Gosh! Now, what we need is a way around that. Sigh. Too bad we don't have one! Oh, wait! I think I've heard about a ways to store energy...a 'battery' is it?
So car manufacturers can't make a battery that car power a car for more than 100 miles, yet these same batteries can supposedly provide backup power sources for entire cities. Wow. Maybe someday but the technology is not there yet.
So: how did you overcome the problem of knowing in advance what's going to happen at and around the site for the next 25,000 years or so that the spent fuel (and all of the associated materials, which I'll wager aren't stored onsite, but shipped to bulk low-grade waste storage facilities...spent fuel is only part of the problem) will be dangerous?
Associated materials? Like what? You don't know much about nuclear do you?
And where does this 25000 year bullshit come from? A reactor generates only one cubic meter of solid waste per year. After 10 years it is 1000 times less radioactive. After 500 years it is less radioactive than the ore from which it was originally mined. You only need a temporary storage solution, not a permanent one.
Besides, the next generation of reactor, fusion, will be able to process this fission waste as fuel. All waste from a fusion reactor is biologically safe after about 10 years, and becomes completely non-radioactive after 50-100 years.
I guess you also don't realize that the materials used in your battery are toxic? More toxic in terms of people getting sick and dying than from the waste from any nuclear reactor.
"In fact, a solar farm 100 miles by 100 miles could satisfy 100% of the America's annual electrical needs."
I guess you didn't read all the way to the bottom of your article did you?
"What happens on a cloudy day or at night?
That is where the traditional fossil fuel-based power plants come in: at non-peak hours. Renewable energy will not replace fossil fuels in the foreseeable future"
So they are depending on a fossil fuel source to augment their power generation. In that case nuclear would still be better as it could completely replace fossil fuel.
I'm sorry, but you're talking out of your ass. I can counter your report with several more credible reports that say covering the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas completely with windmills would meet 100% of the United States energy needs, and that total wind potential globally exceeds global energy demand
Well I didn't write the report.
No, it's not. I'll concede that the designs of modern nuclear reactors and advances in fuel recycling have significantly decreased the negative environmental effects of nuclear energy, but not enough to declare it "the most environmentally friendly" energy source.
Yes it is.
Wind is not practical as a sole energy source. It's great for augmenting but the wind just doesn't blow all the time. I live in Toronto on the Great Lakes and there is a huge windmill next to the water downtown. Not only is it ugly but is not operating a good 50% or more of the time. There just isn't enough constant wind here to make it viable.
Fossil fuels are dirty and pollute, so they are not environmentally friendly.
Solar is fine, but again only suitable for augmentation, not as a primary energy source.
Hydroelectric I argue causes a huge negative environmental impact. Damming rivers causes flooding, blocking of migratory routes for both fish and land mammals and the destruction of large swaths of greenspace. The rotting greenspace also releases huge amounts of methane gas.
In Ontario, nuclear now generates half of our power needs and weve been generating nuclear power for over 40 years. There are no emissions of greenhouse gases, acid gases, or particulate air pollution from a nuclear power plant - making it a truly 'green' source of energy. A nuclear fuel bundle is the size of a firelog and stores enough energy to power 100 homes for a year. The same electricity from a fossil station would require 400 tonnes (400,000 kg) of coal, or 270,000 liters (almost 60,000 gallons) of oil, or 300 million liters (10 million cubic feet) of natural gas. Contrary to popular misguided belief, storage of waste fuel is not a problem. Ontario reactors store all of their waste onsite, in an area a little bigger than a swimming pool. Over the entire lifecycle of the technology, nuclear is also the cheapest at 3 per KWh (coal at 4, gas at 7)
Even if it were massively implemented, I still doubt that it would have more of a detrimental effect than all the air pollution (and particularly greenhouse gases) spewing out of all our coal-fired plants has!
Sure it would. I remember reading a report on wind a few years back saying that if the entire land surface of the earth was evenly coated with windmills (0.5 Km separation) we would meet approximately 20% of of our total power needs.
Nuclear is the most environmentally friendly way to go.
I do not force my views about electrical engineering or molecular physics on everyone, having never stuided these things. Why does everyone feel compelled to contribute to the environmental debate when very, very few have studed environmental science?
Probably for the same reason that many people insist on voting without having studied Political Science.
Except the Vatican has nothing to do with Christianity, accord to American Christians.
That's funny since Christians in the rest of the worldview American fundamentalists as basically a non-Christian cult. They've taken the Christian message and warped it so badly that they no longer have anything to do with the original religion anymore.
If you're trying to, or are, impying that the majority of people don't understand evolution I'm going to have to dissagree. It seems to me that most people understand the concept but choose to believe in God anyway. Some people just want to believe in something, it doesn't make them stupid to decide to believe in a God.
You've just clearly demonstrated that you do not understand evolution. There is nothing in evolution that says God does not exist. Even the Vatican has stated that belief in God and evolution are compatible.
