There are new reactor designs that are literally meltdown-proof (such as pebble-bed reactors [wikipedia.org]. Also, while I agree that federal regulations at all levels have taken a beating under the current administration, we can't just sit back and go "oh well, can't trust the government" and just continue on an unsustainable path. That's defeatism. This country has the capability to do extraordinary things, good or bad. Also, this administration is coming to an end, I'm cautiously optimistic.
Nuclear power is not sustainable! And meltdowns aren't the only reason people oppose it. Another concern is long term storage, like the hundreds of millions of years some waste has as a half-life, not the 10,000 years Bush wants just so Yucca will be approved. Yes, the US is capable of extraordinary things, and I bet if the US were to start an Apollo or Manhattan project in renewable energy, by 2020 it would be solved.
we are facing massive climate change and in the short term (decades) there are two sources of energy that can serve as an energy backbone to meet global need: coal or nuclear.
Yes, we need to wake up. Conservation will do more than building new reactors. Something like 58% of the energy used in the US is used in the home. By using energy efficient building methods, appliances, and other electrical items energy needs can drastically be reduced. A properly designed home can reduce the energy needed for heating by more than half and can eliminate the need for ac. Geothermal heating systems can provide the rest of the heating needs. By using CLF, compact florescent lights, energy for lighting can be cut into a quarter. And LEDs cut it by 90%, unfortunately as of now most led lights are only good for spot lighting not area lighting. Other things can be done to reduce energy needs as well, such as plugging energy vampires, those things that always draw electricity even when off like most TVs and other entertainment equipment, into power strips that have an on off switch then using said switch. Those who build Off grid go through all this to reduce how much energy their home needs to be comfortable, as they produce their own energy they have to do this in order to avoid spending too much on building a large electrical system.
Nuclear plants work great in cultures like that; France is a prime example. Most of their power comes from nuclear plants, and they haven't had any problems.
You may be interested in an article in IEEE's "Spectrum", Nuclear Wasteland.
They better be able to otherwise we will run out of energy, or do you think other sources last forever? Once nonrenewable sources are gone, all that's left is renewable.
you wouldn't be looking at on-site storate of the reactor components if the powers that be would allow the repository to open.
And what repository would that be? Yucca Mt? Did you know it is in a geographically, seismically active area? Besides the earthquake near there several years ago, a government building was destroyed there in the 1970s from an earthquake. And people want to store nuclear waste for millions of years there?
What of the waste? Nuclear waste is a big gripe I have with nuclear energy, along with massive government subsidies. If a way to eliminate the waste were invented, and not by taxpayer dollars, and most if not all subsidies eliminated I might support nuclear power. However I bet that if the money needed for the research and other subsidies were instead put into renewable energy the US could become energy independent and reduce pollution.
as the number of tasks increase while the time each employee spends in the containment area decreases, you are bound to get a forgetful maintenance worker here and there;
That's very simply to solve. Because of an accident I had I survived a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, and spent more than a year in therapy. Through that tyme it was constantly stressed that we keep a to do list. Note step 1, step 2, etc and make it as detailed as you need it. Next to each task, each task on it's own line or more than one line if needed, is a checkbox and as each task is compleated a checkmark is put in the box. Only when all the checkboxes have a check inside is the job done.
The US auto makers owned the US auto market until the 1970's oil shock. After than while the US makers kept building gas guzzlers Japanese manufacturers introduced fuel efficient vehicles. Since then the US auto industry has been in steady decline. While they are closing down plants Japanese companies are building more and more plants in the US.
So Japanese companies are giving US buyers what they want, fuel efficient cars, and eating the US companies' breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
But there aren't. And no, letting consumers choose their power company isn't going to change that, as they will just go with the cheapest, thus introducing even more market pressure to NOT self-regulate!
You're quite wrong about that, sure some will go for the lowest price power but many who have the choice buy renewable energy. Those who don't have a choice can buy Renewable Energy Certificates, and those selling these certificates then use the money to support renewable projects.
