There are theories and phenomena that are well tested and understood with exacting scientific precision as you say. There is also a lot of stuff that falls under the general umbrella of science (as most people understand it) that do not adhere to this standard (or anything resembling it). A good example is the origin of life, which many say has been explained through science despite the fact that it has not been reproduced in a lab (or anywhere else) and is therefore not "demonstrable, repeatable and self-correcting".
That is the practical problem. But more fundamentally, all ways of thinking about the world are acquired through a system of belief, and science is not above that. The thing that sets science apart is that you check your result against a formal definition to make sure it actually works. Rigorous introspection can be applied to any way of thinking. People who are concerned with the truth have been doing it as long as they've been thinking. The trouble is a lot of people don't care if something is true or not, and scientists seem to be as susceptible to that as anybody.
I think the idea is the dome will be made of quartz (their page implies as much) to withstand the pressure. It doesn't look to me like there's room for a "titanium pressure sphere" as you suggest.
As with any solids dissolved in water, these chemicals can be removed through distillation, or reverse osmosis. Many can also be removed through ion-exchange. I would assume they haven't done so for lack of ability to get appropriate equipment in place in a timely fashion. Though I'd think they could have done it since it's been over a week, so perhaps the problem is more likely a lack of foresight and planning from the early stages of the disaster.
The kind of trips you are talking about just dont happen for most people.
Then how come most people are concerned about the range and recharge time on the Tesla? Most drivers do make these kind of trips. A 3 hour road trip is not a long trip at all. Do you ever go to the movies? That takes about the same amount of time.
Ok, I live in Southern California, so I will provide you with a fes specific examples of the things I need a car to do for me where the tesla would be problematic:
Drive to 6 Flags and back: 170 miles, that tesla better actually get 200, or I will be in real trouble
Drive to Las Vegas: 260 miles, there's no way the tesla can make the trip, but I could take a plane if I don't mind taking a cab in vegas as well. It is faster and cheaper to drive though.
Drive to Sequoia National Park and back (there's no electricity up there) 550 miles. This trip is hopeless with the Tesla, and you can't take a plane.
Drive to SanDiego and back: 180 miles. The tesla probably can't make this trip, and I wouldn't want to try my luck on it.
Drive to TJ and back: 210 miles. The tesla is no good for it.
Drive up the coast to San Francisco: 450 miles. Nope.
It's not just that, I will often put more than 100 miles on my car in a day (I average a little over 2000 miles a month). I would definitely need a special charging station if I want my car to be ready in the morning for another 100 mile day. But I live in an apartment, so I can't exactly have one installed.
You electric car advocates like to act like I'm some kind of freak, and claim that normal people don't do these things. It's true that I drive a lot, but most people will occasionally require their car to make these kind of trips. Especially people who aren't young and single like me. The Tesla is not a realistic prospect for most drivers, and you're delusional to claim that it is.
Ok, one of the links you posted explains what I'm trying to say, hopefully better than I've been able to:
Summary of findings (April–June 2006)
Top Gear
BBC Two, 13 November 2005
a) The programme
Top Gear is a magazine programme presented by Jeremy Clarkson, James May and Richard Hammond. It covers motoring news and reviews the latest car models.
b) The complaint
The item concerned the Tokyo Motor Show. Richard Hammond picked up on the news that in order to emphasise that the Mini Estate is “quintessentially British”, the makers had stocked it with teaspoons and teabags. Jeremy Clarkson then commented: “We should do a car that’s quintessentially German... giving it trafficators that imitate a Nazi salute... and a satnav that only goes to Poland.” He concluded by commenting: “Und ein fanbelt that lasts a thousand years!”
The complainant argued that:
Clarkson’s comments were “poisonous rubbish”. His comments were a “racist slur” on Germany that perpetuated the stereotype of Germany as a “land of aggressors”. Racism against other nationalities would not be tolerated. It could not be dismissed as a bit of fun. The Head of the Editorial Complaints Unit did not uphold the complaint and the complainant appealed to the Governors’ Programme Complaints Committee.
c) Relevant Editorial Guidelines (post July 2005)
Harm & Offence
Introduction
The BBC aims to reflect the world as it is, including all aspects of the human experience and the realities of the natural world. In doing so, we balance our right to broadcast and publish innovative and challenging content appropriate to each of our services with our responsibility to protect the vulnerable.
