It is the cheapest. Or was circa 1970-80 when
I worked for NSP. The problems were political and
legal. I heard a lot of talk about
subsidy, but I never saw any proof thereof. The
only thing proposed is an insurance liability
limitation. Since Nuclear power is safer
from the mine to the plant, that's only a reflection of real costs, not a subsidy.
And if you wait a century, you don't have much
beyond cold metallic waste. At one point
the anti nuclear folk thought they'd stop
the plants by refusing any movement of
the waste. They thought the plants would
choke on it. However, they let the plants
double the size of the waste ponds. Since the
stuff cools and can be compacted reasonably
quickly, doubling the space gave something
like 3-5 times more space (I no longer
remember the real number, but it's
exponential), and when you
do pull stuff out, it's much less
radioactive than before.
I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I met
a bunch there, and found them all
worth respect. The only liars and
fools in the argument were the anti-nuke-power
folk.
Re:financial downside much larger
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 1
1. Wind power is subsidized every where it's used. 2. It's useless on hot still days when the electricity demand is at it's highest. 3. It's also useless at peak windy days, as something engineered to generate power at 15knot winds tends to fly apart at 60. 5. If it was THE MAJOR power supply, we'd be in a world of heat on hot quiet days. Denmark is a lot cooler than Kansas, or anwhere from Nebraska to Georgia in the summer. 6. I worked on generation costing (admittedly 20 years ago), and wind power is just not reliable enough for the summer peaks. And having generators sitting around for just the peaks is very expensive. That $.04 kwh is unbelievable. It certainly doesn't count the cost of backup power for windless days. 7. If terrorists are happy blowing up Sbarro's, or power towers out west, why not take out a few windmills to show the world the vulnerability of the West. Terrorism isn't limited to Nuke plants, and isn't as likely there as their relatively small foot print is easier to protect than many square miles of windmills.
"Remember that the Internet wasn't invented by those telcos or ISPs; it was develooped 100% on government-supported projects."
I can agree with the invented part, but the development and build-out was not a government activity. As one example, switching from coax to RJ45 wiring is courtesy of AT&T & it's Starlan scheme. IBM made a similar case for wiring from a hub to the machine for Token Ring.
Being a visionary with somebody else's money is ok if you succeed. But if you fail, you need to have been on a government project, or you will be in jail for defrauding the investors.
Rather than moaning about lack of perfection, calm down and acknowledge the fact that it started with the US and built out here first. Other governments (Mongolia) are building out a public infrastructure, but it would never have started there.
I don't agree with the 'Free Roads' idea either. You must use a seat belt, can't use your cellphone, can't drive too fast, can't drive too slow (some roads), have to turn your lights on when the wipers are on (NJ, at least). And when the speed limit went from 55 to 65 in NJ, the Governor extorted higher $$ for speeding & other tickets for the shortened commute times.
There is some reasonable point to a single provider of roads, but not for a single supplier of Net Access or further development. Monopolies, whether public or private do not go in for visionary developement, and often not for any change at all.
BS alert! It just hasn't been that
cold around here the last few (15) years.
I'm about 20 miles north of the spot where
they reenact the crossing of the Delaware.
It's been cold at times, but never long
enough to form ice on the Delaware. I've
only seen a bit clinging to rocks in the
river.
So, in my humble and not remotely knowledgeable opinion, global warming is caused by men *accelerating* a natural proccess, not *creating* it. It's bad anyway, but it's different:-)
You missed the most important point. They
haven't even proved that we are in a long term
warming period. The computer models are about
60 degrees off in estimating temperatures in the
upper antartic atmosphere.
Temperatures as recorded by satellites show
no change above that suggested by the 11-year
sun spot cycle.
So, we have evidence of no change recently,
and massive evidence of great change in pre-history. From this you conclude that man
is helping current change?
Now, please notice that I said 'evidence of no
change', e.g. the satellite record, not 'no evidence of change', e.g. retreating deserts.
The satellites record global temps, the deserts are a local (though large) thing.
Titanium oxide is what they use to
make some of those white ceramic
knife sharpens & other abrasive
products. It's hard, strong, but I'm not
sure how brittle it is in this application.
That industry coupled with two devastating world wars surely had some effect on
the environment....
Not exactly a scientific argument. Just being alive has an effect on the environment. The
question is how it compares to the
natural world, like Mt Pinatubo or
the variation in solar output.
Don't forget Ruckelshaus & DDT. The staff report did not find enough evidence & recommended no action. Mr Ruckelshaus had compaigned against DDT, so out it went.
The article states that these are advisory committees. It seems reasonable to staff them
with people whose opinions you trust. It certainly shouldn't be controversial to be staffing them with both sides of an issue.
I know of coal mines, oil wells, and gas wells.
Where would I find a hydrogen mine or well?
