Good thing uranium is simply extracted from the air by a filtering process. Nuclear power would be really set back if the material to run the plants had to be mined.
How is it NOT a failure of engineering for the earthquake and tsunami threat to be minimized? History and tsunami stones pointed to real dangers that would lead one to think it is retarded to put generators that require fire, and for which water is a fatal enemy, at sea level. You cannot dismiss Fukushima because it wasn't designed for the event -- the earthquake and tsunami are an indictment of the engineering, not a reason to excuse the engineering.
Wow. A credit to their engineering? The same engineers that put a vital support system at sea level in a place known for tsunamis? Fukushima is not a credit to the engineers -- it is an indictment.
That's like saying an americano isn't coffee because in one you expose coffee grounds to a small amount of water under pressure after which you dilute it with plain hot water, and in the other you expose coffee grounds to the same volume of liquid as the finished pot will hold. In then end, you still get a coffee flavored drink with caffeine, so the distinction in preparation has little bearing on the physiological effects.
To say that Viet Nam was not a war ignores the fact the multitudes were murdered in the most heinous manner possible. I bet the dead and scarred really don't see any difference between the terms.
I didn't say he started 3. Clearly, he started one, expanded one (Afghanistan), and continued one.
It is indisputable however, given the continuation, the expansion, and the starting, that Obama is another "killer" president, in the most literal sense of the term.
Gladly, I too voted third party. I feel no guilt over the last election, only guilt in paying taxes that go to immoral bloodletting.
The Pauls are Republicans, not libertarians:
Libertarian Platform (it's eminently googleable):
3.5 Rights and Discrimination
We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.
"Removing government from the equation entirely allows gay and lesbian couples to enter into the same legal agreements and arrangement as heterosexual couples, and it would allow individuals and businesses to decide for themselves who to grant the benefits of marriage to," said Sumner. "No individual, straight, gay or lesbian, should be forced to accept someone elseâ(TM)s definition of marriage."
In other words, you couldn't force the Catholics to marry gays, and you couldn't force the Unitarians not to.
Which ones has he ended? Oh yea, Iraq is over -- I forgot. Obama officially declared the end of hostilities or something stupid like that some time ago -- a bit like Bush with the "Mission Accomplished" thingy. If you think Obama is anything other than an extension of Bush's policies, you're not paying attention.
Obama asserts the right to execute American citizens without any kind of trial, charges, or judicial oversight based on nothing but allegations, i.e., Obama says your are a terrorist -- you get murdered and don't get a chance to defend yourself. Look up Amendments 4-6 to the constitution to see just how breathtaking this is. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/02/assassinations/index.html
Closing Gitmo? Not. But worse, since the procedures at Gitmo have been declared unconstitutional, Obama is merely shifting operations to Bagram, as if the place in which one denies Habeas Corpus is of such great import: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/no-habeas-at-bagram/
Privacy violating, murdering, wasteful spending Republicans and Democrats are better?
Take the whole Barry Bonds trial as a trivial example. $20m spent on a trial over whether some guy lied about doing steroids? We don't have any actual problems that could be addressed with that money? Or Obama's abysmal achievements in embracing and extending every civl rights violation of the Bush administration? And then the wars we can't afford...
If all you have is Republicans and Democrats to offer, we are so doomed.
you know nothing of libertarians, but whatever. It isn't like there is an actual difference between Republicans and Democrats except on a couple hot button issues. Obama is no liberal -- he can't be if he asserts that he has the right to execute American citizens without trial or recourse to the courts -- summary execution on his say so alone. Plus the wars. Seriously, if what you major party adherents have to offer is Authoritarian (D flavor) v Authoritarian (R flavor) -- go fuck yourself or better yet, get yourself killed in an expensive pointless war.
And you are completely ignoring the cost of a meltdown. Just how much would it cost to compensate all the people displaced if Indian Point ( http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/indian_point_nuclear_power_plant_ny/index.html ) contaminated NY City? Until the Nuclear Industry can demonstrate the capability to personally recompense all those it harms in a meltdown situation, they shouldn't be allowed to build them. Seriously, you can't drive a car without insurance -- why should you be able to build a nuclear plant if your company can't handle the consequences?
So you want to reduce regulations on nuclear plants? This of course is coupled with the government being the guarantor should something go wrong. Of course, you're a fanboi, so you don't see a danger of any moral hazard (to borrow a phrase of the financial metldown that occurred as a result of a lack of regulation and a lack of consequences for screwing up -- win win unless you're an average Joe).
So this ignored technology will never be cost competitive with nuclear? Focusing on construction costs is merely sleight of hand to get people to think other options are too costly -- like advertising a brand new BMW for $10k (fn1).
It is perfectly reasonable to look at the slow motion disaster leaking into the ocean in Japan and think, there should be other options. Projects like this solar plant are going to result in improvements to the technology so that by the time we get to building the 50th, it'll be a rock solid means of energy production.
