The grandparent questions whether we know how to 'set up social / administrative systems for safe nuclear power.' The answer is yes; look to Western Navies. Better naval reactor designs aren't precluded by hysteria. A flag officer is never more than a few hundred yards from reactor(s) operated by the finest minds the navy can train. If you fuck up you don't wander off and write a book; you face court-martial. While service extensions are granted, reactors get full overhauls with upgrades during refueling.
Exactly. Capitalism and safe nuclear power are mutually exclusive.
Could that degree of competence and discipline be applied to civilian nuclear power? Yes, but it would cost more...
The question is how much more would it cost to do nuclear safely?
And that depends on the type of installation. A photovoltaic system can be expected to last at least that long. Who knows with this thing. I bet the tower collapses from metal fatigue in 10-15 year.
And leaves behind tons of radioactive waste and a polluted aquifer, and costs billions to decommission.
Most of the "Bad Vendor Programming" I've seen in this situation did not actually require Admin Access, but required specific permissions set for Users to be able to get the programs to function. The reason that these users were ever added to Local Admin was due to "Bad IT Admin" more than anything else.
While I would agree that just granting admin access is Bad IT Admin, the fault still lies with the vendor, who usually shrugs and says that admin access is necessary even though they are the ones in the position to know exactly what folder/file/regkey access is necessary.
Since we are usually talking proprietary software, the Good IT Admin's only option is to apply reverse engineering (regmon/filemon/procmon).
So the fundamental problems are "Bad Vendor Programming" and especially "Bad Vendor Documentation and Support".
Just cook from fresh produce/meats and other ingredients, calculate calorie content and divide into sensible portions on the fly.
Then take it a step further. Cook more than you need and put the extra in a storage container in the fridge and/or freezer.
Voila, the convenience of pre-packaged food and the nutrition (and soul-satisfying taste!) of home-cooked food for the next day's lunch or those times you are "too busy" too cook.
Not wanting to take the severe risks that nuclear power inescapably brings with it is rational.
What severe risks? If you are talking about the reactor in Japan, more people suffered negative health issues as a result of the damage the tsunami did to other industrial sites than they have from the damage to the nuclear plant.
Implicit in your response is the assumption that the danger is over, everything is under control and contained and all effects of this incident have occurred and been accounted for....
Well, I'd guess that's where the "modern safety features" come in. They do exist you know. They're actually pretty damn good. You can make reactors that shut themselves down safely the second power is lost to the cooling system, they've made them in Canada since the 1970s.
I keep hearing this.
But you know, the Japanese plant "shut itself down safely the second power was lost".
Turns out, you need to do far more than "safely shut down" since the fuel stays really fucking hot even after a shutdown. In fact, the fuel stays really fucking hot and keeps generating heat even after it is depleted and removed from the reactor, and has to be stored under water for a long time before anything can be done with it.
A reactor not only needs to "shut itself down safely" in the event of a problem, its associated systems need to be able to continue functioning properly for quite a while afterwards, and IMO that's where the uncertainty and risk are.
The exact thing that makes nuclear power desirable (high energy density) is what makes it dangerous. When you consider the system end-to-end, I seriously doubt there is such a thing as a failsafe nuclear reactor.
The fuel in the pool by Reactor 4 was removed so they could perform maintenance. It's not necessarily depleted. Even if it was removed for re-fueling, the expended fuel can still go critical. They don't keep it in the reactor until it's completely "burned". That's why they have to keep it in a water/boric acid solution long after it has been removed from the core, to keep it from going critical.
Also, I just read on the BBC that a TEPCO official has come out and stated that "The possibility of re-criticality is not zero."
I agree that there is no danger of a nuclear explosion (requires highly enriched Uranium and exactly the right physical conditions), but criticality is definitely a possibility.
It's really quite simple. Just bomb it flat and impoverish the population so that the majority of people don't have cars, just bicycles.
Then, rebuild the city with this in mind.
It worked great for Munich, things were tough for 10 years or so, but once they got over it, they now have a modern city with full cycling infrastructure baked in...
at some point you have to pay your initial investment plus interest, your maintenance, and your depreciation (because one day your windmill will be a bucket of rust and you will have to buy another). If you can't do all of those, it's better to put your money elsewhere.