Until such a mine or well is found, the use of 'storage medium' or 'transmission medium' is a
reasonable metaphor. It isn't perfect, but does
imply that the energy used when burning hydrogen originated from the extraction
of coal or oil or gas, or (to a declining level in the USA) nuclear power.
Only if two objects are going in the exact same orbit and the same direction are they safe. If you want to hit the first object hard, you put the second object into the reverse path on the same orbit, or some other crossing orbit.
For shuttle altitude orbits, you get about 30,000 mph of delta-v when the collision happens.
This still has a problem of a bullet hitting a bullet, but that's why they use guided missiles, not bullets.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you wait a century, you don't have much beyond cold metallic waste. At one point the anti nuclear folk thought they'd stop the plants by refusing any movement of the waste. They thought the plants would choke on it. However, they let the plants double the size of the waste ponds. Since the stuff cools and can be compacted reasonably quickly, doubling the space gave something like 3-5 times more space (I no longer remember the real number, but it's exponential), and when you do pull stuff out, it's much less radioactive than before.
I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I met a bunch there, and found them all worth respect. The only liars and fools in the argument were the anti-nuke-power folk.
1. Wind power is subsidized every where it's used.
2. It's useless on hot still days when the
electricity demand is at it's highest.
3. It's also useless at peak windy days, as something engineered to generate power at 15knot winds tends to fly apart at 60.
5. If it was THE MAJOR power supply, we'd be in a world of heat on hot quiet days. Denmark is a lot
cooler than Kansas, or anwhere from Nebraska
to Georgia in the summer.
6. I worked on generation costing (admittedly
20 years ago), and wind power is just not reliable
enough for the summer peaks. And having generators
sitting around for just the peaks is very
expensive. That $.04 kwh is unbelievable.
It certainly doesn't count the cost of backup
power for windless days.
7. If terrorists are happy blowing up Sbarro's,
or power towers out west, why not take out
a few windmills to show the world the vulnerability of the West. Terrorism isn't
limited to Nuke plants, and isn't as likely
there as their relatively small foot print
is easier to protect than many square miles of
windmills.
I can agree with the invented part, but the development and build-out was not a government activity. As one example, switching from coax to RJ45 wiring is courtesy of AT&T & it's Starlan scheme. IBM made a similar case for wiring from a hub to the machine for Token Ring.
Being a visionary with somebody else's money is ok if you succeed. But if you fail, you need to have been on a government project, or you will be in jail for defrauding the investors.
Rather than moaning about lack of perfection, calm down and acknowledge the fact that it started with the US and built out here first. Other governments (Mongolia) are building out a public infrastructure, but it would never have started there.
I don't agree with the 'Free Roads' idea either. You must use a seat belt, can't use your cellphone, can't drive too fast, can't drive too slow (some roads), have to turn your lights on when the wipers are on (NJ, at least). And when the speed limit went from 55 to 65 in NJ, the Governor extorted higher $$ for speeding & other tickets for the shortened commute times.
There is some reasonable point to a single provider of roads, but not for a single supplier of Net Access or further development. Monopolies, whether public or private do not go in for visionary developement, and often not for any change at all.
BS alert! It just hasn't been that cold around here the last few (15) years. I'm about 20 miles north of the spot where they reenact the crossing of the Delaware. It's been cold at times, but never long enough to form ice on the Delaware. I've only seen a bit clinging to rocks in the river.
You missed the most important point. They haven't even proved that we are in a long term warming period. The computer models are about 60 degrees off in estimating temperatures in the upper antartic atmosphere.
Temperatures as recorded by satellites show no change above that suggested by the 11-year sun spot cycle.
So, we have evidence of no change recently, and massive evidence of great change in pre-history. From this you conclude that man is helping current change?
Now, please notice that I said 'evidence of no change', e.g. the satellite record, not 'no evidence of change', e.g. retreating deserts. The satellites record global temps, the deserts are a local (though large) thing.
Titanium oxide is what they use to make some of those white ceramic knife sharpens & other abrasive products. It's hard, strong, but I'm not sure how brittle it is in this application.
Not exactly a scientific argument. Just being alive has an effect on the environment. The question is how it compares to the natural world, like Mt Pinatubo or the variation in solar output.
The article states that these are advisory committees. It seems reasonable to staff them with people whose opinions you trust. It certainly shouldn't be controversial to be staffing them with both sides of an issue.
Until such a mine or well is found, the use of 'storage medium' or 'transmission medium' is a reasonable metaphor. It isn't perfect, but does imply that the energy used when burning hydrogen originated from the extraction of coal or oil or gas, or (to a declining level in the USA) nuclear power.
Only if two objects are going in the exact same orbit and the same direction are they safe. If you want to hit the first object hard, you put the second object into the reverse path on the same orbit, or some other crossing orbit.
For shuttle altitude orbits, you get about 30,000 mph of delta-v when the collision happens.
This still has a problem of a bullet hitting a bullet, but that's why they use guided missiles, not bullets.