Even the most cursory research will show you that the nuclear industry has significant CFC *greenhouse* gas emissions used in the enrichment process. Dig a little deeper and you will find the US enrichment is driven my coal generating facilities.
The failure to tolerate the most straight forward introspection shows that the nuclear fanbois out there do more damage to the Nuclear Industry than anyone, preventing any significant progress to the industry. No facts, no reason, no argument - every single time.
Obviously the problem here is that not enough plants are being built, not that there is a problem with the energy source itself.
The article, however, does its best to make this seem like a negative for the power source.
It is not an article, it is the peer reviewed science that was used by the European Parliament and other credible bodies. This is what scientific research on the Nuclear Industry found.
to attribute all of the energy going into uranium enrichment and other accociated energy needs to energy produced from CO2 emitting sources when a nuclear power plant produces electricity at vastly greater scales then what is required for these things.
*IF* it was able to extract the potential energy there instead of the 0.3% that reactor technology can extract.
I'll admit though, after two completely bogus claims I stopped reading so maybe that site has something that stands up to simple reasoning somewhere in its contents.
And what do you offer to back up the claim that the actual science is bogus? FYI, these are the Universities internationally that contributed to the report. Australia. University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, Monash University, Belgium. NPX Research Leuven, IMEC Leuven, Germany. Universität Regensburg, Öko Institut Darmstadt, Italy. University of Florence, Netherlands. University of Utrecht, Technical University Eindhoven, ECN Petten, Singapore. National University of Singapore, Spain. Bank of Spain Economics
Switzerland. CERN Geneva, ETH Zürich
UK. Imperial College London, University of Edenburgh, Oxford Research Group London, USA Brookhaven National Laboratory, Columbia University New York, Princeton University
If you are able to overcome your prejudices and stop relying on your assumptions then you might learn what and why the issues exist.
The energy payback time of the currently operating nuclear energy systems, measured over the full cradle-to-grave period, is about 9 full-load years at the current world average uranium ore grade.
*IF* a nuclear power plant would operate at 100% of its nominal capacity during a full year without interruptions, which they don't. AND *IF* the ore grades mean the energetic input costs are low, which they aren't.
So what are you on about?
If you actually intend to have a serious discussion, instead of cherry picking lines from the report to make a point why don't you try honestly evaluating what is there? The "Aprs nous le dluge" attitude, that is what I'm on about.
I'll refer you to chapter 16 on "Energy Debt"
After closedown of a nuclear power plants a massive energy debt is left to society, increasing over time due to the unavoidable deterioration of the temporary storage facilities and increasing leaks.
The polarization of this debate makes it difficult to discuss even the most benign criticism of the Nuclear industry. No doubt I'll be modded down for that however if the Nuclear industry wasn't so fragile perhaps it could tolerate the criticism and overcome many of the issues it has.
The peer reviewed science shows that Nuclear power provides no net energetic return and is not viable in its current form. Perhaps France has identified that and the vote will identify how well understood that is, unfortunately the political cycle is a lot shorter than the long range planning and oversight the Nuclear Industry requires.
The Nuclear industry has serious structural issues and the only way they can be solved is by looking at the facts in a realistic, analytic and pragmatic way. I welcome facts and a debate on this free of the general dogmatic skepticism and ad-hom attacks from nuclear fanbois, after all I am trying to learn as much as I can like any normal person about this important and complex subject.
I am not anti nuclear, I am Responsible Nuclear which is different from being pro or anti nuclear. Please understand the difference in that perspective before you test my radiation suit.
I have discovered an algorithm which can be used to decrypt any content protected by assymetrical key encryption, but the margins of this posting not large enough to record it here.
There are things in this world that we want to hide even if we've done nothing wrong. I like responding to the "If you've got nothing to hide..." folks like this:
I generally reframe the statement to if you've got nothing to loose. People seem oblivious to the fact that these sorts of laws are a boon for organised crime and committing fraud on a massive scale.
Encryption represents the front line of the fight for maintaining freedom and the net is the battlefield.
A nice place to visit but I need something like the Bill of Rights to call a country home.
Many locals would agree and it is a long sort over goal for the country. When the country was presented an opportunity for its own Bill of Right in the 1980s many of the shock jock radio announcers lobbied heavily against it and it was defeated.
I hope that some day one of those radio announcers are on the business end of not having those rights. As for the many morons who voted against the Bill it just shows how sadly apathetic many Australians have become, largely due to Murdoch and the News empire that grew up in Australia before becoming an American company.
Faux News is the enemy of freedom in the land of the free.
Australia does things all the time that just casually violate what I consider to be sacred rights.
Yes, and many times it happens to promote American interests because our politicians are too spineless to stand up for themselves. No one likes it and the Trans Pacific Partnership is a fine example. We are not even allowed to see the text of a bill that is to be passed into law.
They are things that everyday Australians object to and I'm certain everyday Americans would find it offensive too.
I know my views are incomprehensible to many.
No they are not and many reasonable educated Australians would agree with you. We need a Bill of Rights more than ever. If you are prepared to make your views known to Australian politicians it would be most welcome.
