then claimed that such accidents occurred at a frequency of 1 every 18 years. What I noted is that there are 435 reactors currently (according to Wikipedia) and that accident rate he claims corresponds to one such accident per 8,000 years of operation of the nuclear reactor. That is very much in line with the estimate.
This has nothing to do with "nuclear FUD websites". This is just rudimentary statistics.
It really harms the credibility of the NRC when their risk calculation come to a accident every ten thousand years while the real world rate is one every 18 years.
I don't know how much energy it takes to build, ship and operate an SD card - but it doesn't sound implausible that it could save as much or more over the course of a three-year usage life. People listen to a lot of music on their phones - how much power is taken to stream some music for a hour's commuting five days a week/
So they have to stream the music at least once in order for it to get to the SD card. That implies the existence of all that power consuming infrastructure, whether or not it gets used to stream music 5 days a week.
According to wikipedia, Nigeria puts out less CO2 than 42 other countries, while China, the US, the EU, India, and Russia top the list in that order. I'm willing to bet that Nigerians also probably aren't particularly high-carbon emissions per capita compared to people in my country, the United States.
But this is all a bit much because you probably don't really want to control the population of the biggest CO2 emitters, do you?
The thing is, he doesn't have to think about it. India is the only country on your list that doesn't have a native population with fertility at or below replacement rate.
Is it cheaper and or greener for me, a single person to store my single photo on a SD card or on a file server.
File server is clearly better in that case because it can store a lot of other peoples' single photos too while you're wasting a whole SD card on one user. The file server is somewhat more resources consumed than that SD card, but those resources are split over a large number of people, while the SD card only supports one person. That's not even getting to the functionality aspect.
Government regulations on energy production are the only thing that's keeping the US from looking like China.
In what ways? Obviously, we're not choking on high levels of smog. But neither are we enjoying the fruits of economic success compared to China. Regulation is responsible for both the cleaner environment and the killing of the economic golden goose.
but if you suggest any lifestyle changes they immediately dismiss the idea without accepting that supporting the environment might mean some small compromises.
Three common problems with these "small compromises" is that a) the proposer is often entirely clueless about the issue, b) the "compromises" aren't small, and c) they often don't actually do anything for the environment.
Considering your example of the SUV driver, why should their need to prove their manliness be less important than your feelings about the environment? Merely, being slightly more polluting than alternatives is not IMHO compelling.
Pretty much sums up the problems with environmentalism. It's "us versus them" with clearly identified hate targets like businesses and gas-guzzling SUVs. For example, do you really think that environmentalists never start their own businesses?
Much our polution is because of our insane consumerist culture.
If this is what people want (and for a lot of people, yes, this is what they want), then I'm not going to take it away from them.
I'm thinking of those long, improperly grounded chain link fences that are all over the place. There will be fried people and burning yappy dogs all over the place. It will be the End of Civilization.
The falacy is related to destroying things to create work.
Exactly. When you take wealth from some to pay others to do useless or even harmful things, you're destroying value and creating opportunity costs. Just because you don't see the window, doesn't mean it wasn't broken.
That's a non sequitur. Even if Lockheed was being paid to make a viable fighter jet - rather than the reality that they were paid whether or not they made a viable fighter jet - it's not the same as being paid a large pile of money to do an IT project.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the already beaten enemy was still fighting.
It means that those Silicon Valley workers can fund their drug habit. The high stress part is motive. The high pay part is opportunity.
mdsolar indicates that he is referring to some estimate rate of 1 such accident in several million. But that sounds like a theoretical rate for a limited class of failure modes under ideal maintenance and regulation conditions. Can't say any more about that until I find out what he's speaking of.
Power consumption is proportional to usage, plus a constant.
But that is the case whether one downloads the music or buys a SD. The latter requires actual movement of physical objects, which I think is more costly relatively speaking.
Ok, where's the reference then?
I see when I googled, an estimate for "large" "loss of coolant accidents" around 5*10^-6 per year per plant. That sounds like your number. It's worth noting that the accident category in question hasn't happened yet since they're speaking of loss of coolant from pipe corrosion and mechanical failure in a plant with proper maintenance and the following of procedures, not the many other sorts of loss of coolant accidents that can happen to a nuclear plant (such as the real world examples caused by earthquakes, incompetence, and poor maintenance).
mdsolar stated that the NRC estimated the odds of a "nuclear accident" at 1 in 10,000 and then claimed that such accidents occurred at a frequency of 1 every 18 years. What I noted is that there are 435 reactors currently (according to Wikipedia) and that accident rate he claims corresponds to one such accident per 8,000 years of operation of the nuclear reactor. That is very much in line with the estimate.