You've hit the nail on the head! Exactly the problem with nuclear power!
Oh, wait, you were talking about wind (where every one of the costs you describe are orders of magnitude lower than for a nuke plant)...
I'm vested... literally. I get a damn pension. It's going to be frakkin awesome because it's plausible (fully funded and low enough that it will probably never be cut/fail) and reasonable and it goes on top of social security and the 401k.
You will be laid-off when you are ~5 years away from that pension.
Myself personally, I shell out a bit extra cash each month for a health insurance that will pay for any doctor, any hospital, and no limits in coverage. It's only costing me $50 a month or so total.
Health insurance that only costs $50 a month!? No limitations on coverage?
so small that if you show up with a standard sized carry on, they make you check it.
Depends on your value for "standard sized". Most of the carry-ons I see are far bigger than the "standard" (ie., the little rack out by the check-in desk that demonstrates the correct carry-on size).
Really, next time, try to fit your "carry-on" into the sizer. If it doesn't fit, expect to pay. Just because it has wheels and a handle and is smaller than full-sized luggage doesn't make it carry-on.
Slashdot Mirror
The grandparent questions whether we know how to 'set up social / administrative systems for safe nuclear power.' The answer is yes; look to Western Navies. Better naval reactor designs aren't precluded by hysteria. A flag officer is never more than a few hundred yards from reactor(s) operated by the finest minds the navy can train. If you fuck up you don't wander off and write a book; you face court-martial. While service extensions are granted, reactors get full overhauls with upgrades during refueling.
Exactly. Capitalism and safe nuclear power are mutually exclusive.
Could that degree of competence and discipline be applied to civilian nuclear power? Yes, but it would cost more...
The question is how much more would it cost to do nuclear safely?
And that depends on the type of installation. A photovoltaic system can be expected to last at least that long. Who knows with this thing. I bet the tower collapses from metal fatigue in 10-15 year.
And leaves behind tons of radioactive waste and a polluted aquifer, and costs billions to decommission.
Oh wait, you were talking solar, not nuclear.
Never mind...
With adequate safety design, effective corporate compliance, and government monitoring, nuclear energy could be safe.
The problem is that it would then be economically unfeasible.
nuclear fallout would render the factories un-inhabitable. the walls might stand but no man will step inside for the next 100 years.
Odd, it didn't work that way in Hiroshima/Nagasaki...
Most of the "Bad Vendor Programming" I've seen in this situation did not actually require Admin Access, but required specific permissions set for Users to be able to get the programs to function. The reason that these users were ever added to Local Admin was due to "Bad IT Admin" more than anything else.
While I would agree that just granting admin access is Bad IT Admin, the fault still lies with the vendor, who usually shrugs and says that admin access is necessary even though they are the ones in the position to know exactly what folder/file/regkey access is necessary.
Since we are usually talking proprietary software, the Good IT Admin's only option is to apply reverse engineering (regmon/filemon/procmon).
So the fundamental problems are "Bad Vendor Programming" and especially "Bad Vendor Documentation and Support".
Pluggable Authentication Module. It allows you to insert whatever authentication system you want into a Unix-type system.
Play a fun game the next time you go to a gas station and try to find something healthy and tasty to eat or drink.
Here's another fun one. Next time you go to a grocery store try to find some gasoline.
Just cook from fresh produce/meats and other ingredients, calculate calorie content and divide into sensible portions on the fly.
Then take it a step further. Cook more than you need and put the extra in a storage container in the fridge and/or freezer.
Voila, the convenience of pre-packaged food and the nutrition (and soul-satisfying taste!) of home-cooked food for the next day's lunch or those times you are "too busy" too cook.
You lose all credibility when you (mis)use the word ecosystem that way...
Not wanting to take the severe risks that nuclear power inescapably brings with it is rational.
What severe risks? If you are talking about the reactor in Japan, more people suffered negative health issues as a result of the damage the tsunami did to other industrial sites than they have from the damage to the nuclear plant.
