Just make it flat out illegal, and consider it treason.
Once again...
Treason is defined in the Constitution. Without a Constitutional Amendment to redefine it, none of this would meet the definition.
And good luck getting a Constitutional Amendment redefining treason in such a way that the new definition can't be used against YOU in a court of law, if the government so desires.
What makes you think that media should be in the hands of corporations?
The media are already corporations.
So, how do you propose to keep the media out of the hands of corporations? Have the media all be government-owned? That's worked really well historically.
Certainly no private citizen is going to be all that interested in owning a media company when he's on the hook for damages from any lawsuit leveled against his media company....
They can run on natural Uranium,slightly enriched Uranium , MOX , U-233/Thorium , and for the case of Thorium and U-233 they can be run in a self-sufficient breeder mode.
Nah, I want three or four different designs. Never put all your design eggs in one basket.
James Carter was a US Navy officer in the nuclear power field.
No, that doesn't make him a nuclear engineer.
It makes him pretty knowledgeable about Naval Nuclear Power Plants, but most any Senior Chief in Naval Nuclear Power would have been at least as knowledgeable.
I wouldn't mind living under a roof with solar panels on it though. Solar is still quite a bit more expensive than coal, but is now cheaper than nuclear [theenergycollective.com], according to some.
According to your link, solar is cheaper in North Carolina. IF you include the solar subsidies from State and Federal governments.
If you don't include the subsidies, it won't be cheaper until 2020, at the earliest.
Note that subsidies do not make for widescale adoption. If you get 40% of your home solar system paid for by the (other) taxpayers, and they also decide to go solar, essentially, you're paying for their solar, and they're paying for your solar, and you all end up paying the unsubsidized amount, with 40% hidden in taxes.
Which the State would have to raise to pay for everyone getting the subsidies....
If you are referring to the US as us, I'd assume that the thing stopping us from building them is the same that is stopping us from building any other kind of nuclear reactor. Such projects lack the popular support necessary to gain needed subsidies and permits for construction.
Nothing to do with subsidies. A lot to do with lawsuits.
You announce plans to build a nuclear power plant in the USA, and before you get back to your desk, you've been sued by every anti-nuke group in the country.
You pick a site, and they sue you again.
You start construction, and they sue to stop it.
You finish construction, and they sue to prevent the plant from being turned on.
A ten year project takes 20+ years when you're spending that much time in the courtroom. And the costs continue to mount while you're in court.
So, instead, you build a gas-fired plant...and people wonder why we don't do anything about AGW....
Coward? He left Sweden legally, after asking whether there were any objections or challenges that would have prevented this. He was told that he was free to go.
He was also told, and agreed to, make himself available for future questioning if necessary. When it became necessary, he decided to refuse to return for questioning, a warrant was issued, and he began fighting extradition.
People live where they do for a reason. Usually jobs.
The coasts have, well, oceans right there. Which means incredibly cheap bulk transport for the products of their industries as well as the raw materials they need to import (food, that sort of thing).
River valleys are much the same - that river makes shipping bulk goods cheap and easy.
Alas, the parts of the country that are away from the coasts and rivers don't have those advantages.
Alas, also, the parts of the country that are away from the coasts and rivers also have their own natural disasters. You don't hear about them because very few people are affected by a major storm in North Dakota, for instance. 2,000,000 people lose electricity, and you've got some real news. 130 people lose electricity, and you don't even have a good footnote to the news.
" 'There being no reason a modern nuke plant should "blow up",
Terrorism ?
Let's see...
Terrorists might bring 500 tons of TNT into a nuclear plant and set it off. That would make a hell of a (non-nuclear) explosion. Might even break the containment vessel, if they knew what they were doing when they laid the charges. Most likely not, since it's pretty hard to synchronize that much boom.
It should, perhaps, be pointed out that almost all the promises made by the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2008 could not have been fulfilled by the President either.
Yes, I know. As I said, I was simply using the current Republican candidates "(simply for example)".
