Meltdown doesn't have to be a risk, newer designs are on the
boards which are passively and walk away safe. Many of these
don't even require pressurized cooling systems because
the coolant fluid isn't heated (some use unusual fluids like
salt, sodium, lead). In the case of sodium, the inner parts
of the reactor would avoid fire hazard by being filled
with inert gas (maybe nitrogen or helium). Waste also is
less of a problem because the newer designs have a higher
average neutron energy and tend to burn up more of
the waste. They also have an advantage of breeding more
fuel but do it in a way that's very difficult to impossible
to remove the Pu to make weapons (pyronuclear processing)
because all the different isotopes are mixed up.
Ok, never mind the IFR
The point I'm trying to make (and you seem to be also saying)
is that there is some good hope for advanced nuclear designs that will be
1. passively safe thus being much cheaper than the more dangerous water
types we have no where ever single weld has to be xrayed and inspected
because the coolant is at such a high pressure and because the loss
of pressure is so dangerous
2 not have waste that has to be sequestered for 10s of thousands of
years but rather burned up in the reactor leaving a smaller amount
of waste that can be buried a shorter time.
3 use fuel species that there's more of or that can be bred
Amazing, I was jokingly thinking "I wonder how long it will
take to drift into referring to Bush" even though flaming
Dell laptops have nothing to do with Bush.
Advanced nuclear designs can fix the whole nuclear waste problem,
too bad the Clinton admin killed off the Integral Fast reactor.
With advanced nuclear designs like IFR, you get
1) walk away safety (the reactor is passively stable)
2) little waste problems
3) pyronuclear processing of waste.
4) little to no chance of proliferation because the
interesting Pu isotopes for bombs are all intermixed
with very radioactive waste products
5) gets more of the energy out of the fuel than
old water reactor designs that bury the most of the
waste (and the energy).
Yucca mountain doesn't have to be an issue anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
Mark
My favorite pistol eye-roller is when the actor runs out of
bullets and reloads the revolver. While the cylinder is out
of the pistol frame, he gives the cylinder a spin and of course
you hear that buzzing sound.
There are legal reasons this is useful. By putting a lock on there, a thief in
court can't say "Your honor, I didn't know it was trespassing, I thought it was
a public area". Just like I don't lock my door because I actually think
the dumb door lock would really stop someone that wanted to get in.
It raises the legal severity from simple trespass to breaking and entering.
"black hole with the mass of billion suns would have a dameter=3 billion km or 1000 times our solar system"
You think the solar system is 3 million km wide? It's more like 12 billion km wide if you use the
orbit of pluto which is 39.5 AUs in radius.
Mark
Another really good point about this kind of energy source is that
a fuel powered system creates just as much power at the last second
before it runs out of fuel as it did when it had a full tank.
With a chemical battery you have real problems using that last
bit of energy because the voltage and other factors of the battery
change radically as the battery is drained. So you need complicated
regulation circuitry to even do it well.
>If we die, it will be immensely harder for anything to ever reach the levels
>we've reached, because we've taken all of the easy >resources, and there's a
>time limit for resources to be re-created before the sun renders the planet
>uninhabitable. You might have >time to have fresh oil reserves, but there's
>not much time for fresh mineral reserves.)
Why? All the mineral reserves we've used are still here on the earth,
the only metal we've mined that isn't here are the few tons
sent as probes or rockets to outer space. The next advanced civilization
could mine our junk yards, dumps, and cities. Some of the junk metal get rusted
away and dissolved in the ocean (old ships) so I'd admit that's hard
to get at.
Also, the big reason nuclear has been historically more expensive is because
making light water reactors safe enough requires complex safety equipment,
expensive containment vessels and thick piping to hold in high pressure
fluids. There are much safer and cheaper systems that use zero
pressure working fluids like sodium, molten salt or lead that are walk away safe,
passively convectively cooled if the cooling loop fails and so
on. Mostly it's just a lack of political will to re-educate
people against the idea that nuclear power is risky. Also the
whole Yucca mountain controversy can be put away because the
advanced nuclear systems burn up the nucleotides in place leaving
only the very short lived stuff that dies off quickly with
no need to bury waste for thousands of years. Using
Pyroprocessing you can even make proliferation of the
breeded fuel to make weapons impractical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
The supernova that made the Cas A remnant is estimated at 1665AD or so.
There was so much dust in the way that no one even saw it with
the possible exception of the astronomer Flamsteed who recorded
what he thought was a normal star there but when we look there
today there's no star of the brightness Flamsteed saw.
Dust can really dim a supernova so much that we don't see
it, but since we're looking around with even neutrinos and radio
that dust doesn't stop it'll be detected even if it's on the far side of
the Galaxy.
Sort of like one of the classic SNL skits "masterbrain" was the one where
Reagan was totally in control of the Contra situation, speaking fluent arabic to
banking contacts to finance the whole thing, doing all the
calculations on money on a accountant calculator (or in his head) and
keeping all the rest of the cabinet in the dark.
