"Whereas every other country has always taxed it to compensate for the huge amount of damage cars/vehicles make to infrastructure and environment." implies that European governments use fuel taxes to pay for repairing the infrastructure and environment. Show me where in a Euro nation budget that fuel taxes are used for green energy initiatives or whatever. I'm not outright denying your claim but I am skeptical. It is my understanding that in Euro nations, fuel taxes go into general government funds. In the US, state fuel taxes go towards transportation funds only (road repairs mainly, but also sometimes public transportation).
So if the missile defense system doesn't 100% work on the first try with a realistic test, then the entire program was a waste of money and we should give up immediately? By that logic we should have canceled the Apollo project after Apollo 1...
The reason why US tuition is so high and increasing rapidly is because the government provides extremely cheap and nearly unlimited student loans, which drives up the demand for college, when given a relatively fixed supply, causes increase in prices, which causes a demand for more government student loans, etc, etc.
The nuclear industry is not publicly funded. The government only provides insurance guarantees against the astronomical cost of worst-case-scenario accidents that no private insurance company could afford. The government only steps in to pay if there is an accident where public damages exceed $10 billion.
From Price-anderson Act: "The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first $10 billion is industry-funded as described in the Act (any claims above the $10 billion would be covered by the federal government). Power reactor licensees are required by the act to obtain the maximum amount of insurance against nuclear related incidents which is available in the insurance market (as of 2005[update], $300 million per plant). Any monetary claims that fall within this maximum amount are paid by the insurer(s). The Price-Anderson fund, which is financed by the reactor companies themselves, is then used to make up the difference. Each reactor company is obliged to contribute up to $111.9 million in the event of an accident. As of 2008[update], the maximum amount of the fund is approximately $11.6 billion if all of the reactor companies were required to pay their full obligation to the fund."
How about just outlaw trial lawyers. You can spend all the millions you like on legal advice, prep, research, etc, but when it comes to the trial you have to represent yourself.
I would argue that people don't know when to doubt, and when to believe.
Which scientists do they believe when it comes to Autism and vaccines? Which scientist to believe when it comes to global warming? It is just they have more insight into the infighting that is present into the community now.
The infighting has ALWAYS been there. When I was in graduate school I never saw a larger bunch of petty people whining over who was the bigger fish in there tiny ponds.
You believe the theory that has observations to prove it works. Not the scientist. Pretty simple if you ask me.
Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science?
-Peter
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 1961.
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite."
Luckily, Slashdot already has a great automatic, built-in political viewpoint filtering system. It goes from, on the Liberal side, to a maximum of +5 (there are many degrees of liberalism so it needs that many points). And on the Conservative side, simply the other direction, to -1. To see only liberal comments, set your filter to only show comments ranked at +5! And to see the conservative comments, set it to -1! Simple and reliable!
The problem is getting the reactor into orbit in the first place. If you have a Challenger-style problem with the launch, then you can end up distributing fissile materials over a rather large area. Once the reactor is in orbit, no one cares.
Reactors made for space are loaded with fresh (not radioactive) fuel and designed in such a way that they can't become critical until specifically signaled to do so. If the launch fails, all that will fall to Earth will be a few kilograms of Uranium dust over tens of thousands square miles.
Reactors made for space are loaded with fresh (not radioactive) fuel and designed in such a way that they can't become critical until specifically signaled to do so. If the launch fails, all that will fall to Earth will be a few kilograms of Uranium dust over tens of thousands square miles.
Me: My internet is out. I tried rebooting my cable modem but it is not obtaining an IP address. Tech: Sir, please turn off your cable modem and computer and wait 10 seconds. Me: OK I turned off my modem and router. Tech: Did you turn off your computer? Me: No, I'm running something important on it and can't reboot it at the moment. Tech: Sir, you must turn off your computer for me to fix your problem. Me: OK, which computer should I turn off? I have two and a laptop connected to the router. Tech, increasingly agitated: Sir, please turn off your computer. Me: Can you just proceed to the next step in your procedure? I am telling you that turning off one of the three computers connected to my router will have no effect on the ability of the cable modem to make a connection. Tech: Sir, please turn off your computer. It is the only way to fix the problem. Me: Can I speak to a level 2 technician? Tech: There is no such thing. Me: Well I was just on the phone with him 10 minutes ago. Tech: There is no level 2 technician. I don't know what you are talking aboug. Me: Can I talk to your supervisor please? Tech: There is no supervisor. Me: What is your name please? Tech: Hold on one minute sir. *click* Me: *@#%$@*#$)@# comcast.