I didn't closely follow the case but if memory serves it went something like this:
1) RIM and NTP originally tried to negotiate an agreement so that RIM could use NTPs patented idea
2) No agreement was reached so RIM walked away
3) RIM, despite knowing of NTPs patented idea, went ahead and developed a communication system based directly on NTPs patent
4) RIM got caught and had to pay for its mistake
Am I missing something or is this just a case of someone getting caught and whining about it? I'm sincerely curious, not trolling.
Not quite. Here's how it really went:
1) RIM creates blackberry
2) NTP (not a real company, but a bunch of blood sucking lawyers), holds a patent they bought off a dead guy, and they think RIM is violating this patent so they sue. RIM believes the patents are invalid.
3) In 2004 after much negotiation, NTP and RIM almost settle for $450 million, but NTP eventually breaks it off asking instead for $1 Billion
4) Despite the patent office indicating that they would invalidate NTP patents, a court of law threatens to force RIM to shut off their Blackberry servers.
TVs that use 720P aren't called HDTVs. They're called EDTVs. So there'd be little chance of anyone confusing them.
Really. Check the specs - EDTV is only 480p. HDTV, can either be 720 or 1080, in fact the vast majority of HDTVs display only 720p even though they take in 1080 -they downconvert (gee could this be another class action lawsuit??). 1080 native capable displays have only recently become readily available.
Seems the chances of being confused are high as YOU are confused.
It makes complete sense. Yahoo! is a US company, and as such is, or ought to be, bound by US law
No. if you are doing business in a country (not just selling a product), you are bound by the laws of that country. There was a recent case here in Canada where a U.S. company tried to fire an employee who got pregnant because they didn't want to pay the maternity leave (a year here in Canada). Apparently this was legal in the companies home state but not here. She sued and (rightly) won.
Why don't you take a good long hard suck of my ass, moron. You're the one without a clue. Where did you get the idea I was bragging about my system? I don't have hi-def. And I'm not a republican.
Well maybe I would like my Toyota Echo to go as fast as a Porche. They certainly didn't advertise that it couldn't. I think I will create a class action lawsuit on behalf or all of the Echo drivers out there who were unfairly deceived and ripped off...
Well I already own a DVD player. But I'm not going to spend hundreds of dollars on an HDDVD/BR player, plus $40-50 for a movie that should play at 1080i but will only play at 480p when I can pay $9.99 for the same movie to play at 480p. When I can play the movie in 1080i, I might consider paying for the hardware and the more expensive movies, but not a second sooner.
Exactly, and good point. Since you are happy with what you have now then there is no reason to change. You're unaffected by this issue.
Would you be pissed if you bought a Viper and found out the manufacturer had put in a limiter that wouldn't let you exceed 45mph if you used non-factory wheel rims?
I'd probably be smart enough to question why there was a sensor cable going from the engine computer to the wheel rim.
They need a class-action lawsuit and they will get it.
Oh boo hoo hoo. I bought the wrong component. Sue Sue! I spilled coffee on myself. Sue Sue! You people make me sick. Take some responsibility for your own actions.
So you're happy now with DVDs on your TV at 480 lines resolution, but wont be happy with a HD movie downgraded to 480 lines resolution on that same TV? I fail to see the difference - the quality is the same to you.
I'm not sure if you're saying you were not aware an analog signal can not carry the full resolution, or you are saying to the parent poster that this is tough cookies -- he's getting screwed over by the fine print NOT on the box (and you support this).
Yes I'm saying tough cookies. He should have known better.
To answer the second, that perspective would be quite offensive to anyone who's been screwed over. You may take a Charles Darwin approach to consumer protection, but I smell a class action lawsuit merited by fraud. I hope you don't get the jury duty.
A class action lawsuit?! Come on. Who in their right mind would buy a digital TV with an analog only interface, then take a digital source, convert it to analog for the three feet between player and TV and think that was a good solution. Once I saw that the supposed digital TV had no digital input I refused to buy it. Consumers have to take some responsibility to become informed.
Same attitude to those who bought TVs that are only capable of 720P resolution thinking it's hi-def - it's not.
I've never seen it on the boxes for DVD players or TVs
You realize that current DVD players are not high definition, right?
A lot of people were misled into building Media Center boxes that will forcibly downgrade the resolution. But I bet you support that also, after all consumers should have known (and besides, they shouldn't CREATE a DVR - that just flies in the face of consumerism.. right?).
Well if you're dumb enough to believe anything Microsoft says...
Oh, I think people care when they find themselves (for example) unable to fast-forward through the previews. They just don't understand what's wrong -- if they did, they'd be pissed.
This happens now with DVDs from Blockbuster without DRM.
Umm, my LCD monitor looks fine at 1280x1024 with an analog VGA signal. This is not about a signalling limitation of the analog interface. This is about intentional degradation of the signal.
Plugin a digital interface. It will look a lot sharper and brighter.