And any review or auditing WILL be the result of governmental regulation. It's naive to think that any company will regulate itself when it can save money by not doing so. Since capitalism is about spending as little as possible to get the greatest output, these two ideas go against the very grain of each other. Capitalism is a wonderful thing, but like everything in the world, it cannot stand entirely on its own.
That is why I support both some regulations and a strong court system. With good courts those living near these plants would be able to sue the owners and operators of the plants, and win thereby receiving compensation. However because of laws like the Price-Anderson Act they can't be. The federal government has subsidized the nuclear power industry by shielding them lawsuits. With regulations there is no true capitalism, but are needed. However laws like this are bad.
f there's no review or auditing, they are going to give nuclear a very bad long term image. I'd rather live next to a nuke plant than a coal plant.
Yea, what most don't know or discount is that coal fired power plants both emit and leave as residue radioactive ash.
Meltdowns are expensive and its likely our tax paid EPA Superfund will pick it up rather than their insurance. The greed needs to stop and they will run a clean shop.
Yeap, those responsible need to be held accountable and pay for cleanups as well as injuries and other health problems caused by them.
But, pushing aging reactors past their design capacity or refueling faster with fewer people seem like lessons learned just waiting to happen.
That's just capitalism at work. They're trying to extract the greatest value for the least amount of input. Funnily enough, we end up with the same situation as witnessed in a certain communist regime a couple of decades ago: unsafe nuclear powerplants are pushed past their limits by untrained and inexperienced staff.
Another anti capitalist diatribe? This is in no way capitalistic, under true capitalism the business owning and or operating this plant would be held accountable. This company was not. It's amazing so many/.ers are anti capitalists, if it weren't for capitalism there wouldn't be any/., no internet, no computers. Actually these don't exist because of pure capitalism either, but more because of the desire for freedom.
"One of the reasons that capitalism is hard is because there is no one and nothing to blame for the failure of any given individual...except the individual. Blame of the other, in most instances, is incompatible with capitalism. Like democracy and freedom, capitalism requires self-reliance, respect for one's self including a recognition of one's value in a given instance (read "Leverage in Contract and Other Negotiations") and, perhaps most significantly, the willingness to accept personal responsibility for one's successes or failures. Indeed, what I have seen is that those who in fact are self-reliant, self-confident and who know their worth are often disparaged for those same qualities."
It's the massive floodlights illuminating the 1,000-foot-tall antennae on top of the buildings that are turned off at night for the birds. The little winky bits remain active because of heavy air traffic in the area.
That was my precise point. It's the big lights that are the danger and not small blinking beacons. Chicago has, or had, big lights however wind ginnies have small blinking lights.
Chicago is on a migration route that birds take to and from Canada along the shore of Lake Michigan. Buildings like the Sears Tower and John Hancock Center turn off their decorative lights at night to cut down on the number of bird kills because the birds navigate, in part, by the position of the moon. Bright lights confuse them.
There's a big difference between bright neon lights always on and small beacons flashing on and off. However I'd like to see any studies you know of that conclude beacons are a danger to birds. Scientific studies can change my beliefs.
In 2005, many South Floridians got a really beautiful night sky after Hurricane Wilma hit. The power was out over quite a large region for a few days, and a cold front came through right after the hurricane, which cleared up the sky.
Growing up in Florida friends of mine and had this saying about telling true Floridians from transplants. When a hurricane comes along "while the true Floridian says it's tyme to batten down the hatches the transplant throws his arms up in the air and yells 'let's get out of here'". Back then you could set your watch by the rain from late spring to early fall, every day if it weren't already raining at six pm you'd see a wall of water coming at you. Sometimes it'd only rain a few minutes and sometimes it's rain for an hour or more. I went into the army after graduating high school and when I got out and went back it didn't rain like that anymore.
It was the first time I have ever been able to clearly see the Milky Way from my home. Any other time, I have to travel halfway across the state into the Everglades to see it as well as I could those nights.
We used to go camping on the St Johns River or to the intercoastal waterway area near Cocoa Beach. The stars would great then.