Implicit in your response is the assumption that the danger is over, everything is under control and contained and all effects of this incident have occurred and been accounted for....
Well, I'd guess that's where the "modern safety features" come in. They do exist you know. They're actually pretty damn good. You can make reactors that shut themselves down safely the second power is lost to the cooling system, they've made them in Canada since the 1970s.
I keep hearing this.
But you know, the Japanese plant "shut itself down safely the second power was lost".
Turns out, you need to do far more than "safely shut down" since the fuel stays really fucking hot even after a shutdown. In fact, the fuel stays really fucking hot and keeps generating heat even after it is depleted and removed from the reactor, and has to be stored under water for a long time before anything can be done with it.
A reactor not only needs to "shut itself down safely" in the event of a problem, its associated systems need to be able to continue functioning properly for quite a while afterwards, and IMO that's where the uncertainty and risk are.
The exact thing that makes nuclear power desirable (high energy density) is what makes it dangerous. When you consider the system end-to-end, I seriously doubt there is such a thing as a failsafe nuclear reactor.
This is all at least a week too late. The rebels are doomed. As usual the UN has hand-wringing down to a science.
Less than 24 hours after the UN vote, Qaddafi has ordered a cease-fire...
I'd tap that!
The fuel in the pool by Reactor 4 was removed so they could perform maintenance. It's not necessarily depleted. Even if it was removed for re-fueling, the expended fuel can still go critical. They don't keep it in the reactor until it's completely "burned". That's why they have to keep it in a water/boric acid solution long after it has been removed from the core, to keep it from going critical.
Also, I just read on the BBC that a TEPCO official has come out and stated that "The possibility of re-criticality is not zero."
I agree that there is no danger of a nuclear explosion (requires highly enriched Uranium and exactly the right physical conditions), but criticality is definitely a possibility.
It's really quite simple. Just bomb it flat and impoverish the population so that the majority of people don't have cars, just bicycles.
Then, rebuild the city with this in mind.
It worked great for Munich, things were tough for 10 years or so, but once they got over it, they now have a modern city with full cycling infrastructure baked in...
[Citation Needed] My 11 year old Golf TDI disagrees with you. The most reliable, efficient car I've ever had, plus lots of fun to drive.
at some point you have to pay your initial investment plus interest, your maintenance, and your depreciation (because one day your windmill will be a bucket of rust and you will have to buy another). If you can't do all of those, it's better to put your money elsewhere.
You've hit the nail on the head! Exactly the problem with nuclear power!
Oh, wait, you were talking about wind (where every one of the costs you describe are orders of magnitude lower than for a nuke plant)...
If you build it high enough, then you can just toss the satellite of the roof to get it into orbit.
Orbit is about velocity, not altitude. You would have to "toss" it at orbital velocity, otherwise it would just drop...
I think I remember seeing a fake dual vinyl player built just for this purpose in some magazine.
http://www.dn-hd2500.com
I'm vested... literally. I get a damn pension. It's going to be frakkin awesome because it's plausible (fully funded and low enough that it will probably never be cut/fail) and reasonable and it goes on top of social security and the 401k.
You will be laid-off when you are ~5 years away from that pension.
So long, and thanks for all the fish...
Great idea, too bad they are so butt ugly!
Mmmm, smells like Perl...
Note again, it's only costing me $50 a month. Of course someone else is paying the rest
Ok, I get it, you're a member of congress...
Myself personally, I shell out a bit extra cash each month for a health insurance that will pay for any doctor, any hospital, and no limits in coverage. It's only costing me $50 a month or so total.
Health insurance that only costs $50 a month!? No limitations on coverage?
Bullshit.
so small that if you show up with a standard sized carry on, they make you check it.
Depends on your value for "standard sized". Most of the carry-ons I see are far bigger than the "standard" (ie., the little rack out by the check-in desk that demonstrates the correct carry-on size).
Really, next time, try to fit your "carry-on" into the sizer. If it doesn't fit, expect to pay. Just because it has wheels and a handle and is smaller than full-sized luggage doesn't make it carry-on.