I tend to think that people who pick one side as their "example" are trying to bias their readers. Which is why I used both sides as bad examples last go-round.
Note that the likely 2012 Democratic Presidential candidate is still making promises he has no power to keep. Along with, as you say, the Republican candidates for the office.
Build them in job lots, and decommission 2 GW of coal plants for every 3 GW of nuclear we build.
And pick a design or two and stick with them. Rather than making every single one of them unique. Preferably Fourth Generation, but Late Third would suffice.
And seriously start looking at thorium designs. And breeder reactors.
So better make that four designs - one conventional, on thorium, one that can be converted from conventional to thorium, and one breeder. Cover all the bases.
And then try our best to make the people who complain about nuclear power sound like they're in favour of Global Warming continuing unchecked. Just like the anti-nuke knotheads act like people who favour nuclear power are in favour of more Chernobyls.
Look at all the promises made by the Republican presidential candidates (simply for example), most cannot be fulfilled by the President, but must be done so by Congress.
It should, perhaps, be pointed out that almost all the promises made by the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2008 could not have been fulfilled by the President either.
Alas, the Republican Presidential candidate that year was at the top of my list of Republicans NEVER TO VOTE FOR EVER, NO MATTER WHAT. Plus, all his promises were things he couldn't do either.
So, I sat that campaign out. I expect to do the same again next year. Obama has shown some surprising twists, but he basically isn't someone I want in charge. And so far, none of the Republican candidates look like people I want in charge either....
My brain is fried and beer-addled, so I can't even begin to figure out how much rice we'd need to match the annual demand for this protein, but I can tell that it's a LOT.
182,000 tons, give or take a few.
For reference, the USA, which is hardly a major player in the world's rice production, grows 6,000,000 or so tons per year.
The 182,000 tons would represent 0.05% of worldwide rice production....
Of the existing launch vehicles, the Soyuz design is the single most successful and reliable launcher ever designed and operated. Since 1973, there have been 745 launches of the Soyuz-U design with 724 successful launches (with most of the failures in the early days).
Hmm...
724 out of 745 is 97.2% success rate.
Shuttle did 133 successful out of 135 launches, a 98.5% success rate.
Looks to me like Soyuz isn't quite as reliable or safe as Shuttle, frankly.
How are the elderly going to survive when their fixed income checks
Social Security is indexed to inflation.
Which means that hyperinflation won't help nearly as much as you might expect, when you multiply the money supply by ten, and the SSA checks get ten times bigger as an immediate consequence.
Remember, the last time we had really high inflation, people agitated till government pensions and such were automagically adjusted for inflation.
Oddly enough, when that happened, the inflation went away, and has never really come back....
Furthermore, we already have government run healthcare: the VA and Medicare--for vets and old people. Not only are these services popular, their more efficiently run than private insurance companies, with less administrative costs. Which lead to the absurd statement: "get your government hands off my medicare."
On the other hand, it must be remembered that Medicare reimbursement to doctors is low enough that many doctors will not take new Medicare patients (it's apparently illegal to STOP providing service for someone on Medicare, but NOT to accepting a new medicare patient). This is becoming a problem in some parts of the country where doctors are a little scarcer on the ground than most metropolitan areas...
Half the population of Europe died out during the Plague, but they didn't lose any of their technology. Indeed, it seemed to advance faster afterwards.
The Black Plague didn't do its killing in one year, either. Or two. More like 50+ years.
Also, the society of the time was a tad less interdependent than our current one....
Of course, but what else do you call selling out your country to the corporations to this degree?
Well, I call it the First Amendment.
Note that once the government starts restricting who can spend what in politics, it's not long before they're restricting YOU.
It should also be noted that those two decisions basically ratified what had been going on anyway - it's not like you can PREVENT corporate money from getting into politics - there's too much money at stake when you have a large, pervasive government. Which we do...
And where there's money to be had, spending a few million to buy a few billion is a no-brainer. Corporations WILL find a way to make sure their friends in Washington vote in ways favorably to them...
