Actually I think what he meant was the expectation in the 50's that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter". If that had turned out to be true then you wouldn't be paying for electricity by the kilowatt-hour, but by paying some small average cost to cover the construction costs.
Nuclear (uranium and plutonium) energy sources are scarce and hard to get to. One of the big reasons we're in Afghanistan is because they have huge uranium deposits there.
Actually Uranium is quite common in the earth's crust, and is even in significant quantities in the ocean. The two largest producers of Uranium are Australia and Canada. As far as I know, there is no Uranium mining in Afghanistan. Maybe you were thinking of Kazakhstan, which is the third largest producer.
Actually AT&T's plans in the US start at $40/mo for 5 MB a month as well. It's pretty ridiculous that any carrier would offer such a plan, knowing full well that you would violate that limit visiting just a few web pages.
I recently bought an EEE PC and enrolled in my cell carrier's data plan to allow tethering. It's great, I love being able to connect to the net relatively securely from anywhere. And it makes a great backup in case my home cable modem goes out. The problem is, I only use it occasionally, and most carriers have outrageous plans.
For someone who is interested in cellular internet in the US, what are your choices?
Verizon: $60/mo on top of voice plan, 5 GB/mo limit, service explicitly limited to "internet browsing and e-mail only". AT&T: $60/mo on top of voice plan, 5 GB/mo limit, poor access unless you live in a major city, can have your contract terminated for violation of service whenever they feel like it. Sprint: $50/mo on top of voice plan. Apparently no bandwidth or usage limits. T-Mobile: No 3g service. Alltel: $25/mo on top of voice plan (or $10/mo on top of PDA plan), no bandwidth or service limits.
Since Alltel was bought by Verizon, it seems like Sprint is the only way to go for cellular internet. I currently have Alltel, and am considering extending my data contract for 2 years to at least enjoy it while it lasts.
Heh, I'm the complete opposite, I almost never answer my phone. Most of the time I prefer voicemail so I can get to it when I am free, instead of annoying people in public or the office like a jackass.
How do we warn people 10,000 years in the future about our nuclear waste dumps? We don't because we don't have to because we don't have to store waste for 10,000 years.
It is possible to reprocess fuel to remove the actinides, which have a long decay time, and recycle them into new fuel. The remaining radioactive waste has a much shorter decay time, on the order of a few hundred years.
But while we're on the subject of theories, my own pet theory is that aside from the fact that few people today can be bothered to actually study typing, the height of desktops is mostly to blame. They're just too damned high. While the height does offset the too-low monitor problem, trying to type properly at that height is, if not next to impossible [ibm.com], then definitely problematic.
I totally agree with you here. My desk at work is nice and low, which allows me to type all day without any discomfort. However, my desk at home is of a more conventional, taller height. At home, I end up either slouching in my chair to match my monitor/keyboard's height, or I fook up my wrists trying to type at a non-ergonomic position.
Actually, there were no statistical increase in deformities or birth defects among children in the region following the Chernobyl accident. The media portrayed some deformed children and cried about how they were the result of radiation, however, deformed children are born all around the world regardless of radiation levels.
Besides the casualties during the immediate aftermath of the disaster, it was predicted that somewhere around 4000 people may die prematurely due to cancer from radiation exposure released by the reactor. However, there is no way to distinguish these people from the regular incidence of cancer in the general population.
2.4 million people may have been "affected" by the radiation, but this ranges from low to negligible doses that have no statistical link to cancer or birth defects. Many people around the world live in areas of high natural background radiation, far higher then those exposed by fallout from Chernobyl, and suffer no increase cancer risk.
So, Crichton's claim is not intellectually dishonest at all. Your grouping of his opinions to those of Nazi's, holocaust deniers, etc, in a vein effort to discredit him, is however a prime example of intellectual dishonesty and is the reason why it is so difficult to have a discussion on political+scientific issues.
