I remembered incorrectly... Let me check. Actually, the first High Pressure Core Flooder System (for block 3) failed almost exactly 12 hours after the SCRAM. Decay heat generation at that point was was 7-8 MW. (Block 2 and 3 had a thermal power of 2.3 GW, by the way.)
Now, about 8 weeks after the SCRAM, decay heat generation is still approximately 1.6 MW - still a bit more than your average household kettle (actually equivalent to over 500 standard kettles).
A nice plot of the decay heat can be found at Wolfram Alpha (adjust the last bit in brackets if you want to change the time period - unit is in seconds)
I very much doubt this, since the both the steel and concrete containment of block 3 are still intact. I think the difference may have been due to the difference of the outer shell, which was not made out of reinforced concrete in the case of block 1. Also, the power of block 3 was around double the one of block 1, so it is possible that more hydrogen was produced. On top of that, the hydrogen accumulated for two days longer in block 3 than in block 1.
Ah, just saw that a criticality in the spent fuel pool is claimed. This is also most unlikely. First, if this would have happened anywhere, it would have been in the spent fuel pond of block 4, which had much more fuel stored. Secondly, this was far too big an explosion for a criticality - the energy generated by a chain reaction would immediately boil the moderator and stop very quickly again. Thirdly, a massive amount of neutron radiation would have been measured in that moment - but it wasn't. I think very minor criticality events may have happened from time to time, which might explain the results of the article. It would also explain the dozen or so detections of neutron radiation at very low intensity.
In the grand scheme of the accident, I don't think it played a role.
On the other hand, cooling (I think the High Pressure Core Cooling System) continued to work for 18 (?) hours or so, meaning that the 7% had dropped significantly already. If I recall correctly, the decay heat generation was around 400 MW at the time of the cooling failure.
Coal plants don't render 1200 square kilometers of (sub)urban land uninhabitable for 50+ years when they go belly up.
Indeed, they don't when they go belly-up; they do it in normal operation. Ask the Maledives. Or the Netherlands, Banglasdesh or other low-lying countries.
Solar/Wind/Tidal/Geothermal/Fusion are all games of "how the hell can we make this actually work?". AFAIK, nobody has ever run an entire full-sized country, or even a significant fraction of a country, off any of those.
Iceland does - 66% geothermal.
But I agree that this is a very special case. Wind and (eventually) solar would be able to cover a large part of the energy needs of many countries - was it not for the tiny little problem of storage when it is winter, cloudy, and windless. Or just night.
One reason is that Skype has always worked well even if both call participants are behind a NAT. Which other software had this at the time Skype was launched?
There are a few types of 3D projection: polarized (linear or circular), shutter glasses and Dolby 3D (which works using different wavelengths for the RGB of each eye). I personally find Dolby 3D best and linear polarization the worst. If you didn't like the 3D experience in a particular cinema, maybe try a different cinema with a different technology for the next film.
Sorry, but your scheme simply does not work as it still does not allow a legacy IPv4 device to connect to a "IPv5" device. As you mention, they need an upgrade in the firmware. And if you need an upgrade you can just as well upgrade to IPv6 to take advantage of the other features. I also don't think that IPv6 is much more difficult to grasp; ok, it needs to be understood by few people that deal with the lower level network. All the applications (and their authors) don't need to know how it works exactly, just that it might exist and deal with it this way (i.e. also doing a lookup for an AAAA record).
This was not what the great-grand parent was saying, so this was what I addressed. But I wouldn't say that there is a "mass of incomprehensive features and headaches". Generally, an IPv6 packet is much simpler than an IPv4 packet. Of course, if there are IT guys are too lazy to learn IPv6, I will look elsewhere.
So you are suggesting that going to 128 bit rather than 48 bit is the reason that there is no takeup of IPv6? I don't think it is the case. Whether you add 16 bit or 96, the code for routers and computers needs to be rewritten. This is the reason why prefixing 0.0 still makes your IPv5 addresses a different address (so all addresses in the US still need to change). Since everything needs to be changed anyway, it makes sense to throw in a few useful extra features. By the way, one of the reasons to go to 128 bit is to allow efficient routing tables and to minimise fragmentation of the address space, which would still happen with your IPv5.
Please look up "Privacy Extensions". This is enabled by default on Windows 7, and can be enabled easily on Linux (if not enabled by distro) and OS X. This way you won't be identified anymore.