The reserves are a lot more than that. We wouldn't even have to mine any more uranium. Theoretically, using breeder reactors, we could supply the entire US's energy demand for thousands of years, using only the depleted uranium already processed and sitting around unused (as byproduct of the enrichment process).
It still seems there's got to be SOME use for it.. even if it's just pre-heating water for a conventional steam turbine.
The maximum decay heat an average spent fuel pool is licensed for is 5-10 MW. However, this amount of decay heat is only generated right after a core offload. The fuel decay heat decreases exponentially, so over time the average decay heat generated over a long period is much lower. That, combined with the fact that the spent fuel pool is at atmospheric pressure, the efficiency would be very low ( 10%). The most useful power you could possibly get would be a few kilowatts, which is not worth the effort.
Car analogy: It would be like trying to design and build a stirling engine connected to your radiator to recharge your battery. The amount of energy you get out of it is negligible compared to the cost of implementation.
Well just so you know, I live in Belgium and if I want to get my paperwork to travel to the US I have to CALL the US embassy (I cannot just go there, no sir, we're all terrorist here in Europe, you see) and without so much as getting a human operator to respond, like to - I don't know, ask me what the hell I want - I just have to hand over my CC number so I can be charged xx dollars, just to get them to make an appointment.
I find that very disturbing, off putting and blatantly rude... It is not because the US can do that that it bloody should. I do not want to go to the US but sometimes the circumstances force me to, but when I do I am treated like a piece of s**t with no rights... It really makes me want to go through all the hassle of getting my visa, then canceling my card and getting a new one.
Maybe try the Mexican embassy next time, that might be easier;)
What will Japan's power consumption be in 10 to 20 years? They're having so few kids the population should be plummeting soon.
We don't need more power, Mr. Scotty. We need FEWER PEOPLE. Pollution would be less of a problem if there were fewer people creating it. Cutting emissions, conserving and finding cleaner sources of energy while all very good... won't mean shit if our growth is still horrifically out of control. With a smaller population we'd have more resources per person and less waste generated.
Similarly, there are no food or water shortages... there ARE places of the world that that too many people for the available resources. If we have 1 gallon per person per day at a population of 100,000... we'd have 2 gallons per person per day if the population of 50,000.
i'm not talking about killing off people or even letting them die. i'm talking about getting the population to something that is sustainable. The quantity of life is going to start seriously farking with our quality of life... and THEN with the quantity. If we don't get it under control we're going to have more wars, more droughts, more everything that sucks.
"easier said than done"
Really? No kidding! Can i have your autograph before you win the Nobel Prize for Pointing out the Obvious?
"But that's mean"
Mean is kids dying of starvation because their parents had too many kids. Mean will be wars over water.
Fear-mongers have made claims like this every decade for CENTURIES, and they have never once been even remotely accurate. Furthermore, this line of thinking is dangerous. Your ideas have been the basis for many moral outrages in recent times, from the Stalin and Mao genocides of ~50 million people (ten times more than the holocaust) to involuntary euthanasia and abortion programs in our own country.
We do need more energy. More energy means more food, more water, and the ability to transport that food and water anywhere. More government control over our lives has never produces anything but misery and suffering.
Dems already call people who disagree with the healthcare reform plan terrorists
False. Shutting down town hall meetings != disagreeing with the healthcare reform plan.
It's still hyperbole to call them "terrorists", but don't pretend the people Congressman Hill was referring to were merely expressing an opposing viewpoint -- their mission is to stifle debate and intimidate their opponents, just like the folks who've been brandishing guns outside the events.