What if, instead of money, it were a more valuable, irreplaceable item? Such as, a family member?
You may practice your pacifistic creed by all means, but please don't force the rest of us to be defenseless because you are too narrow-minded to foresee other situations then the cliche mugger-in-a-dark-alley scenario (VA Tech comes to mind, great lot of good that gun-free zone did).
Scalia's reasoning is just brilliant. Take for example this snippet:
In any event, the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war--an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque.
You can't "burn" thorium, it is not fissile. It is fertile however, and can be turned into U-233. U-233 creates pretty much the same fission products as U-235.
The safety of the reactor and integrity of the core is not dependent on the fuel type really. It is more about plant design and operator training.
I'd like to hear what the pro-nuclear slashdotters would do to alleviate the cost- and corner-cutting that would inevitably happen in a power plant run by a private company. The regulatory measures that are in place today have done a good job for the most part. There have has been a couple bad apples, but so far they have all been weeded out. As time goes on, administrative and technical expertise grows, leading to a decrease in the chance of an accident occuring. This is especially true as the large, successful energy companies gobble up the reactors owned by the independent, small ones.
If it isn't economical for big businesses, which have the advantage of infrastructure and economies of scale, how could it be economical for individuals?
To answer my own question -- government subsidies. Without government handouts, no one would even consider solar power (except for people wanting to live off-the-grid or hippies, etc). So in reality, solar power is NOT economical for individuals, you are just simply getting reduced-cost power at the expense of others.
I have no idea where you are getting your info from, but you are completely wrong. Thorium is fertile and can be transmuted into U-233, but you can't make a critical mass with thorium alone. Further, U-233 is fissile and can be made into a bomb just as easily as U-235. The US even tested one in the 50's, see Operation Teapot.
We have enough depletion uranium sitting in barrels -- a byproduct of the enrichment process -- to supply 100% of the US's energy needs for 500 years using fast reactors. I.e., we have enough fuel to supply all our energy for the foreseeable future, without having to lift a single shovel.
Actually we have already enough depleted uranium, sitting unused in storage at enrichment facilities, to supply 100% of the US's energy needs for hundreds of years using fast reactors.
There is another type of reactor that is passively safe, but uses existing light-water technology. It is called the ESBWR. The problem with pebble beds is that there is no industry experience with them, and the cost of designing, testing, researching, manufacturing, and licensing a whole new design is too costly to be worthwhile in the short-term.
The ESBWR is just as passively save as pebble-beds are, but uses a more conventional BWR configuration. It uses natural circulation and has large pools of above-grade water for emergency cooling. The design is so robust that it requires no operator interaction for 72 hours in case of an emergency, and even after that time only minimal action is required.
I hope so. Currently with Alltel, I can tether my phone to my laptop (an EEE PC) and get cellular internet access with DSL speeds anywhere in the City, and even out in the boonies. All this, for no extra monthly fee. Alltel lets you (or tolerates, anyway) using data without a data plan, it just uses your anytime minutes (which are unlimited on nights and weekends). This is great for me, since I only occasionally want to connect to the net wirelessly.
What other cell phone company offers such a convenient and fair offering? I think this may be the end of my ability to wirelessly surf without paying more per month then I do for my cable modem.
I wonder how long it will be before the RIAA files a reverse-class-action lawsuit, e.g. RIAA vs. The Students of x University. If they prove just one student at the university pirated music, they get to collect $1000 from each student in damages, which is payed by the University and passed on to students as increased tuition. *shiver*
Surely the causes of Viet-Nam war is debatable. I think one of the factors leading to the conflict was the communist Chinese giving a million rifles, ammo, and other weapons to the NVA free of charge, essentially a wink and a nod to "go get em". The French were fighting the NVA long before the US got officially involved.