When we broadcast or publish challenging material which risks offending some of our audience we must always be able to demonstrate a clear editorial purpose. Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, humiliation, sexual violence and discriminatory treatment. We must be sensitive to audience expectations, particularly in relation to the protection of children, as well as clearly signposting the material.
Audience expectations
We should judge the suitability of content for our audiences, including children, in relation to the expectations of the likely audience at a particular time on a particular day, and in relation to the nature of the service as well as the nature of the content. We should ask ourselves the following questions:
BBC Programme Complaints: Appeals to th e Governors Page 5
What is the likely composition of the audience, including the likely number and age range of children in the audience taking into account school time, weekends and holidays? We should be aware that school holidays are different in different parts of the UK. Does the talent, slot, genre or service carry pre-existing expectations which may be challenged by the content? Is harm or offence likely to be caused by misleading the audience or in the inclusion of difficult or challenging material? Has any difficult or challenging content been clearly signposted? Are there any special sensitivities surrounding the slot, for example religious festivals, and anniversaries of major events? What is the likely “pull-through audience”, i.e. what is the nature of the preceding content and what kind of audience is it likely to attract? Portrayal
We aim to reflect fully and fairly all of the United Kingdom’s people and cultures in our services. Content may reflect the prejudice and disadvantage which exist in our society but we should not perpetuate it. We should avoid offensive or stereotypical assumptions and people should only be described in terms of their disability, age, sexual orientation and so on when clearly editorially justified.
But you are misrepresent the car when you say the flaw they pointed out is not real. You are also misrepresenting the show when you say they make continual racist remarks. I watch it all the time, and I can't even think of a racist remark they've made. I'd assume if they were continual I'd have at least noticed and remembered one or two of them.
You don't have to like the show, but if you're going to go around saying they falsify information and promote racism, I'm going to call you out on it. So you don't understand the show, and you don't get the humor. Whatever, I couldn't care less. But that that doesn't mean you can go around saying things that aren't true and expect no one will ever tell you you're wrong.
The point they are making about range and charging times is spot on. You've only nit-picked a scene that was added to make a point, and all that shows is that you REALLY don't want to get the point. Their reporting wasn't biased, you're viewing was biased. Honestly, can you not see that the hours long charging time and 200 mile range constitute a fatal flaw? This car can not be used as a sports car. It can be used for your commute and other small trips like that (as long as you don't make too many in the same day). It can not be used to do many of the things buyers expect a car like this to do. That's the point they are making. How can you miss it?
history of numerous racist remarks
People make racist remarks sometimes (I bet you probably do too).
The host is a dick and unprofessional
This is a character he is playing, you can't actually get to know someone by watching them on television. The personalities the hosts portray is part of their comedy routine. Television isn't real.
I'll get my entertainment elsewhere.
I'd doubt they'd mind if you stop watching, but if you weren't so full of yourself all the time, you could probably appreciate the show. You seem like you are the person Jeremy Clarkston is pretending to be on the show.
Do you only drive to work and back? Do you never go anywhere else? Because if you want to go somewhere that's more than 200 miles away (or 100 miles if you want to go there and back the same day), this car will not get you there. You can not use this car for a road trip. You can not take this car out for a couple hours at the track. These are things that are expected of sports cars, and it can not do them. The argument that it works for 90% of the miles you want to drive is pointless, because you will either have to give up on the other 10%, or have another car to drive them in. Who would spend $200K for a sports car that you can only drive to work and back? Not most people who would spend $200K on a car.
Am I the only one in the world who routinely drives more than 200 miles in a stretch, or who expects to do it during the life of a vehicle? Am I the only one who would take a sports car to the track and drive it for more than an hour? You are being unrealistic about this cars suitability for a typical driver (my first point) or the for the people who would buy this car (the second point). The range and the charging time combine to make a serious limitation, which is the point TG was making with the video.