I totally agree. Calling Union thugs and ACORN workers, whom are bussed in to local town halls to fill up all the available seats and boo/shout down/intimidate/physically assault local residents whom ask critical questions of their representative, aren't really terrorists. I can't think of a better word for what to call them off the top of my head. Perhaps we can look into recent history to where such behavior has occurred before.
Why in the hell couldn't GM have just come out with a normal 50MPG car that didn't suck ass like the Metro? That would sell well and be a ton cheaper to make.
GM's purpose is not to sell cars people want to buy, but to push a political agenda.
If I was a betting man, I wouldn't bet on GM being around in 10 years.
Sheldon
When's the last time the government ever cut a program or subsidy? Hell, we still have a subsidy to goat herders for mohair to make WW1 uniforms.
Now that GM has fully transitioned from company-that-makes-cars-for-profit into union-employment-welfare-program, it will never go away unless the government itself does.
Was this in 1979 or 1980? That year, a large number of nuclear engineering students decided it would be prudent to change majors. As a result there is a huge age gap in the industry. Where I work, everyone is either my age (24-28) or nearing retirement (>45) with nothing in between.
My Freshman year at college, I had about 15 classmates I think. This is at a big state school. My senior year, there were so many students in the nuke program that they had to split all the sections.
And this is the problem with people like you. You assume everything must be poitical. Well, not everything is.
Of course global warming is a political issue. Any issue which calls for governments to do something is a political issue. Claiming that global warming is not a political issue is about as disingenuous as claiming that intelligent design is not about religion.
Name one global warming activist whom does not think that the solution to the problem is to enact strict world wide government control on first world economies. Name on global warming activist that thinks that the best way to reduce CO2 emissions would be to encourage China, India, and other developing nations to adopt freedom and capitalism, so that their economies can progress as quickly as possible into the green tech era.
Slashdot Mirror
You call that an observation deck? Looks more like the cockpit of a TIE fighter to me...
"Whereas every other country has always taxed it to compensate for the huge amount of damage cars/vehicles make to infrastructure and environment." implies that European governments use fuel taxes to pay for repairing the infrastructure and environment. Show me where in a Euro nation budget that fuel taxes are used for green energy initiatives or whatever. I'm not outright denying your claim but I am skeptical. It is my understanding that in Euro nations, fuel taxes go into general government funds. In the US, state fuel taxes go towards transportation funds only (road repairs mainly, but also sometimes public transportation).
So if the missile defense system doesn't 100% work on the first try with a realistic test, then the entire program was a waste of money and we should give up immediately? By that logic we should have canceled the Apollo project after Apollo 1...
The reason why US tuition is so high and increasing rapidly is because the government provides extremely cheap and nearly unlimited student loans, which drives up the demand for college, when given a relatively fixed supply, causes increase in prices, which causes a demand for more government student loans, etc, etc.
The nuclear industry is not publicly funded. The government only provides insurance guarantees against the astronomical cost of worst-case-scenario accidents that no private insurance company could afford. The government only steps in to pay if there is an accident where public damages exceed $10 billion.
From Price-anderson Act:
"The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first $10 billion is industry-funded as described in the Act (any claims above the $10 billion would be covered by the federal government). Power reactor licensees are required by the act to obtain the maximum amount of insurance against nuclear related incidents which is available in the insurance market (as of 2005[update], $300 million per plant). Any monetary claims that fall within this maximum amount are paid by the insurer(s). The Price-Anderson fund, which is financed by the reactor companies themselves, is then used to make up the difference. Each reactor company is obliged to contribute up to $111.9 million in the event of an accident. As of 2008[update], the maximum amount of the fund is approximately $11.6 billion if all of the reactor companies were required to pay their full obligation to the fund."
How about just outlaw trial lawyers. You can spend all the millions you like on legal advice, prep, research, etc, but when it comes to the trial you have to represent yourself.
That's not a shelter, it's just two coconuts and he's banging them together!
I would argue that people don't know when to doubt, and when to believe.
Which scientists do they believe when it comes to Autism and vaccines? Which scientist to believe when it comes to global warming? It is just they have more insight into the infighting that is present into the community now.