You can debate who were the good guys and who were the bad guys all day long. You can argue that it was wrong for the US to install a democracy-friendly puppet government in south Viet-Nam, but you would be hypocritical to simultaneously ignore the communist-backed puppet government of north Viet-Nam. My original point though, that the US was not war mongering and did not start the war, is still valid.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I think what he meant was the expectation in the 50's that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter". If that had turned out to be true then you wouldn't be paying for electricity by the kilowatt-hour, but by paying some small average cost to cover the construction costs.
Actually they can be built pretty much anywhere. Right next to a big city, on the ocean, ON the ocean, on a river, or yes, even in the middle of the desert.
Actually Uranium is quite common in the earth's crust, and is even in significant quantities in the ocean. The two largest producers of Uranium are Australia and Canada. As far as I know, there is no Uranium mining in Afghanistan. Maybe you were thinking of Kazakhstan, which is the third largest producer.
Actually AT&T's plans in the US start at $40/mo for 5 MB a month as well. It's pretty ridiculous that any carrier would offer such a plan, knowing full well that you would violate that limit visiting just a few web pages.
I recently bought an EEE PC and enrolled in my cell carrier's data plan to allow tethering. It's great, I love being able to connect to the net relatively securely from anywhere. And it makes a great backup in case my home cable modem goes out. The problem is, I only use it occasionally, and most carriers have outrageous plans.
For someone who is interested in cellular internet in the US, what are your choices?
Verizon: $60/mo on top of voice plan, 5 GB/mo limit, service explicitly limited to "internet browsing and e-mail only".
AT&T: $60/mo on top of voice plan, 5 GB/mo limit, poor access unless you live in a major city, can have your contract terminated for violation of service whenever they feel like it.
Sprint: $50/mo on top of voice plan. Apparently no bandwidth or usage limits.
T-Mobile: No 3g service.
Alltel: $25/mo on top of voice plan (or $10/mo on top of PDA plan), no bandwidth or service limits.
Since Alltel was bought by Verizon, it seems like Sprint is the only way to go for cellular internet. I currently have Alltel, and am considering extending my data contract for 2 years to at least enjoy it while it lasts.
Alltel, until they are acquired by Verizon :( has a service that converts your voicemails into text messages and sends them to you for a small fee.
Heh, I'm the complete opposite, I almost never answer my phone. Most of the time I prefer voicemail so I can get to it when I am free, instead of annoying people in public or the office like a jackass.
How do we warn people 10,000 years in the future about our nuclear waste dumps? We don't because we don't have to because we don't have to store waste for 10,000 years.
It is possible to reprocess fuel to remove the actinides, which have a long decay time, and recycle them into new fuel. The remaining radioactive waste has a much shorter decay time, on the order of a few hundred years.
Pink text on green background.
This combination is so vibrant that it burns the code into your brain, allowing you to better visualize your program.
That, or give you a seizure.
I totally agree with you here. My desk at work is nice and low, which allows me to type all day without any discomfort. However, my desk at home is of a more conventional, taller height. At home, I end up either slouching in my chair to match my monitor/keyboard's height, or I fook up my wrists trying to type at a non-ergonomic position.
Actually, there were no statistical increase in deformities or birth defects among children in the region following the Chernobyl accident. The media portrayed some deformed children and cried about how they were the result of radiation, however, deformed children are born all around the world regardless of radiation levels.
Besides the casualties during the immediate aftermath of the disaster, it was predicted that somewhere around 4000 people may die prematurely due to cancer from radiation exposure released by the reactor. However, there is no way to distinguish these people from the regular incidence of cancer in the general population.
2.4 million people may have been "affected" by the radiation, but this ranges from low to negligible doses that have no statistical link to cancer or birth defects. Many people around the world live in areas of high natural background radiation, far higher then those exposed by fallout from Chernobyl, and suffer no increase cancer risk.
So, Crichton's claim is not intellectually dishonest at all. Your grouping of his opinions to those of Nazi's, holocaust deniers, etc, in a vein effort to discredit him, is however a prime example of intellectual dishonesty and is the reason why it is so difficult to have a discussion on political+scientific issues.