You are wrong on several critical points. Tesla is not claiming that the actual breakdowns were scripted. The only thing they are claiming was scripted was the scene where the Tesla runs out of charge. To be clear, the car did actually overheat, and the other car's breaks did stop working. Those were not scripted or false.
The scene of the car running out of charge is a dramatic lead-in to their discussion of the car's major real-world flaw, which is charging times. Watch the clip and you will see that they way they make their claim implies that the car running out of charge was simulated
Realistically, they did not need to simulate this, because they could have actually driven it until it ran out of charge. Of course, it's not surprising that they wouldn't do that, since it's a huge waste of time and the end result is a foregone conclusion. It seems to me that Tesla is really just whining over a technicality, since it's true the car will run out of charge, and that's what they showed.
Watch the review and you will see what tesla is claiming. They show the car running out of power, but then say "we've worked out that the Tesla would only be able to travel 55 miles on our track". That means that they showed a simulation of it running out of power, and presented a number based on their calculations rather than actually driving the car 55 miles to see if it would run out. Strictly speaking, they did not claim that they ran the car to empty (which is what Tesla is disputing). The scene where the car runs out of charge is simulated, but totally realistic given the way they drive the cars on the track and the fact they they will eventually run out of charge.
Can you sue for libel for simulating a car running out charge? I don't think so, because it isn't false to claim that the charge in the car would run out. And the charging times (which is what they are actually taking tesla to task over) are realistic. It looks to me more like Tesla is looking for a technicality to get this show pulled because the charging time issue is a real problem that renders the car unusable for many real-world driving situations, and they can't do anything about it.
You should actually watch the review instead of just making stuff up (I can't believe you can get modded informative when you say "It's been a while since I've seen the episode" while the review in question is actually linked to the article. Why not just watch the review, it takes 10 minutes! and you will actually know what you are talking about). They were given two cars, and the point they were making was about the amount of time it takes to charge the cars, and how that made then essentially unusable for long road trips (they suggest that for normal driving you should buy two so you can use one while the other is charging). This is a real concern, and it is not misrepresented. While a normal car takes a couple minutes to fill, the Tesla takes hours. And they did say "We've worked out that it would only get 55 miles in our track driving" they never claimed it actually ran out of charge during testing (which is what tesla is disputing). They showed a simulation of it running out of charge, but they could have easily just run it down! Who would say that they couldn't? That's not the point they were making. The visuals are for dramatic effect. Complaining that it didn't actually run out during testing is just nit-picking. Everyone knows that if you drive a car far enough, it will run out of energy.
As for whether or not the breaks actually broke, or the engine actually overheated, Tesla doesn't seem to be disputing that as far as I can tell.
This is part of the planned failure mode of the reactor.
The hell it is! This is one of the main things you want to prevent when you're operating a Nuclear reactor. The reason you don't want a core melt-down is so that this won't happen. There is a containment vessel around it to prevent the release of radioactive materials into the environment, but of course that is damaged as well, and it now appears that radioactive water is leaking from the site into the environment. This is very, very bad, and it is not a "planned failure mode" whatever that means. Every plan they have is to prevent this kind of thing from happening, there is nothing planned about this event. Under no circumstances was this in any way planned. Now can we all please stop downplaying the ramifications of this disaster?
How about this?. I know it's not a "shovel ready plan", but you need a site and a source of money before you can get one of those. I think it's safe to say GE would be happy to start building one for you tomorrow if you could put up the money.