I have an HDTV that only has component inputs. Only the most expensive TV's even had DVI inputs when I bought mine, and hdmi didn't exist yet. There isn't a chance in hell that I will be buying a BluRay or HD-DVD player until these companies are forced to ensure that all movies will display at the full resolution supported by the TV [1080i in my case] regardless of what connection is used.
What boggles my mind is why anyone who bought these things thought they were going to get a full resolution digital picture out of an analog interface. Come on. It's obvious that wasn't going to work. Stop whining.
Personally, I'd feel better if fundamentalists instead said something like, God created the universe whenever the Physicists said it began, and shaped its creation to bring about the earth as it currently stands throughout that time. Then they get their God, they get their creationism, they get their divine province, but they don't look like idiots to those of us who know better.
That's basically every major religion's view except for the fundamentalist Christians, which incidentally constitute only a small percentage of the total number of Christians worldwide.
Slashdot Mirror
And where does this 25000 year bullshit come from? A reactor generates only one cubic meter of solid waste per year. After 10 years it is 1000 times less radioactive. After 500 years it is less radioactive than the ore from which it was originally mined. You only need a temporary storage solution, not a permanent one.
Besides, the next generation of reactor, fusion, will be able to process this fission waste as fuel. All waste from a fusion reactor is biologically safe after about 10 years, and becomes completely non-radioactive after 50-100 years.
I guess you also don't realize that the materials used in your battery are toxic? More toxic in terms of people getting sick and dying than from the waste from any nuclear reactor.
" What happens on a cloudy day or at night?
That is where the traditional fossil fuel-based power plants come in: at non-peak hours. Renewable energy will not replace fossil fuels in the foreseeable future"
So they are depending on a fossil fuel source to augment their power generation. In that case nuclear would still be better as it could completely replace fossil fuel.
Wind is not practical as a sole energy source. It's great for augmenting but the wind just doesn't blow all the time. I live in Toronto on the Great Lakes and there is a huge windmill next to the water downtown. Not only is it ugly but is not operating a good 50% or more of the time. There just isn't enough constant wind here to make it viable.
Fossil fuels are dirty and pollute, so they are not environmentally friendly.
Solar is fine, but again only suitable for augmentation, not as a primary energy source.
Hydroelectric I argue causes a huge negative environmental impact. Damming rivers causes flooding, blocking of migratory routes for both fish and land mammals and the destruction of large swaths of greenspace. The rotting greenspace also releases huge amounts of methane gas.
In Ontario, nuclear now generates half of our power needs and weve been generating nuclear power for over 40 years. There are no emissions of greenhouse gases, acid gases, or particulate air pollution from a nuclear power plant - making it a truly 'green' source of energy. A nuclear fuel bundle is the size of a firelog and stores enough energy to power 100 homes for a year. The same electricity from a fossil station would require 400 tonnes (400,000 kg) of coal, or 270,000 liters (almost 60,000 gallons) of oil, or 300 million liters (10 million cubic feet) of natural gas. Contrary to popular misguided belief, storage of waste fuel is not a problem. Ontario reactors store all of their waste onsite, in an area a little bigger than a swimming pool. Over the entire lifecycle of the technology, nuclear is also the cheapest at 3 per KWh (coal at 4, gas at 7)
I'd say that's pretty environmentally friendly.
Nuclear is the most environmentally friendly way to go.
And what the hell do Finite State Machines have to do with anything ?
1) RIM creates blackberry
2) NTP (not a real company, but a bunch of blood sucking lawyers), holds a patent they bought off a dead guy, and they think RIM is violating this patent so they sue. RIM believes the patents are invalid.
3) In 2004 after much negotiation, NTP and RIM almost settle for $450 million, but NTP eventually breaks it off asking instead for $1 Billion
4) Despite the patent office indicating that they would invalidate NTP patents, a court of law threatens to force RIM to shut off their Blackberry servers.
5) RIM settles for $615 million
6) NTPs patents declared invalid
Seems the chances of being confused are high as YOU are confused.
Why don't you take a good long hard suck of my ass, moron. You're the one without a clue. Where did you get the idea I was bragging about my system? I don't have hi-def. And I'm not a republican.
Why don't you stop being a fucktard?
You took a risk by being an early adopter of an emerging technology and got burned. Do everyone a favor and stop whining about it.
Well maybe I would like my Toyota Echo to go as fast as a Porche. They certainly didn't advertise that it couldn't. I think I will create a class action lawsuit on behalf or all of the Echo drivers out there who were unfairly deceived and ripped off...
So you're happy now with DVDs on your TV at 480 lines resolution, but wont be happy with a HD movie downgraded to 480 lines resolution on that same TV? I fail to see the difference - the quality is the same to you.
Same attitude to those who bought TVs that are only capable of 720P resolution thinking it's hi-def - it's not.
You realize that current DVD players are not high definition, right? Well if you're dumb enough to believe anything Microsoft says...