I recently heard that the reason solar is becoming so popular is that water costs in certain areas are starting to increase significantly. That means the cost of any power generation that requires water for cooling (like nuclear generation) are seeing their costs uncontrollably increase.
Umm, no.
Power generation that uses water for cooling typically sucks the water directly from a river, and spits out the slightly warmer water back into the river.
It assumes that individuals [1] act to maximise personal gain, and rejects anything done, for example, for the benefit of one's community.
No, sometimes your personal gain also benefits the community.
Plus, there are always altruists who get a warm fuzzy (personal gain) from doing good (helping the community).
But, in large, it's fairly safe to say that everyone is more interested in things that IMMEDIATELY benefit them than they are in things that IMMEDIATELY harm them but benefit others. Hence our general aversion to taxes, tariffs, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Once again...
Treason is defined in the Constitution. Without a Constitutional Amendment to redefine it, none of this would meet the definition.
And good luck getting a Constitutional Amendment redefining treason in such a way that the new definition can't be used against YOU in a court of law, if the government so desires.
The media are already corporations.
So, how do you propose to keep the media out of the hands of corporations? Have the media all be government-owned? That's worked really well historically.
Certainly no private citizen is going to be all that interested in owning a media company when he's on the hook for damages from any lawsuit leveled against his media company....
I did the flood trainer when I was in the Navy too.
Gives you a good perspective on the problems of holes in your boat.
But, all in all, spending three or four hours in the simulator patching leaks was great fun, really.
Nah, I want three or four different designs. Never put all your design eggs in one basket.
James Carter was a US Navy officer in the nuclear power field.
No, that doesn't make him a nuclear engineer.
It makes him pretty knowledgeable about Naval Nuclear Power Plants, but most any Senior Chief in Naval Nuclear Power would have been at least as knowledgeable.
According to your link, solar is cheaper in North Carolina. IF you include the solar subsidies from State and Federal governments.
If you don't include the subsidies, it won't be cheaper until 2020, at the earliest.
Note that subsidies do not make for widescale adoption. If you get 40% of your home solar system paid for by the (other) taxpayers, and they also decide to go solar, essentially, you're paying for their solar, and they're paying for your solar, and you all end up paying the unsubsidized amount, with 40% hidden in taxes.
Which the State would have to raise to pay for everyone getting the subsidies....
Nothing to do with subsidies. A lot to do with lawsuits.
You announce plans to build a nuclear power plant in the USA, and before you get back to your desk, you've been sued by every anti-nuke group in the country.
You pick a site, and they sue you again.
You start construction, and they sue to stop it.
You finish construction, and they sue to prevent the plant from being turned on.
A ten year project takes 20+ years when you're spending that much time in the courtroom. And the costs continue to mount while you're in court.
So, instead, you build a gas-fired plant...and people wonder why we don't do anything about AGW....
He was also told, and agreed to, make himself available for future questioning if necessary. When it became necessary, he decided to refuse to return for questioning, a warrant was issued, and he began fighting extradition.
Big picture:
People live where they do for a reason. Usually jobs.
The coasts have, well, oceans right there. Which means incredibly cheap bulk transport for the products of their industries as well as the raw materials they need to import (food, that sort of thing).
River valleys are much the same - that river makes shipping bulk goods cheap and easy.
Alas, the parts of the country that are away from the coasts and rivers don't have those advantages.
Alas, also, the parts of the country that are away from the coasts and rivers also have their own natural disasters. You don't hear about them because very few people are affected by a major storm in North Dakota, for instance. 2,000,000 people lose electricity, and you've got some real news. 130 people lose electricity, and you don't even have a good footnote to the news.
Let's see...
Terrorists might bring 500 tons of TNT into a nuclear plant and set it off. That would make a hell of a (non-nuclear) explosion. Might even break the containment vessel, if they knew what they were doing when they laid the charges. Most likely not, since it's pretty hard to synchronize that much boom.