This has nothing to do with "nuclear FUD websites". This is just rudimentary statistics.
So you're so concerned by my behavior that you post an unsubstantiated ad hominem attack anonymously? Do tell.
18 years*435 current reactors=7830 reactor years. Which is close to the claimed 10,000 reactor years of your original post.
How did the music get on that SD?
It really harms the credibility of the NRC when their risk calculation come to a accident every ten thousand years while the real world rate is one every 18 years.
while the real world rate is one every 18 years
Over 400+ nuclear reactors in the world.
I don't know how much energy it takes to build, ship and operate an SD card - but it doesn't sound implausible that it could save as much or more over the course of a three-year usage life. People listen to a lot of music on their phones - how much power is taken to stream some music for a hour's commuting five days a week/
So they have to stream the music at least once in order for it to get to the SD card. That implies the existence of all that power consuming infrastructure, whether or not it gets used to stream music 5 days a week.
According to wikipedia, Nigeria puts out less CO2 than 42 other countries, while China, the US, the EU, India, and Russia top the list in that order. I'm willing to bet that Nigerians also probably aren't particularly high-carbon emissions per capita compared to people in my country, the United States.
But this is all a bit much because you probably don't really want to control the population of the biggest CO2 emitters, do you?
The thing is, he doesn't have to think about it. India is the only country on your list that doesn't have a native population with fertility at or below replacement rate.
Is it cheaper and or greener for me, a single person to store my single photo on a SD card or on a file server.
File server is clearly better in that case because it can store a lot of other peoples' single photos too while you're wasting a whole SD card on one user. The file server is somewhat more resources consumed than that SD card, but those resources are split over a large number of people, while the SD card only supports one person. That's not even getting to the functionality aspect.
Government regulations on energy production are the only thing that's keeping the US from looking like China.
In what ways? Obviously, we're not choking on high levels of smog. But neither are we enjoying the fruits of economic success compared to China. Regulation is responsible for both the cleaner environment and the killing of the economic golden goose.
but if you suggest any lifestyle changes they immediately dismiss the idea without accepting that supporting the environment might mean some small compromises.
Three common problems with these "small compromises" is that a) the proposer is often entirely clueless about the issue, b) the "compromises" aren't small, and c) they often don't actually do anything for the environment.
Considering your example of the SUV driver, why should their need to prove their manliness be less important than your feelings about the environment? Merely, being slightly more polluting than alternatives is not IMHO compelling.
because businesses do not care
Pretty much sums up the problems with environmentalism. It's "us versus them" with clearly identified hate targets like businesses and gas-guzzling SUVs. For example, do you really think that environmentalists never start their own businesses?
Much our polution is because of our insane consumerist culture.
If this is what people want (and for a lot of people, yes, this is what they want), then I'm not going to take it away from them.
I'm thinking of those long, improperly grounded chain link fences that are all over the place. There will be fried people and burning yappy dogs all over the place. It will be the End of Civilization.
Please don't take this as an attack on basic science and research â" just how NASA does it.
Which thing? Your post or how NASA "does it"?
Could you give an example of these alleged "economic laws" so that we may judge your claims?
The falacy is related to destroying things to create work.
Exactly. When you take wealth from some to pay others to do useless or even harmful things, you're destroying value and creating opportunity costs. Just because you don't see the window, doesn't mean it wasn't broken.
The hypocrisy is that the government is always blamed.
Yes, it's so unfair to be blamed for monumentally poor management of a project.
And half a year pass isn't very long compared to a year, amirite?
Or maybe never heard of the F35?
That's a non sequitur. Even if Lockheed was being paid to make a viable fighter jet - rather than the reality that they were paid whether or not they made a viable fighter jet - it's not the same as being paid a large pile of money to do an IT project.
GAAP requires private companies to respond to FOI requests?
That's a different issue. FOIA applies to public work done by private companies as it does for public work done by US/UK government organizations.