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/86/86fmasterbrain.pht ml
But at the same time the people claiming that
Reagan did run the whole contra affair were also saying he was a
senile, naive fool.
There was this guy named Bob Lazar that's frequently on UFO conspiracy shows
that said he also once worked at Los Alamos and then was at Area 51 working
on UFO propulsion. Is that the same guy? I'd guess the age is about the
same. The reporters looking into the UFO Bob Lazar had trouble verifying
he ever worked at Los Alamos at a high level.
The US has done pretty well with NOT radically cutting down
forest, at least recently. We still have 75% of the forest land area as there
was in the 1600's and forested area has been about
constant at 300 million hectares since 1920 and
nearly all the cutting down happened in the 19th century
(note the first chart and the paragraph
after "Characteristics of Forest Land"
http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/m1103.htm
Of course someone can argue issues about whether tree
farms that make up more of that area than years ago
with a lower bio diversity are as good as
natural forest, or produce as much 02 or remove
as much CO2 and so on.
This is because those multimedia formats are not open, the open formats like ogg are setup by Fedora. Red Hat refuses to auto-install any non-open software for legal reasons. Also Linux takes more CD's to install for a good reason, Windows just gives you the binaries, lots of the CD space in Fedora is taken up with source code.
Ok, the legal services say DNA profiles are needed for ID'ing suspects and there's some validity to that point. But the privacy people have a point to that the full DNA of a person can cause problems with privacy about possible diseases that person will get and so on. In computer science, it's possible to very strongly identify a file via a long enough MD5 or SHA1 checksum, but the checksum itself doesn't deterministically allow you to recreate the actual file from just the checksum. Why can't the persons DNA be sent to a disinterested third party (a testing center), which would read the DNA (or even better a unique set of DNA sections that are known not to transcribe proteins related to known diseases but transcribe mostly boring things like hair color, etc), translate the GCTA's into a standard data representation (say 00,01,10, 11 in bits) and then checksum that. That checksum would then go to the court to ID the suspect in the case. The odds that any two random people would have the same DNA checksum would be tiny value like 0.000000001% but privacy dangerous info would ever be in the hands of the police.
The main problem would be making sure the original sample wasn't stolen and retained under the covers.
Slashdot Mirror
correction That should have been "...because the coolant fluid isn't heated beyond it's boiling point" The working fluid definitely is heated
Meltdown doesn't have to be a risk, newer designs are on the boards which are passively and walk away safe. Many of these don't even require pressurized cooling systems because the coolant fluid isn't heated (some use unusual fluids like salt, sodium, lead). In the case of sodium, the inner parts of the reactor would avoid fire hazard by being filled with inert gas (maybe nitrogen or helium). Waste also is less of a problem because the newer designs have a higher average neutron energy and tend to burn up more of the waste. They also have an advantage of breeding more fuel but do it in a way that's very difficult to impossible to remove the Pu to make weapons (pyronuclear processing) because all the different isotopes are mixed up.
Ok, never mind the IFR The point I'm trying to make (and you seem to be also saying) is that there is some good hope for advanced nuclear designs that will be 1. passively safe thus being much cheaper than the more dangerous water types we have no where ever single weld has to be xrayed and inspected because the coolant is at such a high pressure and because the loss of pressure is so dangerous 2 not have waste that has to be sequestered for 10s of thousands of years but rather burned up in the reactor leaving a smaller amount of waste that can be buried a shorter time. 3 use fuel species that there's more of or that can be bred
Amazing, I was jokingly thinking "I wonder how long it will take to drift into referring to Bush" even though flaming Dell laptops have nothing to do with Bush.
Advanced nuclear designs can fix the whole nuclear waste problem, too bad the Clinton admin killed off the Integral Fast reactor. With advanced nuclear designs like IFR, you get 1) walk away safety (the reactor is passively stable) 2) little waste problems 3) pyronuclear processing of waste. 4) little to no chance of proliferation because the interesting Pu isotopes for bombs are all intermixed with very radioactive waste products 5) gets more of the energy out of the fuel than old water reactor designs that bury the most of the waste (and the energy). Yucca mountain doesn't have to be an issue anymore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
Mark
Or well-placed to discourage strikes FROM Iran
My favorite pistol eye-roller is when the actor runs out of bullets and reloads the revolver. While the cylinder is out of the pistol frame, he gives the cylinder a spin and of course you hear that buzzing sound.
It will if the property is on the bank of a river right where it's entering the ocean.
Where'd you get the US GDP being 2 Trillion? The number I've heard is more like 13.5 trillion:
There are legal reasons this is useful. By putting a lock on there, a thief in court can't say "Your honor, I didn't know it was trespassing, I thought it was a public area". Just like I don't lock my door because I actually think the dumb door lock would really stop someone that wanted to get in. It raises the legal severity from simple trespass to breaking and entering.