As for economic decisions, who is going to pay the residents in a 20km radius around Fukushima for their stores, homes, businesses, and farms? Are your economic costs for nuclear power including the costs of something going wrong, of babysitting the spent fuel for a decade or so after the plant shuts down, for the damage caused by mining? Compare that to the worst thing this solar plant could do if it failed in the most spectacularly unimaginable fashion possible -- nuclear is way more expensive than you make it out.
fn1: Includes the body only. Engine, transmission, wheels, electronics, paint, wiring, seats, carpet, head liner, lights, and everything else available as an option at extra cost.
In addition, there are ongoing maintenance costs while operating that are probably far lower to take care of a bunch of mirrors than for a nuclear plant requires.
How much will Palo Verde cost to decommission? How many years will the waste require cooling while providing nothing in return? Decommissioning the solar plant would require what, some long hammers, a couple bull dozers, bit of dynamite to topple the tower, some dump trucks and a few crews of workers going at it for a couple months?
What about ongoing maintenance? I have no data but I'm guessing a bunch of mirrors is a lot easier to maintain than potentially deadly fuel and waste. Easier of course means cheaper.
It's so tall so they can use more mirrors and get more juice out of it. If it was at ground level, maybe a single ring of mirrors could direct light at it. If it's at 20', maybe two or three rings. When it's way up in the sky, you can get many rings of mirrors with a direct line of sight to the target.
Have you been reading slashdot? The GP was completely correct. There have been countless posts complaining about media hype, or how the reactor did better than its design specs and so forth. There's a "ZOMG" post somewhere up above -- the sort of typically smug "nuclear is the best" attitude and all you worrywarts can't see reality. Like laughing as your house burns down -- "we don't need no stinkin firehoses".
The design of this reactor was first questioned in 1972 by the US Atomic Energy Agency. Worse though, was the idea of NOT putting the generators and fuel on the bluff above the plant. What's your excuse for that tard move?
Hopefully (yeah right, by now it should be clear that used car salesmen have have an infinitely greater ethical superiority over the nuclear industry).... Hopefully, engineers aren't covering up flaws in the containment like the Japanese engineers on reactor 4:
Slashdot Mirror
Diesel generators were the linchpin of the backup system. Last I checked, diesel generators are internal combustion engines. They run on fire.
Good thing uranium is simply extracted from the air by a filtering process. Nuclear power would be really set back if the material to run the plants had to be mined.
How is it NOT a failure of engineering for the earthquake and tsunami threat to be minimized? History and tsunami stones pointed to real dangers that would lead one to think it is retarded to put generators that require fire, and for which water is a fatal enemy, at sea level. You cannot dismiss Fukushima because it wasn't designed for the event -- the earthquake and tsunami are an indictment of the engineering, not a reason to excuse the engineering.
Wow. A credit to their engineering? The same engineers that put a vital support system at sea level in a place known for tsunamis? Fukushima is not a credit to the engineers -- it is an indictment.
None of those construction injuries have any possibility of contaminating ground water.
France and England were constantly warring during that time period so yeah, the revolution was part of their constant warring with each other.
That's like saying an americano isn't coffee because in one you expose coffee grounds to a small amount of water under pressure after which you dilute it with plain hot water, and in the other you expose coffee grounds to the same volume of liquid as the finished pot will hold. In then end, you still get a coffee flavored drink with caffeine, so the distinction in preparation has little bearing on the physiological effects.
To say that Viet Nam was not a war ignores the fact the multitudes were murdered in the most heinous manner possible. I bet the dead and scarred really don't see any difference between the terms.
I didn't say he started 3. Clearly, he started one, expanded one (Afghanistan), and continued one.
It is indisputable however, given the continuation, the expansion, and the starting, that Obama is another "killer" president, in the most literal sense of the term.
Gladly, I too voted third party. I feel no guilt over the last election, only guilt in paying taxes that go to immoral bloodletting.
http://www.lp.org/platform
Or this: http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-applaud-steps-toward-marriage-equality
In other words, you couldn't force the Catholics to marry gays, and you couldn't force the Unitarians not to.
Which ones has he ended? Oh yea, Iraq is over -- I forgot. Obama officially declared the end of hostilities or something stupid like that some time ago -- a bit like Bush with the "Mission Accomplished" thingy. If you think Obama is anything other than an extension of Bush's policies, you're not paying attention.
Obama asserts the right to execute American citizens without any kind of trial, charges, or judicial oversight based on nothing but allegations, i.e., Obama says your are a terrorist -- you get murdered and don't get a chance to defend yourself. Look up Amendments 4-6 to the constitution to see just how breathtaking this is. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/02/assassinations/index.html
Then of course there is the refusal to prosecute the illegal wiretapping of the previous administration, but rather to immunize the evildoers: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/obama-sides-wit/
Closing Gitmo? Not. But worse, since the procedures at Gitmo have been declared unconstitutional, Obama is merely shifting operations to Bagram, as if the place in which one denies Habeas Corpus is of such great import: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/no-habeas-at-bagram/
Obama uses the state secrets doctrine to prevent civil lawsuits against American companies complicit in the plaintiffs' torture under Bush's rendition program: http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/09/suit_alleging_cia_torture_dism.html
Moral: If you hated Bush, you need to be hating Obama because he and Bush are brothers.