And before you tell me it's just concept art for a pipe-dream, I'd like to point out that it's based on this reactor that was built in 1965 and operated for 30 years. We are not "a long, long way away from having shovel ready plans for building the transmogrifying breeder reactors". We've had the basic technology for a long time.
the money the corporation is paying taxes on is the money left over from what the employees paid taxes on
All money that a corporation collects will eventually go somewhere. Either it will be spent on operating expenses or it will be paid out to investors. There is no need to tax it while a corporation is sitting on it.
for GE to pay no tax on billions in profit is criminal
Only people can act morally, so it wouldn't make sense to use the term "criminal" to describe GE (I don't know if that was your intent or not). GE is only a legal construct, and as such it is technically in compliance with all laws it is required to follow. I'm not saying that someone hasn't acted immorally here, but what I am saying is you need to be careful not hold an unthinking legal construct accountable for the actions that were actually perpetrated by thinking individuals.
Fast reactors can eliminate the need for long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste (and by long-term I mean thousands of years, you'll still have to hold fission products for a hundred years or so before they become safe). You don't have to store spent fuel in water while you wait for it too cool, you could use an entirely passive air cooled system to house them, but it is cheaper put them in water with active cooling.
There are no commercial LMCFBRs that have operated without accidents, but those have all been tube type reactors. EBR II was a pool-type reactor that operated without incident for 30 years.
In April 1986, two special tests were performed on the EBR-II, in which the main primary cooling pumps were shut off with the reactor at full power (62.5 megawatts, thermal). By not allowing the normal shutdown systems to interfere, the reactor power dropped to near zero within about 300 seconds. No damage to the fuel or the reactor resulted. This test demonstrated that even with a loss of all electrical power and the capability to shut down the reactor using the normal systems, the reactor will simply shut down without danger or damage. The same day, this demonstration was followed by another important test. With the reactor again at full power, flow in the secondary cooling system was stopped. This test caused the temperature to increase, since there was nowhere for the reactor heat to go. As the primary (reactor) cooling system became hotter, the fuel, sodium coolant, and structure expanded, and the reactor shut down. This test showed that it will shut down using inherent features such as thermal expansion, even if the ability to remove heat from the primary cooling system is lost.
But they never made a commercial scale version of this type of plant because it didn't seem like it would be commercially viable. Part of that is because it was part of the larger IFR concept, and fuel reprocessing is expensive.
It's wrong to hold an unthinking concept such as a corporation to be a person. When people talk about corporations that way it is a fallacy meant to distract from what is really happening. We've gone way too far down that path.
Why do you think nuclear shouldn't be on the sidelines? As it stands today, it requires tons of extremely toxic substances to be housed inside a super-heated pressure vessel. It seems like a recipe for disaster. There are safer designs that basically can't melt down (like molten salt reactors where the core is already liquid and liquid metal cooled fast reactors where fission essentially stops inside the reactor if it gets too hot) but they seem too expensive to be viable.
A corporation is not a person, it's an organization. All of the people who work for a corporation pay taxes, all of the people who buy products from a corporation pay taxes. All the shareholders pay taxes on income they receive from the corporation (in theory, in practice they've put a lot of loopholes in the tax-code to allow wealthy Americans to avoid paying this tax). Since you're already taxing all the individuals who make up a corporation, it doesn't make since to tax the corporation itself. The effect is the same as if you were to simply raise the taxes on all the individuals in the corporation. Realistically, corporate taxes are talking points that politicians like to throw around when they are discussing unreasonable taxation schemes.
The real problem is all the loopholes that allow wealthy Americans to avoid paying taxes. The solution is not corporate taxes (they don't really make sense) but the solution is to simplify the tax code so that it isn't so easy to circumvent. Politicians like to cite corporate taxes to deflect attention from this truth, as they are often the beneficiaries of such schemes.
As long as they then reduce the federal income tax, since it is supposedly used to build and maintain infrastructure. Whenever I say we need to cut back on government people say "without the government who would build the roads?". If they're going to be charging a fee to drive on the roads, they will be no different from a private citizen charging you a tole to drive across his land. All of the conventional rationalizations for the kind of government we have are collapsing as the government moves further and further from it's original intended purpose. They are now essentially a glorified wealth redistribution scheme, and in they future they will be much more so.