The infighting has ALWAYS been there. When I was in graduate school I never saw a larger bunch of petty people whining over who was the bigger fish in there tiny ponds.
You believe the theory that has observations to prove it works. Not the scientist. Pretty simple if you ask me.
I would highly suggest watching this lecture by Dr. Richard Lindzen. He describes precisely how the field has become so politicized and corrupt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw
Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science?
-Peter
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 1961.
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite."
Luckily, Slashdot already has a great automatic, built-in political viewpoint filtering system. It goes from, on the Liberal side, to a maximum of +5 (there are many degrees of liberalism so it needs that many points). And on the Conservative side, simply the other direction, to -1. To see only liberal comments, set your filter to only show comments ranked at +5! And to see the conservative comments, set it to -1! Simple and reliable!
And only if your gross yearly income (as a single adult) is less than $50,000. After that, you can't deduct anything.
The problem is getting the reactor into orbit in the first place. If you have a Challenger-style problem with the launch, then you can end up distributing fissile materials over a rather large area. Once the reactor is in orbit, no one cares.
Reactors made for space are loaded with fresh (not radioactive) fuel and designed in such a way that they can't become critical until specifically signaled to do so. If the launch fails, all that will fall to Earth will be a few kilograms of Uranium dust over tens of thousands square miles.
Reactors made for space are loaded with fresh (not radioactive) fuel and designed in such a way that they can't become critical until specifically signaled to do so. If the launch fails, all that will fall to Earth will be a few kilograms of Uranium dust over tens of thousands square miles.
For me it is more like this:
Me: My internet is out. I tried rebooting my cable modem but it is not obtaining an IP address.
Tech: Sir, please turn off your cable modem and computer and wait 10 seconds.
Me: OK I turned off my modem and router.
Tech: Did you turn off your computer?
Me: No, I'm running something important on it and can't reboot it at the moment.
Tech: Sir, you must turn off your computer for me to fix your problem.
Me: OK, which computer should I turn off? I have two and a laptop connected to the router.
Tech, increasingly agitated: Sir, please turn off your computer.
Me: Can you just proceed to the next step in your procedure? I am telling you that turning off one of the three computers connected to my router will have no effect on the ability of the cable modem to make a connection.
Tech: Sir, please turn off your computer. It is the only way to fix the problem.
Me: Can I speak to a level 2 technician?
Tech: There is no such thing.
Me: Well I was just on the phone with him 10 minutes ago.
Tech: There is no level 2 technician. I don't know what you are talking aboug.
Me: Can I talk to your supervisor please?
Tech: There is no supervisor.
Me: What is your name please?
Tech: Hold on one minute sir.
*click*
Me: *@#%$@*#$)@# comcast.
The reserves are a lot more than that. We wouldn't even have to mine any more uranium. Theoretically, using breeder reactors, we could supply the entire US's energy demand for thousands of years, using only the depleted uranium already processed and sitting around unused (as byproduct of the enrichment process).
It still seems there's got to be SOME use for it.. even if it's just pre-heating water for a conventional steam turbine.
The maximum decay heat an average spent fuel pool is licensed for is 5-10 MW. However, this amount of decay heat is only generated right after a core offload. The fuel decay heat decreases exponentially, so over time the average decay heat generated over a long period is much lower. That, combined with the fact that the spent fuel pool is at atmospheric pressure, the efficiency would be very low ( 10%). The most useful power you could possibly get would be a few kilowatts, which is not worth the effort.
Car analogy: It would be like trying to design and build a stirling engine connected to your radiator to recharge your battery. The amount of energy you get out of it is negligible compared to the cost of implementation.
Well just so you know, I live in Belgium and if I want to get my paperwork to travel to the US I have to CALL the US embassy (I cannot just go there, no sir, we're all terrorist here in Europe, you see) and without so much as getting a human operator to respond, like to - I don't know, ask me what the hell I want - I just have to hand over my CC number so I can be charged xx dollars, just to get them to make an appointment.