What if, instead of money, it were a more valuable, irreplaceable item? Such as, a family member?
You may practice your pacifistic creed by all means, but please don't force the rest of us to be defenseless because you are too narrow-minded to foresee other situations then the cliche mugger-in-a-dark-alley scenario (VA Tech comes to mind, great lot of good that gun-free zone did).
Scalia's reasoning is just brilliant. Take for example this snippet:
You can't "burn" thorium, it is not fissile. It is fertile however, and can be turned into U-233. U-233 creates pretty much the same fission products as U-235.
The safety of the reactor and integrity of the core is not dependent on the fuel type really. It is more about plant design and operator training.
If it isn't economical for big businesses, which have the advantage of infrastructure and economies of scale, how could it be economical for individuals?
To answer my own question -- government subsidies. Without government handouts, no one would even consider solar power (except for people wanting to live off-the-grid or hippies, etc). So in reality, solar power is NOT economical for individuals, you are just simply getting reduced-cost power at the expense of others.
You selfish jerk.
Actually power can be (and is) transmitted over long distances (hundreds of miles) with low losses using high-voltage DC.
I have no idea where you are getting your info from, but you are completely wrong. Thorium is fertile and can be transmuted into U-233, but you can't make a critical mass with thorium alone. Further, U-233 is fissile and can be made into a bomb just as easily as U-235. The US even tested one in the 50's, see Operation Teapot.
I agree with your sentiments however.
We have enough depletion uranium sitting in barrels -- a byproduct of the enrichment process -- to supply 100% of the US's energy needs for 500 years using fast reactors. I.e., we have enough fuel to supply all our energy for the foreseeable future, without having to lift a single shovel.
Actually we have already enough depleted uranium, sitting unused in storage at enrichment facilities, to supply 100% of the US's energy needs for hundreds of years using fast reactors.
There is another type of reactor that is passively safe, but uses existing light-water technology. It is called the ESBWR. The problem with pebble beds is that there is no industry experience with them, and the cost of designing, testing, researching, manufacturing, and licensing a whole new design is too costly to be worthwhile in the short-term.
The ESBWR is just as passively save as pebble-beds are, but uses a more conventional BWR configuration. It uses natural circulation and has large pools of above-grade water for emergency cooling. The design is so robust that it requires no operator interaction for 72 hours in case of an emergency, and even after that time only minimal action is required.
I hope so. Currently with Alltel, I can tether my phone to my laptop (an EEE PC) and get cellular internet access with DSL speeds anywhere in the City, and even out in the boonies. All this, for no extra monthly fee. Alltel lets you (or tolerates, anyway) using data without a data plan, it just uses your anytime minutes (which are unlimited on nights and weekends). This is great for me, since I only occasionally want to connect to the net wirelessly.
What other cell phone company offers such a convenient and fair offering? I think this may be the end of my ability to wirelessly surf without paying more per month then I do for my cable modem.
Oblig.
http://xkcd.com/378/
I wonder how long it will be before the RIAA files a reverse-class-action lawsuit, e.g. RIAA vs. The Students of x University. If they prove just one student at the university pirated music, they get to collect $1000 from each student in damages, which is payed by the University and passed on to students as increased tuition. *shiver*
Surely the causes of Viet-Nam war is debatable. I think one of the factors leading to the conflict was the communist Chinese giving a million rifles, ammo, and other weapons to the NVA free of charge, essentially a wink and a nod to "go get em". The French were fighting the NVA long before the US got officially involved.
You can debate who were the good guys and who were the bad guys all day long. You can argue that it was wrong for the US to install a democracy-friendly puppet government in south Viet-Nam, but you would be hypocritical to simultaneously ignore the communist-backed puppet government of north Viet-Nam. My original point though, that the US was not war mongering and did not start the war, is still valid.