Slashdot Mirror
There are theories and phenomena that are well tested and understood with exacting scientific precision as you say. There is also a lot of stuff that falls under the general umbrella of science (as most people understand it) that do not adhere to this standard (or anything resembling it). A good example is the origin of life, which many say has been explained through science despite the fact that it has not been reproduced in a lab (or anywhere else) and is therefore not "demonstrable, repeatable and self-correcting".
That is the practical problem. But more fundamentally, all ways of thinking about the world are acquired through a system of belief, and science is not above that. The thing that sets science apart is that you check your result against a formal definition to make sure it actually works. Rigorous introspection can be applied to any way of thinking. People who are concerned with the truth have been doing it as long as they've been thinking. The trouble is a lot of people don't care if something is true or not, and scientists seem to be as susceptible to that as anybody.
The website for the submarine says the dome will be made of quartz.
I think the idea is the dome will be made of quartz (their page implies as much) to withstand the pressure. It doesn't look to me like there's room for a "titanium pressure sphere" as you suggest.
As with any solids dissolved in water, these chemicals can be removed through distillation, or reverse osmosis. Many can also be removed through ion-exchange. I would assume they haven't done so for lack of ability to get appropriate equipment in place in a timely fashion. Though I'd think they could have done it since it's been over a week, so perhaps the problem is more likely a lack of foresight and planning from the early stages of the disaster.
The entire software industry suffers from box-checking syndrome.
Then how come most people are concerned about the range and recharge time on the Tesla? Most drivers do make these kind of trips. A 3 hour road trip is not a long trip at all. Do you ever go to the movies? That takes about the same amount of time.
Ok, I live in Southern California, so I will provide you with a fes specific examples of the things I need a car to do for me where the tesla would be problematic:
Drive to 6 Flags and back: 170 miles, that tesla better actually get 200, or I will be in real trouble
Drive to Las Vegas: 260 miles, there's no way the tesla can make the trip, but I could take a plane if I don't mind taking a cab in vegas as well. It is faster and cheaper to drive though.
Drive to Sequoia National Park and back (there's no electricity up there) 550 miles. This trip is hopeless with the Tesla, and you can't take a plane.
Drive to SanDiego and back: 180 miles. The tesla probably can't make this trip, and I wouldn't want to try my luck on it.
Drive to TJ and back: 210 miles. The tesla is no good for it.
Drive up the coast to San Francisco: 450 miles. Nope.
It's not just that, I will often put more than 100 miles on my car in a day (I average a little over 2000 miles a month). I would definitely need a special charging station if I want my car to be ready in the morning for another 100 mile day. But I live in an apartment, so I can't exactly have one installed.
You electric car advocates like to act like I'm some kind of freak, and claim that normal people don't do these things. It's true that I drive a lot, but most people will occasionally require their car to make these kind of trips. Especially people who aren't young and single like me. The Tesla is not a realistic prospect for most drivers, and you're delusional to claim that it is.
Ok, one of the links you posted explains what I'm trying to say, hopefully better than I've been able to:
But you are misrepresent the car when you say the flaw they pointed out is not real. You are also misrepresenting the show when you say they make continual racist remarks. I watch it all the time, and I can't even think of a racist remark they've made. I'd assume if they were continual I'd have at least noticed and remembered one or two of them.
You don't have to like the show, but if you're going to go around saying they falsify information and promote racism, I'm going to call you out on it. So you don't understand the show, and you don't get the humor. Whatever, I couldn't care less. But that that doesn't mean you can go around saying things that aren't true and expect no one will ever tell you you're wrong.
The point they are making about range and charging times is spot on. You've only nit-picked a scene that was added to make a point, and all that shows is that you REALLY don't want to get the point. Their reporting wasn't biased, you're viewing was biased. Honestly, can you not see that the hours long charging time and 200 mile range constitute a fatal flaw? This car can not be used as a sports car. It can be used for your commute and other small trips like that (as long as you don't make too many in the same day). It can not be used to do many of the things buyers expect a car like this to do. That's the point they are making. How can you miss it?
People make racist remarks sometimes (I bet you probably do too).