I find that very disturbing, off putting and blatantly rude... It is not because the US can do that that it bloody should. I do not want to go to the US but sometimes the circumstances force me to, but when I do I am treated like a piece of s**t with no rights... It really makes me want to go through all the hassle of getting my visa, then canceling my card and getting a new one.
Maybe try the Mexican embassy next time, that might be easier ;)
What will Japan's power consumption be in 10 to 20 years? They're having so few kids the population should be plummeting soon.
We don't need more power, Mr. Scotty. We need FEWER PEOPLE. Pollution would be less of a problem if there were fewer people creating it. Cutting emissions, conserving and finding cleaner sources of energy while all very good... won't mean shit if our growth is still horrifically out of control. With a smaller population we'd have more resources per person and less waste generated.
Similarly, there are no food or water shortages... there ARE places of the world that that too many people for the available resources. If we have 1 gallon per person per day at a population of 100,000... we'd have 2 gallons per person per day if the population of 50,000.
i'm not talking about killing off people or even letting them die. i'm talking about getting the population to something that is sustainable. The quantity of life is going to start seriously farking with our quality of life... and THEN with the quantity. If we don't get it under control we're going to have more wars, more droughts, more everything that sucks.
"easier said than done"
Really? No kidding! Can i have your autograph before you win the Nobel Prize for Pointing out the Obvious?
"But that's mean"
Mean is kids dying of starvation because their parents had too many kids. Mean will be wars over water.
Fear-mongers have made claims like this every decade for CENTURIES, and they have never once been even remotely accurate. Furthermore, this line of thinking is dangerous. Your ideas have been the basis for many moral outrages in recent times, from the Stalin and Mao genocides of ~50 million people (ten times more than the holocaust) to involuntary euthanasia and abortion programs in our own country.
We do need more energy. More energy means more food, more water, and the ability to transport that food and water anywhere. More government control over our lives has never produces anything but misery and suffering.
Dems already call people who disagree with the healthcare reform plan terrorists
False. Shutting down town hall meetings != disagreeing with the healthcare reform plan.
It's still hyperbole to call them "terrorists", but don't pretend the people Congressman Hill was referring to were merely expressing an opposing viewpoint -- their mission is to stifle debate and intimidate their opponents, just like the folks who've been brandishing guns outside the events.
I totally agree. Calling Union thugs and ACORN workers, whom are bussed in to local town halls to fill up all the available seats and boo/shout down/intimidate/physically assault local residents whom ask critical questions of their representative, aren't really terrorists. I can't think of a better word for what to call them off the top of my head. Perhaps we can look into recent history to where such behavior has occurred before.
Why in the hell couldn't GM have just come out with a normal 50MPG car that didn't suck ass like the Metro? That would sell well and be a ton cheaper to make.
GM's purpose is not to sell cars people want to buy, but to push a political agenda.
If I was a betting man, I wouldn't bet on GM being around in 10 years.
Sheldon
When's the last time the government ever cut a program or subsidy? Hell, we still have a subsidy to goat herders for mohair to make WW1 uniforms.
Now that GM has fully transitioned from company-that-makes-cars-for-profit into union-employment-welfare-program, it will never go away unless the government itself does.
My guess would be:
a) Placebo affect / just your imagination / bias
b) freezing
c) preservatives
Was this in 1979 or 1980? That year, a large number of nuclear engineering students decided it would be prudent to change majors. As a result there is a huge age gap in the industry. Where I work, everyone is either my age (24-28) or nearing retirement (>45) with nothing in between.
My Freshman year at college, I had about 15 classmates I think. This is at a big state school. My senior year, there were so many students in the nuke program that they had to split all the sections.
Of course global warming is a political issue. Any issue which calls for governments to do something is a political issue. Claiming that global warming is not a political issue is about as disingenuous as claiming that intelligent design is not about religion.
Name one global warming activist whom does not think that the solution to the problem is to enact strict world wide government control on first world economies. Name on global warming activist that thinks that the best way to reduce CO2 emissions would be to encourage China, India, and other developing nations to adopt freedom and capitalism, so that their economies can progress as quickly as possible into the green tech era.