Especially since as soon as the criminal turns on his flashlight his night vision will go poof.. allowing you to sneak up to him without him seeing you.. with that big pipewrench in your hand.. oooh.. that sounds almost like how a criminal would sneak up in the shadows of the very lights meant to keep you safe.. er.. make you feel safe. Hmm... wait... there is a point in there. Go find it.;)
And I have a Mag-lite right nest to my desk, and in a window an oil lamp. I can see it now, I'll carrying it and be accused of firebombing (;-
A quick Google search shows that there seem to be studies about lighting and crime. Sure the topic probably merits additional study, but discounting the work that has been done based on an unsourced sentence leading a wikipedia article probably isn't helping further the discussion.
Before replying I did use Google. I found the Wiki article by Googling lights night security studies, it's number 4 in the results. The first result is a blog entry about how the streetlight outside the window disturbs sleep. The next two are sellers of lights. The fifth, "The Issues surrounding lighting" has a section, "How lighting can aid crime", explaining exactly how lights help crime. It's interesting the first one says most crimes happen in daylight. Streetlights definitely don't help there.
It's an illusion. There are no good scientific studies that convincingly show the relationship between lighting and crime. In some cases, lighting seems to deter crime and it makes people feel more secure, but in reality they may be just as secure without the lighting.
You seem to misunderstand the effects that patents have in the real world and why large corporations lobby for them. Patent laws were initially introduced based on precisely the reasoning you describe - but patents haven't actually done that or been supported with that intention by any major political players in living memory.
No I don't. Actually for a long tyme patents has helped hold back progress. With maybe the exception of drugs I oppose patents. Even with drugs though I'd limit patents to not more than a few years instead of the typical 28 years drugs are patented for now. As Open Source has shown patents aren't needed for progress.
As for why "patent trolls" can be "legitimate" small players, consider the following situation: A small research lab invents stuff, patents it, and licenses it to other companies to productize. This is the absolute best case of the patent system, and the company looks *exactly* like a patent troll except they have a sales department in addition to their legal department.
Ah, if they are licensing other companies to manufacture a product they patented then they aren't just sitting on it waiting for someone else to release a product with the patent before they sue. Therefore they aren't a troll.
That's totally wrong; any birds flying at night basically have night vision-they aren't flying blind, or they would smack into trees all the time.
There's a big difference between seeing a solid stationary object and seeing thin long pencil like objects spinning.
Secondly, birds constantly get chopped up by wind ginnies even during broad daylight.
The vast majority of birds dying from wind ginnies are because the ginnies have fast revolving, high rpm, blades. New ginnies that have larger blades and spin slower are much safer for birds:
What about people WALKING at night? they don't experience glair (no windshield) how do you propose they walk without streetlights?
There are such things as flashlights. I used to run at night, well early morning before the sun came up, and I never needed lights.
Streetlights were intended to reduce crime, and I'd say they do a pretty good job of that.
If that's what you think you're wrong. There are no good scientific studies that convincingly show the relationship between lighting and crime. In some cases, lighting seems to deter crime and it makes people feel more secure, but in reality they may be just as secure without the lighting.
And the benefit of turning off the lights is what? People in cities will be able to see the stars better? If you want to see the stars, move out to the country!
Moving out to the country to see the night sky is no option as city lights can be seen 100 miles away from the city.
Lighting in those situations may seem excessive, but it's often based on security concerns. Well-lit areas tend to see less crime.
Lighting doesn't help make it safer:
"Business owners will often tell you they need these lighting levels for security (though there have been no studies actually proving that light at night makes us more secure)". "There are no good scientific studies that convincingly show the relationship between lighting and crime. In some cases, lighting seems to deter crime and it makes people feel more secure, but in reality they may be just as secure without the lighting".
In the most norther regions of Finland people can live many weeks in constant polar night.
What's worse is the Midnight Sun. I spent 3 weeks during the winter in Alaska and it never did get real dark, but I'd rather that than it always being light out.
Slashdot Mirror
There are new reactor designs that are literally meltdown-proof (such as pebble-bed reactors [wikipedia.org]. Also, while I agree that federal regulations at all levels have taken a beating under the current administration, we can't just sit back and go "oh well, can't trust the government" and just continue on an unsustainable path. That's defeatism. This country has the capability to do extraordinary things, good or bad. Also, this administration is coming to an end, I'm cautiously optimistic.