This is a character he is playing, you can't actually get to know someone by watching them on television. The personalities the hosts portray is part of their comedy routine. Television isn't real.
I'd doubt they'd mind if you stop watching, but if you weren't so full of yourself all the time, you could probably appreciate the show. You seem like you are the person Jeremy Clarkston is pretending to be on the show.
Do you only drive to work and back? Do you never go anywhere else? Because if you want to go somewhere that's more than 200 miles away (or 100 miles if you want to go there and back the same day), this car will not get you there. You can not use this car for a road trip. You can not take this car out for a couple hours at the track. These are things that are expected of sports cars, and it can not do them. The argument that it works for 90% of the miles you want to drive is pointless, because you will either have to give up on the other 10%, or have another car to drive them in. Who would spend $200K for a sports car that you can only drive to work and back? Not most people who would spend $200K on a car.
Am I the only one in the world who routinely drives more than 200 miles in a stretch, or who expects to do it during the life of a vehicle? Am I the only one who would take a sports car to the track and drive it for more than an hour? You are being unrealistic about this cars suitability for a typical driver (my first point) or the for the people who would buy this car (the second point). The range and the charging time combine to make a serious limitation, which is the point TG was making with the video.
You are wrong on several critical points. Tesla is not claiming that the actual breakdowns were scripted. The only thing they are claiming was scripted was the scene where the Tesla runs out of charge. To be clear, the car did actually overheat, and the other car's breaks did stop working. Those were not scripted or false.
The scene of the car running out of charge is a dramatic lead-in to their discussion of the car's major real-world flaw, which is charging times. Watch the clip and you will see that they way they make their claim implies that the car running out of charge was simulated
Realistically, they did not need to simulate this, because they could have actually driven it until it ran out of charge. Of course, it's not surprising that they wouldn't do that, since it's a huge waste of time and the end result is a foregone conclusion. It seems to me that Tesla is really just whining over a technicality, since it's true the car will run out of charge, and that's what they showed.
Watch the review and you will see what tesla is claiming. They show the car running out of power, but then say "we've worked out that the Tesla would only be able to travel 55 miles on our track". That means that they showed a simulation of it running out of power, and presented a number based on their calculations rather than actually driving the car 55 miles to see if it would run out. Strictly speaking, they did not claim that they ran the car to empty (which is what Tesla is disputing). The scene where the car runs out of charge is simulated, but totally realistic given the way they drive the cars on the track and the fact they they will eventually run out of charge.
Can you sue for libel for simulating a car running out charge? I don't think so, because it isn't false to claim that the charge in the car would run out. And the charging times (which is what they are actually taking tesla to task over) are realistic. It looks to me more like Tesla is looking for a technicality to get this show pulled because the charging time issue is a real problem that renders the car unusable for many real-world driving situations, and they can't do anything about it.
You should actually watch the review instead of just making stuff up (I can't believe you can get modded informative when you say "It's been a while since I've seen the episode" while the review in question is actually linked to the article. Why not just watch the review, it takes 10 minutes! and you will actually know what you are talking about). They were given two cars, and the point they were making was about the amount of time it takes to charge the cars, and how that made then essentially unusable for long road trips (they suggest that for normal driving you should buy two so you can use one while the other is charging). This is a real concern, and it is not misrepresented. While a normal car takes a couple minutes to fill, the Tesla takes hours. And they did say "We've worked out that it would only get 55 miles in our track driving" they never claimed it actually ran out of charge during testing (which is what tesla is disputing). They showed a simulation of it running out of charge, but they could have easily just run it down! Who would say that they couldn't? That's not the point they were making. The visuals are for dramatic effect. Complaining that it didn't actually run out during testing is just nit-picking. Everyone knows that if you drive a car far enough, it will run out of energy.
As for whether or not the breaks actually broke, or the engine actually overheated, Tesla doesn't seem to be disputing that as far as I can tell.