But other than that, it's not going to happen.
I tend to think that people who pick one side as their "example" are trying to bias their readers. Which is why I used both sides as bad examples last go-round.
Note that the likely 2012 Democratic Presidential candidate is still making promises he has no power to keep. Along with, as you say, the Republican candidates for the office.
Nuclear.
Build them in job lots, and decommission 2 GW of coal plants for every 3 GW of nuclear we build.
And pick a design or two and stick with them. Rather than making every single one of them unique. Preferably Fourth Generation, but Late Third would suffice.
And seriously start looking at thorium designs. And breeder reactors.
So better make that four designs - one conventional, on thorium, one that can be converted from conventional to thorium, and one breeder. Cover all the bases.
And then try our best to make the people who complain about nuclear power sound like they're in favour of Global Warming continuing unchecked. Just like the anti-nuke knotheads act like people who favour nuclear power are in favour of more Chernobyls.
It should, perhaps, be pointed out that almost all the promises made by the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2008 could not have been fulfilled by the President either.
Alas, the Republican Presidential candidate that year was at the top of my list of Republicans NEVER TO VOTE FOR EVER, NO MATTER WHAT. Plus, all his promises were things he couldn't do either.
So, I sat that campaign out. I expect to do the same again next year. Obama has shown some surprising twists, but he basically isn't someone I want in charge. And so far, none of the Republican candidates look like people I want in charge either....
Okay, you convinced me it was a good idea right there.
Why should the default assumption about any new idea be "it's a bad idea"?
182,000 tons, give or take a few.
For reference, the USA, which is hardly a major player in the world's rice production, grows 6,000,000 or so tons per year.
The 182,000 tons would represent 0.05% of worldwide rice production....
Hmm...
724 out of 745 is 97.2% success rate.
Shuttle did 133 successful out of 135 launches, a 98.5% success rate.
Looks to me like Soyuz isn't quite as reliable or safe as Shuttle, frankly.
On the other hand, it must be remembered that Medicare reimbursement to doctors is low enough that many doctors will not take new Medicare patients (it's apparently illegal to STOP providing service for someone on Medicare, but NOT to accepting a new medicare patient). This is becoming a problem in some parts of the country where doctors are a little scarcer on the ground than most metropolitan areas...
Well, a lot of people seem to think so.
But they're mostly wrong. Fusion will produce neutrons, which will produce radioisotopes of the containment vessel, if nothing else.
Which means the problem of "nuclear waste" won't actually go away with fusion. It'll just be different sorts of waste.
The Black Plague didn't do its killing in one year, either. Or two. More like 50+ years.
Also, the society of the time was a tad less interdependent than our current one....
World War 2 cost the human race 3% of its population. It's considered bad.
The Black Plague was worse. But nowhere near 50%....
I think I read somewhere that a 10% die-off is sufficient to disrupt civilization to at or near the breaking point....
Mayans weren't South American, either.
We usually consider them Central American. If you want to restrict the definition to a continent, they'd be North American.
Well, I call it the First Amendment.
Note that once the government starts restricting who can spend what in politics, it's not long before they're restricting YOU.
It should also be noted that those two decisions basically ratified what had been going on anyway - it's not like you can PREVENT corporate money from getting into politics - there's too much money at stake when you have a large, pervasive government. Which we do...
And where there's money to be had, spending a few million to buy a few billion is a no-brainer. Corporations WILL find a way to make sure their friends in Washington vote in ways favorably to them...
Umm, no.
Power generation that uses water for cooling typically sucks the water directly from a river, and spits out the slightly warmer water back into the river.
And they don't meter rivers....
No, sometimes your personal gain also benefits the community.
Plus, there are always altruists who get a warm fuzzy (personal gain) from doing good (helping the community).
But, in large, it's fairly safe to say that everyone is more interested in things that IMMEDIATELY benefit them than they are in things that IMMEDIATELY harm them but benefit others. Hence our general aversion to taxes, tariffs, etc.