"black hole with the mass of billion suns would have a dameter=3 billion km or 1000 times our solar system" You think the solar system is 3 million km wide? It's more like 12 billion km wide if you use the orbit of pluto which is 39.5 AUs in radius. Mark
Another really good point about this kind of energy source is that a fuel powered system creates just as much power at the last second before it runs out of fuel as it did when it had a full tank. With a chemical battery you have real problems using that last bit of energy because the voltage and other factors of the battery change radically as the battery is drained. So you need complicated regulation circuitry to even do it well.
>If we die, it will be immensely harder for anything to ever reach the levels >we've reached, because we've taken all of the easy >resources, and there's a >time limit for resources to be re-created before the sun renders the planet >uninhabitable. You might have >time to have fresh oil reserves, but there's >not much time for fresh mineral reserves.) Why? All the mineral reserves we've used are still here on the earth, the only metal we've mined that isn't here are the few tons sent as probes or rockets to outer space. The next advanced civilization could mine our junk yards, dumps, and cities. Some of the junk metal get rusted away and dissolved in the ocean (old ships) so I'd admit that's hard to get at.
Also, the big reason nuclear has been historically more expensive is because making light water reactors safe enough requires complex safety equipment, expensive containment vessels and thick piping to hold in high pressure fluids. There are much safer and cheaper systems that use zero pressure working fluids like sodium, molten salt or lead that are walk away safe, passively convectively cooled if the cooling loop fails and so on. Mostly it's just a lack of political will to re-educate people against the idea that nuclear power is risky. Also the whole Yucca mountain controversy can be put away because the advanced nuclear systems burn up the nucleotides in place leaving only the very short lived stuff that dies off quickly with no need to bury waste for thousands of years. Using Pyroprocessing you can even make proliferation of the breeded fuel to make weapons impractical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
The supernova that made the Cas A remnant is estimated at 1665AD or so. There was so much dust in the way that no one even saw it with the possible exception of the astronomer Flamsteed who recorded what he thought was a normal star there but when we look there today there's no star of the brightness Flamsteed saw. Dust can really dim a supernova so much that we don't see it, but since we're looking around with even neutrinos and radio that dust doesn't stop it'll be detected even if it's on the far side of the Galaxy.
Sort of like one of the classic SNL skits "masterbrain" was the one where Reagan was totally in control of the Contra situation, speaking fluent arabic to banking contacts to finance the whole thing, doing all the calculations on money on a accountant calculator (or in his head) and keeping all the rest of the cabinet in the dark. http://snltranscripts.jt.org/86/86fmasterbrain.pht ml
But at the same time the people claiming that
Reagan did run the whole contra affair were also saying he was a
senile, naive fool.
The shield could be made so that the amount of sun blockage is changable, that way it could be tweaked depending on the results to the climate.
RTFA, the money amount was 10.3 MILLION not Billion MS
There was this guy named Bob Lazar that's frequently on UFO conspiracy shows that said he also once worked at Los Alamos and then was at Area 51 working on UFO propulsion. Is that the same guy? I'd guess the age is about the same. The reporters looking into the UFO Bob Lazar had trouble verifying he ever worked at Los Alamos at a high level.
So you're using "Friends of the Earth" as a source URL ? They might be kind of biased.
The US has done pretty well with NOT radically cutting down forest, at least recently. We still have 75% of the forest land area as there was in the 1600's and forested area has been about constant at 300 million hectares since 1920 and nearly all the cutting down happened in the 19th century (note the first chart and the paragraph after "Characteristics of Forest Land" http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/m1103.htm Of course someone can argue issues about whether tree farms that make up more of that area than years ago with a lower bio diversity are as good as natural forest, or produce as much 02 or remove as much CO2 and so on.
This is because those multimedia formats are not open, the open
formats like ogg are setup by Fedora. Red Hat refuses to auto-install
any non-open software for legal reasons.
Also Linux takes more CD's to install for a good reason, Windows
just gives you the binaries, lots of the CD space in Fedora is
taken up with source code.
Ok, the legal services say DNA profiles are needed for ID'ing suspects and there's some validity to that point. But the privacy people have a point to that the full DNA of a person can cause problems with privacy about possible diseases that person will get and so on. In computer science, it's possible to very strongly identify a file via a long enough MD5 or SHA1 checksum, but the checksum itself doesn't deterministically allow you to recreate the actual file from just the checksum. Why can't the persons DNA be sent to a disinterested third party (a testing center), which would read the DNA (or even better a unique set of DNA sections that are known not to transcribe proteins related to known diseases but transcribe mostly boring things like hair color, etc), translate the GCTA's into a standard data representation (say 00,01,10, 11 in bits) and then checksum that. That checksum would then go to the court to ID the suspect in the case. The odds that any two random people would have the same DNA checksum would be tiny value like 0.000000001% but privacy dangerous info would ever be in the hands of the police. The main problem would be making sure the original sample wasn't stolen and retained under the covers.
Normal fission doesn't have to have long lived products either if you use a integral fast reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
Mark