The hell it is! This is one of the main things you want to prevent when you're operating a Nuclear reactor. The reason you don't want a core melt-down is so that this won't happen. There is a containment vessel around it to prevent the release of radioactive materials into the environment, but of course that is damaged as well, and it now appears that radioactive water is leaking from the site into the environment. This is very, very bad, and it is not a "planned failure mode" whatever that means. Every plan they have is to prevent this kind of thing from happening, there is nothing planned about this event. Under no circumstances was this in any way planned. Now can we all please stop downplaying the ramifications of this disaster?
How about this?. I know it's not a "shovel ready plan", but you need a site and a source of money before you can get one of those. I think it's safe to say GE would be happy to start building one for you tomorrow if you could put up the money.
And before you tell me it's just concept art for a pipe-dream, I'd like to point out that it's based on this reactor that was built in 1965 and operated for 30 years. We are not "a long, long way away from having shovel ready plans for building the transmogrifying breeder reactors". We've had the basic technology for a long time.
All money that a corporation collects will eventually go somewhere. Either it will be spent on operating expenses or it will be paid out to investors. There is no need to tax it while a corporation is sitting on it.
Only people can act morally, so it wouldn't make sense to use the term "criminal" to describe GE (I don't know if that was your intent or not). GE is only a legal construct, and as such it is technically in compliance with all laws it is required to follow. I'm not saying that someone hasn't acted immorally here, but what I am saying is you need to be careful not hold an unthinking legal construct accountable for the actions that were actually perpetrated by thinking individuals.
The cost of assuming that the cost is minor compared to the savings is probably higher than you know.
Fast reactors can eliminate the need for long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste (and by long-term I mean thousands of years, you'll still have to hold fission products for a hundred years or so before they become safe). You don't have to store spent fuel in water while you wait for it too cool, you could use an entirely passive air cooled system to house them, but it is cheaper put them in water with active cooling.
There are no commercial LMCFBRs that have operated without accidents, but those have all been tube type reactors. EBR II was a pool-type reactor that operated without incident for 30 years.
But they never made a commercial scale version of this type of plant because it didn't seem like it would be commercially viable. Part of that is because it was part of the larger IFR concept, and fuel reprocessing is expensive.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
It's wrong to hold an unthinking concept such as a corporation to be a person. When people talk about corporations that way it is a fallacy meant to distract from what is really happening. We've gone way too far down that path.
Why do you think nuclear shouldn't be on the sidelines? As it stands today, it requires tons of extremely toxic substances to be housed inside a super-heated pressure vessel. It seems like a recipe for disaster. There are safer designs that basically can't melt down (like molten salt reactors where the core is already liquid and liquid metal cooled fast reactors where fission essentially stops inside the reactor if it gets too hot) but they seem too expensive to be viable.
A corporation is not a person, it's an organization. All of the people who work for a corporation pay taxes, all of the people who buy products from a corporation pay taxes. All the shareholders pay taxes on income they receive from the corporation (in theory, in practice they've put a lot of loopholes in the tax-code to allow wealthy Americans to avoid paying this tax). Since you're already taxing all the individuals who make up a corporation, it doesn't make since to tax the corporation itself. The effect is the same as if you were to simply raise the taxes on all the individuals in the corporation. Realistically, corporate taxes are talking points that politicians like to throw around when they are discussing unreasonable taxation schemes.
The real problem is all the loopholes that allow wealthy Americans to avoid paying taxes. The solution is not corporate taxes (they don't really make sense) but the solution is to simplify the tax code so that it isn't so easy to circumvent. Politicians like to cite corporate taxes to deflect attention from this truth, as they are often the beneficiaries of such schemes.
Laws exist for the lawbreakers. If you make something illegal people will assume you don't do it because it's illegal.
As long as they then reduce the federal income tax, since it is supposedly used to build and maintain infrastructure. Whenever I say we need to cut back on government people say "without the government who would build the roads?". If they're going to be charging a fee to drive on the roads, they will be no different from a private citizen charging you a tole to drive across his land. All of the conventional rationalizations for the kind of government we have are collapsing as the government moves further and further from it's original intended purpose. They are now essentially a glorified wealth redistribution scheme, and in they future they will be much more so.