No, I don't think the issue how much energy can be captured - we would eventually get there. More important is the question where the energy is supposed to come from on a winter evening when there is little wind? Storage is the main longterm issue.
Can't you search and find the cheapest flights now using any search engine? There are also dozens of existing travel services websites that contain all this info
of which a large part use ITA Software as backend!
Why shouldn't it? IPv4 and IPv6 are not that different. Only problem is that few web sites are IPv6 enable currently, so you would have less landmark servers.
I was not really being funny. I regularly work with lawyers, and even those that represent tech companies often have no clue about technology. Granted, they are typically good enough to pick up the most important points quickly enough. But sometimes the non-knowledge is quite shocking!
From the article it seems that Yahoo was not ordered to pay anything; "only" to remove a link. This is important as this means that there is no general threat of damage payments for linking due to this court order.
You get it wrong: It is about Windows being a monopoly, and not IE. MS abused their OS monopoly by tying IE with the OS.
In the case of Google, they don't have a product that cannot quickly be replaced by competitors, so the reasoning does not apply. A hypothetical reasoining could be: Chrome has 95% market share + Chrome only makes it possible to use Google search and blocks all other searches -> abuse. But this is not the case in the real world.
Add 10 years to your numbers. Block 1 at Fukushima Daiichi went into operation 40 years and 3 days ago. The start of construction of the first BWR/2 (Oyster Creek) was in 1965, so I guess the design is from the beginning of the 1960s, i.e. around 50 years ago,
You better do the math. Or look at Desertec, which is a project to build solar collectors in the Sahara. Not sure it is a realistic project, but they have a nice map that has some squares drawn on it. One of them shows that solar collectors placed on an area the size of Ireland are enough to satisfy the electricity requirements of the whole world.
Slashdot Mirror
I remembered incorrectly... Let me check. Actually, the first High Pressure Core Flooder System (for block 3) failed almost exactly 12 hours after the SCRAM. Decay heat generation at that point was was 7-8 MW. (Block 2 and 3 had a thermal power of 2.3 GW, by the way.)
Now, about 8 weeks after the SCRAM, decay heat generation is still approximately 1.6 MW - still a bit more than your average household kettle (actually equivalent to over 500 standard kettles).
A nice plot of the decay heat can be found at Wolfram Alpha (adjust the last bit in brackets if you want to change the time period - unit is in seconds)
I very much doubt this, since the both the steel and concrete containment of block 3 are still intact. I think the difference may have been due to the difference of the outer shell, which was not made out of reinforced concrete in the case of block 1. Also, the power of block 3 was around double the one of block 1, so it is possible that more hydrogen was produced. On top of that, the hydrogen accumulated for two days longer in block 3 than in block 1.
Ah, just saw that a criticality in the spent fuel pool is claimed. This is also most unlikely. First, if this would have happened anywhere, it would have been in the spent fuel pond of block 4, which had much more fuel stored. Secondly, this was far too big an explosion for a criticality - the energy generated by a chain reaction would immediately boil the moderator and stop very quickly again. Thirdly, a massive amount of neutron radiation would have been measured in that moment - but it wasn't. I think very minor criticality events may have happened from time to time, which might explain the results of the article. It would also explain the dozen or so detections of neutron radiation at very low intensity.
In the grand scheme of the accident, I don't think it played a role.
On the other hand, cooling (I think the High Pressure Core Cooling System) continued to work for 18 (?) hours or so, meaning that the 7% had dropped significantly already. If I recall correctly, the decay heat generation was around 400 MW at the time of the cooling failure.
Coal plants don't render 1200 square kilometers of (sub)urban land uninhabitable for 50+ years when they go belly up.
Indeed, they don't when they go belly-up; they do it in normal operation. Ask the Maledives. Or the Netherlands, Banglasdesh or other low-lying countries.
One big issue I see is that the assumption is 7 to 9 months of fuel usage. In block 4, the fuel in the pond was probably significantly older.
Solar/Wind/Tidal/Geothermal/Fusion are all games of "how the hell can we make this actually work?". AFAIK, nobody has ever run an entire full-sized country, or even a significant fraction of a country, off any of those.
Iceland does - 66% geothermal.