Nuclear power is not sustainable! And meltdowns aren't the only reason people oppose it. Another concern is long term storage, like the hundreds of millions of years some waste has as a half-life, not the 10,000 years Bush wants just so Yucca will be approved. Yes, the US is capable of extraordinary things, and I bet if the US were to start an Apollo or Manhattan project in renewable energy, by 2020 it would be solved.
Falconwe are facing massive climate change and in the short term (decades) there are two sources of energy that can serve as an energy backbone to meet global need: coal or nuclear.
Yes, we need to wake up. Conservation will do more than building new reactors. Something like 58% of the energy used in the US is used in the home. By using energy efficient building methods, appliances, and other electrical items energy needs can drastically be reduced. A properly designed home can reduce the energy needed for heating by more than half and can eliminate the need for ac. Geothermal heating systems can provide the rest of the heating needs. By using CLF, compact florescent lights, energy for lighting can be cut into a quarter. And LEDs cut it by 90%, unfortunately as of now most led lights are only good for spot lighting not area lighting. Other things can be done to reduce energy needs as well, such as plugging energy vampires, those things that always draw electricity even when off like most TVs and other entertainment equipment, into power strips that have an on off switch then using said switch. Those who build Off grid go through all this to reduce how much energy their home needs to be comfortable, as they produce their own energy they have to do this in order to avoid spending too much on building a large electrical system.
FalconNuclear plants work great in cultures like that; France is a prime example. Most of their power comes from nuclear plants, and they haven't had any problems.
You may be interested in an article in IEEE's "Spectrum", Nuclear Wasteland .
FalconThey better be able to otherwise we will run out of energy, or do you think other sources last forever? Once nonrenewable sources are gone, all that's left is renewable.
Falconyou wouldn't be looking at on-site storate of the reactor components if the powers that be would allow the repository to open.
And what repository would that be? Yucca Mt? Did you know it is in a geographically, seismically active area? Besides the earthquake near there several years ago, a government building was destroyed there in the 1970s from an earthquake. And people want to store nuclear waste for millions of years there?
FalconWhat of the waste? Nuclear waste is a big gripe I have with nuclear energy, along with massive government subsidies. If a way to eliminate the waste were invented, and not by taxpayer dollars, and most if not all subsidies eliminated I might support nuclear power. However I bet that if the money needed for the research and other subsidies were instead put into renewable energy the US could become energy independent and reduce pollution.
Falconas the number of tasks increase while the time each employee spends in the containment area decreases, you are bound to get a forgetful maintenance worker here and there;
That's very simply to solve. Because of an accident I had I survived a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, and spent more than a year in therapy. Through that tyme it was constantly stressed that we keep a to do list. Note step 1, step 2, etc and make it as detailed as you need it. Next to each task, each task on it's own line or more than one line if needed, is a checkbox and as each task is compleated a checkmark is put in the box. Only when all the checkboxes have a check inside is the job done.
FalconWe need more people who know what they're talking about to cut through the damaging anti-nuclear FUD
And what of the pro nuclear FUD? Whatever happened to "Too cheap to meter"?
Falconmarket? What about eco-friendly companies?
The US auto makers owned the US auto market until the 1970's oil shock. After than while the US makers kept building gas guzzlers Japanese manufacturers introduced fuel efficient vehicles. Since then the US auto industry has been in steady decline. While they are closing down plants Japanese companies are building more and more plants in the US.
So Japanese companies are giving US buyers what they want, fuel efficient cars, and eating the US companies' breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
FalconBut there aren't. And no, letting consumers choose their power company isn't going to change that, as they will just go with the cheapest, thus introducing even more market pressure to NOT self-regulate!
You're quite wrong about that, sure some will go for the lowest price power but many who have the choice buy renewable energy. Those who don't have a choice can buy Renewable Energy Certificates, and those selling these certificates then use the money to support renewable projects.
FalconAnd any review or auditing WILL be the result of governmental regulation. It's naive to think that any company will regulate itself when it can save money by not doing so. Since capitalism is about spending as little as possible to get the greatest output, these two ideas go against the very grain of each other. Capitalism is a wonderful thing, but like everything in the world, it cannot stand entirely on its own.