Privacy violating, murdering, wasteful spending Republicans and Democrats are better?
...
Take the whole Barry Bonds trial as a trivial example. $20m spent on a trial over whether some guy lied about doing steroids? We don't have any actual problems that could be addressed with that money? Or Obama's abysmal achievements in embracing and extending every civl rights violation of the Bush administration? And then the wars we can't afford
If all you have is Republicans and Democrats to offer, we are so doomed.
you know nothing of libertarians, but whatever. It isn't like there is an actual difference between Republicans and Democrats except on a couple hot button issues. Obama is no liberal -- he can't be if he asserts that he has the right to execute American citizens without trial or recourse to the courts -- summary execution on his say so alone. Plus the wars. Seriously, if what you major party adherents have to offer is Authoritarian (D flavor) v Authoritarian (R flavor) -- go fuck yourself or better yet, get yourself killed in an expensive pointless war.
And you are completely ignoring the cost of a meltdown. Just how much would it cost to compensate all the people displaced if Indian Point ( http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/indian_point_nuclear_power_plant_ny/index.html ) contaminated NY City? Until the Nuclear Industry can demonstrate the capability to personally recompense all those it harms in a meltdown situation, they shouldn't be allowed to build them. Seriously, you can't drive a car without insurance -- why should you be able to build a nuclear plant if your company can't handle the consequences?
So you want to reduce regulations on nuclear plants? This of course is coupled with the government being the guarantor should something go wrong. Of course, you're a fanboi, so you don't see a danger of any moral hazard (to borrow a phrase of the financial metldown that occurred as a result of a lack of regulation and a lack of consequences for screwing up -- win win unless you're an average Joe).
So this ignored technology will never be cost competitive with nuclear? Focusing on construction costs is merely sleight of hand to get people to think other options are too costly -- like advertising a brand new BMW for $10k (fn1).
It is perfectly reasonable to look at the slow motion disaster leaking into the ocean in Japan and think, there should be other options. Projects like this solar plant are going to result in improvements to the technology so that by the time we get to building the 50th, it'll be a rock solid means of energy production.
As for economic decisions, who is going to pay the residents in a 20km radius around Fukushima for their stores, homes, businesses, and farms? Are your economic costs for nuclear power including the costs of something going wrong, of babysitting the spent fuel for a decade or so after the plant shuts down, for the damage caused by mining? Compare that to the worst thing this solar plant could do if it failed in the most spectacularly unimaginable fashion possible -- nuclear is way more expensive than you make it out.
fn1: Includes the body only. Engine, transmission, wheels, electronics, paint, wiring, seats, carpet, head liner, lights, and everything else available as an option at extra cost.
In addition, there are ongoing maintenance costs while operating that are probably far lower to take care of a bunch of mirrors than for a nuclear plant requires.
How much will Palo Verde cost to decommission? How many years will the waste require cooling while providing nothing in return? Decommissioning the solar plant would require what, some long hammers, a couple bull dozers, bit of dynamite to topple the tower, some dump trucks and a few crews of workers going at it for a couple months?
What about ongoing maintenance? I have no data but I'm guessing a bunch of mirrors is a lot easier to maintain than potentially deadly fuel and waste. Easier of course means cheaper.
Construction costs aren't the only metric.
It's so tall so they can use more mirrors and get more juice out of it. If it was at ground level, maybe a single ring of mirrors could direct light at it. If it's at 20', maybe two or three rings. When it's way up in the sky, you can get many rings of mirrors with a direct line of sight to the target.
Have you been reading slashdot? The GP was completely correct. There have been countless posts complaining about media hype, or how the reactor did better than its design specs and so forth. There's a "ZOMG" post somewhere up above -- the sort of typically smug "nuclear is the best" attitude and all you worrywarts can't see reality. Like laughing as your house burns down -- "we don't need no stinkin firehoses".
Bogus -- this is in Japan, not here. If the government had wanted to replace it, it would have happened.
The design of this reactor was first questioned in 1972 by the US Atomic Energy Agency. Worse though, was the idea of NOT putting the generators and fuel on the bluff above the plant. What's your excuse for that tard move?
Are you trying to be facetious?
You're joking right? "People" have no power in the government except for those who can lay down a million bucks towards a campaign.
Hopefully (yeah right, by now it should be clear that used car salesmen have have an infinitely greater ethical superiority over the nuclear industry) .... Hopefully, engineers aren't covering up flaws in the containment like the Japanese engineers on reactor 4:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-23/fukushima-engineer-says-he-covered-up-flaw-at-shut-reactor.html
Your understanding blows. It's been reported in the news for a long time that reactor three is running MOX.
Here's a report from March 13 regarding reactor 3 using MOX:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8379134/Nuclear-meltdown-threat-Japan-preparing-for-a-worst-case-scenario.html