But I agree that this is a very special case. Wind and (eventually) solar would be able to cover a large part of the energy needs of many countries - was it not for the tiny little problem of storage when it is winter, cloudy, and windless. Or just night.
One reason is that Skype has always worked well even if both call participants are behind a NAT. Which other software had this at the time Skype was launched?
I always thought that time was only created with the Big Bang - so how can there be a "before"?
There are a few types of 3D projection: polarized (linear or circular), shutter glasses and Dolby 3D (which works using different wavelengths for the RGB of each eye). I personally find Dolby 3D best and linear polarization the worst. If you didn't like the 3D experience in a particular cinema, maybe try a different cinema with a different technology for the next film.
Sorry, but your scheme simply does not work as it still does not allow a legacy IPv4 device to connect to a "IPv5" device. As you mention, they need an upgrade in the firmware. And if you need an upgrade you can just as well upgrade to IPv6 to take advantage of the other features. I also don't think that IPv6 is much more difficult to grasp; ok, it needs to be understood by few people that deal with the lower level network. All the applications (and their authors) don't need to know how it works exactly, just that it might exist and deal with it this way (i.e. also doing a lookup for an AAAA record).
This was not what the great-grand parent was saying, so this was what I addressed. But I wouldn't say that there is a "mass of incomprehensive features and headaches". Generally, an IPv6 packet is much simpler than an IPv4 packet. Of course, if there are IT guys are too lazy to learn IPv6, I will look elsewhere.
NAT and dynamic IP addresses are two completely diffent pairs of shoes, don't mix them up.
So you are suggesting that going to 128 bit rather than 48 bit is the reason that there is no takeup of IPv6? I don't think it is the case. Whether you add 16 bit or 96, the code for routers and computers needs to be rewritten. This is the reason why prefixing 0.0 still makes your IPv5 addresses a different address (so all addresses in the US still need to change). Since everything needs to be changed anyway, it makes sense to throw in a few useful extra features. By the way, one of the reasons to go to 128 bit is to allow efficient routing tables and to minimise fragmentation of the address space, which would still happen with your IPv5.
Please look up "Privacy Extensions". This is enabled by default on Windows 7, and can be enabled easily on Linux (if not enabled by distro) and OS X. This way you won't be identified anymore.
Reduced latency because the routers do not have to recalculate the checksum at every hop.
No, I don't think the issue how much energy can be captured - we would eventually get there. More important is the question where the energy is supposed to come from on a winter evening when there is little wind? Storage is the main longterm issue.
Can't you search and find the cheapest flights now using any search engine? There are also dozens of existing travel services websites that contain all this info
of which a large part use ITA Software as backend!
Why shouldn't it? IPv4 and IPv6 are not that different. Only problem is that few web sites are IPv6 enable currently, so you would have less landmark servers.
I was not really being funny. I regularly work with lawyers, and even those that represent tech companies often have no clue about technology. Granted, they are typically good enough to pick up the most important points quickly enough. But sometimes the non-knowledge is quite shocking!
Lawyers for Oracle and Google gave Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco an overview of Java [...].
Thinking about the tech knowledge of the lawyers I know, I am not sure that the Judge is a lot wiser now!
From the article it seems that Yahoo was not ordered to pay anything; "only" to remove a link. This is important as this means that there is no general threat of damage payments for linking due to this court order.
You get it wrong: It is about Windows being a monopoly, and not IE. MS abused their OS monopoly by tying IE with the OS.
In the case of Google, they don't have a product that cannot quickly be replaced by competitors, so the reasoning does not apply. A hypothetical reasoining could be: Chrome has 95% market share + Chrome only makes it possible to use Google search and blocks all other searches -> abuse. But this is not the case in the real world.
So the right thing to do would be to change the current exposure guideline. Right?
They did this already and increased it from 100 mSv to 250 mSv.
Add 10 years to your numbers. Block 1 at Fukushima Daiichi went into operation 40 years and 3 days ago. The start of construction of the first BWR/2 (Oyster Creek) was in 1965, so I guess the design is from the beginning of the 1960s, i.e. around 50 years ago,
You better do the math. Or look at Desertec, which is a project to build solar collectors in the Sahara. Not sure it is a realistic project, but they have a nice map that has some squares drawn on it. One of them shows that solar collectors placed on an area the size of Ireland are enough to satisfy the electricity requirements of the whole world.