That is why I support both some regulations and a strong court system. With good courts those living near these plants would be able to sue the owners and operators of the plants, and win thereby receiving compensation. However because of laws like the Price-Anderson Act they can't be. The federal government has subsidized the nuclear power industry by shielding them lawsuits. With regulations there is no true capitalism, but are needed. However laws like this are bad.
Falconf there's no review or auditing, they are going to give nuclear a very bad long term image. I'd rather live next to a nuke plant than a coal plant.
Yea, what most don't know or discount is that coal fired power plants both emit and leave as residue radioactive ash.
Meltdowns are expensive and its likely our tax paid EPA Superfund will pick it up rather than their insurance. The greed needs to stop and they will run a clean shop.
Yeap, those responsible need to be held accountable and pay for cleanups as well as injuries and other health problems caused by them.
FalconBut, pushing aging reactors past their design capacity or refueling faster with fewer people seem like lessons learned just waiting to happen.
That's just capitalism at work. They're trying to extract the greatest value for the least amount of input. Funnily enough, we end up with the same situation as witnessed in a certain communist regime a couple of decades ago: unsafe nuclear powerplants are pushed past their limits by untrained and inexperienced staff.
Another anti capitalist diatribe? This is in no way capitalistic, under true capitalism the business owning and or operating this plant would be held accountable. This company was not. It's amazing so many /.ers are anti capitalists, if it weren't for capitalism there wouldn't be any /., no internet, no computers. Actually these don't exist because of pure capitalism either, but more because of the desire for freedom.
"One of the reasons that capitalism is hard is because there is no one and nothing to blame for the failure of any given individual...except the individual. Blame of the other, in most instances, is incompatible with capitalism. Like democracy and freedom, capitalism requires self-reliance, respect for one's self including a recognition of one's value in a given instance (read "Leverage in Contract and Other Negotiations") and, perhaps most significantly, the willingness to accept personal responsibility for one's successes or failures. Indeed, what I have seen is that those who in fact are self-reliant, self-confident and who know their worth are often disparaged for those same qualities."
FalconIt's the massive floodlights illuminating the 1,000-foot-tall antennae on top of the buildings that are turned off at night for the birds. The little winky bits remain active because of heavy air traffic in the area.
That was my precise point. It's the big lights that are the danger and not small blinking beacons. Chicago has, or had, big lights however wind ginnies have small blinking lights.
FalconChicago is on a migration route that birds take to and from Canada along the shore of Lake Michigan. Buildings like the Sears Tower and John Hancock Center turn off their decorative lights at night to cut down on the number of bird kills because the birds navigate, in part, by the position of the moon. Bright lights confuse them.
There's a big difference between bright neon lights always on and small beacons flashing on and off. However I'd like to see any studies you know of that conclude beacons are a danger to birds. Scientific studies can change my beliefs.
FalconIn 2005, many South Floridians got a really beautiful night sky after Hurricane Wilma hit. The power was out over quite a large region for a few days, and a cold front came through right after the hurricane, which cleared up the sky.
Growing up in Florida friends of mine and had this saying about telling true Floridians from transplants. When a hurricane comes along "while the true Floridian says it's tyme to batten down the hatches the transplant throws his arms up in the air and yells 'let's get out of here'". Back then you could set your watch by the rain from late spring to early fall, every day if it weren't already raining at six pm you'd see a wall of water coming at you. Sometimes it'd only rain a few minutes and sometimes it's rain for an hour or more. I went into the army after graduating high school and when I got out and went back it didn't rain like that anymore.
It was the first time I have ever been able to clearly see the Milky Way from my home. Any other time, I have to travel halfway across the state into the Everglades to see it as well as I could those nights.
We used to go camping on the St Johns River or to the intercoastal waterway area near Cocoa Beach. The stars would great then.
FalconEspecially since as soon as the criminal turns on his flashlight his night vision will go poof.. allowing you to sneak up to him without him seeing you.. with that big pipewrench in your hand.. oooh.. that sounds almost like how a criminal would sneak up in the shadows of the very lights meant to keep you safe.. er.. make you feel safe. Hmm... wait... there is a point in there. Go find it. ;)
And I have a Mag-lite right nest to my desk, and in a window an oil lamp. I can see it now, I'll carrying it and be accused of firebombing (;-
FalconA quick Google search shows that there seem to be studies about lighting and crime. Sure the topic probably merits additional study, but discounting the work that has been done based on an unsourced sentence leading a wikipedia article probably isn't helping further the discussion.
Before replying I did use Google. I found the Wiki article by Googling lights night security studies, it's number 4 in the results. The first result is a blog entry about how the streetlight outside the window disturbs sleep. The next two are sellers of lights. The fifth, "The Issues surrounding lighting" has a section, "How lighting can aid crime", explaining exactly how lights help crime. It's interesting the first one says most crimes happen in daylight. Streetlights definitely don't help there.
Falconwill have (flash)lights.
And when someone spots a flashlight turned on they report it. Well they might beat the person to a pulp first, like that Indian in AZ after 911.
FalconIt's an illusion. There are no good scientific studies that convincingly show the relationship between lighting and crime. In some cases, lighting seems to deter crime and it makes people feel more secure, but in reality they may be just as secure without the lighting.
FalconYou seem to misunderstand the effects that patents have in the real world and why large corporations lobby for them. Patent laws were initially introduced based on precisely the reasoning you describe - but patents haven't actually done that or been supported with that intention by any major political players in living memory.
No I don't. Actually for a long tyme patents has helped hold back progress. With maybe the exception of drugs I oppose patents. Even with drugs though I'd limit patents to not more than a few years instead of the typical 28 years drugs are patented for now. As Open Source has shown patents aren't needed for progress.
As for why "patent trolls" can be "legitimate" small players, consider the following situation: A small research lab invents stuff, patents it, and licenses it to other companies to productize. This is the absolute best case of the patent system, and the company looks *exactly* like a patent troll except they have a sales department in addition to their legal department.
Ah, if they are licensing other companies to manufacture a product they patented then they aren't just sitting on it waiting for someone else to release a product with the patent before they sue. Therefore they aren't a troll.
FalconThat's totally wrong; any birds flying at night basically have night vision-they aren't flying blind, or they would smack into trees all the time.
There's a big difference between seeing a solid stationary object and seeing thin long pencil like objects spinning.
Secondly, birds constantly get chopped up by wind ginnies even during broad daylight.
The vast majority of birds dying from wind ginnies are because the ginnies have fast revolving, high rpm, blades. New ginnies that have larger blades and spin slower are much safer for birds:
- How to avoid killing birds with wind turbines
- But Windmills are Noisy - Do They Kill Birds?
FalconWhat about people WALKING at night? they don't experience glair (no windshield) how do you propose they walk without streetlights?
There are such things as flashlights. I used to run at night, well early morning before the sun came up, and I never needed lights.
Streetlights were intended to reduce crime, and I'd say they do a pretty good job of that.
If that's what you think you're wrong. There are no good scientific studies that convincingly show the relationship between lighting and crime. In some cases, lighting seems to deter crime and it makes people feel more secure, but in reality they may be just as secure without the lighting.
And the benefit of turning off the lights is what? People in cities will be able to see the stars better? If you want to see the stars, move out to the country!
Moving out to the country to see the night sky is no option as city lights can be seen 100 miles away from the city.
FalconLighting in those situations may seem excessive, but it's often based on security concerns. Well-lit areas tend to see less crime.
Lighting doesn't help make it safer:
"Business owners will often tell you they need these lighting levels for security (though there have been no studies actually proving that light at night makes us more secure)". "There are no good scientific studies that convincingly show the relationship between lighting and crime. In some cases, lighting seems to deter crime and it makes people feel more secure, but in reality they may be just as secure without the lighting".
FalconIn the most norther regions of Finland people can live many weeks in constant polar night.
What's worse is the Midnight Sun. I spent 3 weeks during the winter in Alaska and it never did get real dark, but I'd rather that than it always being light out.
Falcon