I think the come and go of Concorde represents the peak of hydrocarbon based jet flight technology. Supersonic passenger services are unlikely to return in a form that is economically viable.
Get an interception warrant. The government has access to enough legal vehicles for dealing with people obstructing justice and it's not as if there isn't a case for encryption already. It is illegal to open mail that is not addressed to you. The difference is that where an envelope reminds the holder to respect another persons privacy, encryption enforces a persons right to privacy.
Governments are not too happy with things that put peoples rights firmly with the people who own the government in the first place.
It used to be that SLASHDOT knew the difference between hackers and crackers. So the media is telling us what geek/nerd language is and how to use it. Allow me to FTFY:
A cracker gains illegitimate accesses to a computer system.
A hacker accesses systems so that they can learn. i.e. You don't learn to hack, you hack to learn.
It's bad enough hearing hipsters go 'lol'. Get.it.right.slashdot.news.for.nerds.not.noobs
But, seriously, fans of any OS (or company, or similar) are just blinded by their biases and stuck that way because their ego will not let them change.
They just don't want to share the sandpit with any of the other kids.
I prefer to judge each by its own merits and I do not think I am exceptional in those regards.
True that, and if the platform doesn't do what you want then there is little point using it.
After reading pages of you trolling anyone who has said anything about Apple products the evidence suggests that you are quite a toxic individual. I watched a documentary about the science behind Apples marketing acting on the same parts of the brain as religion does. You're what they were talking about, more than a iFanboi.
You're an iDevout.
What concerns me is I do know Apple users who are actually nice people so I hope that they don't display the traits that you do if they cross whatever threshold you crossed. Are you an Apple professional? Is this how they all behave?
The difference between you an me is you think Apple's products are genius for what they are and I think they are genius for how they make you think that. For that Job's creation is genius.
But you are not. You are a product called an iDevout iFanboi of the iJobsian iEvangelical iChurch where the iClones all iWorship and iPractice their iFaith.
I would suggest you take your own advice however I find your thin skin to be absolutely fucking hilariously entertaining.
What does any of our "real conversation I avoid" (that you didn't even mention before) have to do with the topic being discussed?
Were I to use Apple Music on my collection, the user experiences I read about tell me I would have some pretty rare recordings deleted. Apple wouldn't care so I'm quite happy to manage my music collection myself and not allow Apple that control so I experience that frustration.
I repeat: Get Treatment. You are obviously losing grip on reality with every post you make.
Alternatively Mr iFanboi, you have a thin skin when Apple gets criticized because your substantial personal investment in their products makes criticism feel personal. Like someone calling you an iFool, iFanboi.
It is "snide" and "lose." Advanced users can usually spell. I only remember two of your spelling errors but there are probably more.
Indeed, my iFanboi friend did not deserve the time to proofread because he always pops up to troll anyone that looks vaguely like they are criticizing Apple. Though 'snyde' apparently means someone with a mental disorder to the urban dictionary.
No, I do not use a Mac. I own one and I own an iPod, I can not understand why people like them but I have, I admit, not taken enough time to use OSX or iOS to really get used to it. iOS is pretty intuitive so I manage that just fine but, still, never really use it. OSX is functional and, I am sure, a great desktop if I learn the ins and outs.
I found Gnome2 very customizable and it suits my workflow so there is little point spend my time on a mac. The Mac's UI does not seem like it is worth the investment in time when I can just use a linux box and the Apple hardware isn't any better than a T series lenovo.
The iFanbois attitudes are a particularly unattractive feature though.
There is no substance in anything you say because you avoid the real conversation:
Apple is happy to take from the open source community Apple is not so happy to share with or even acknowledge the community of developers that OSX owes its existence to. Case in point, I can run posix apps on OSX, but can I run iTunes on FreeBSD - I somehow doubt it.
You have no answer. Those who are skilled enough, created something good that Apple built products on and the best you have to offer is snyde sarcasm and disdain.
There is little credibility in anything you have to say. Seriously.
I was making a little joke about your diatribe - and you come up with something about "fanboi attitude" - Hateboi, heal thyself.
It's clear to see that you are an apologist for Apple calming down any criticism of the company.
The lack of maturity in your response is a typical shallow Apple fanboi response. No capacity to argue the issues with any authority so you just call me a hater. It proves what I have to say - someone has to loose for you to win.
I don't care if that is your choice and just because I don't choose it, doesn't make me a hater however your response does show you to be a fanboi.
Slashdot Mirror
Even the most cursory research will show you that the nuclear industry has significant CFC *greenhouse* gas emissions used in the enrichment process. Dig a little deeper and you will find the US enrichment is driven my coal generating facilities.
The failure to tolerate the most straight forward introspection shows that the nuclear fanbois out there do more damage to the Nuclear Industry than anyone, preventing any significant progress to the industry. No facts, no reason, no argument - every single time.
Back to a serious reply, of course we can handle it safely, all it requires is a desire to do so and the commitment to spend what that costs.
That's hilarious. Like any corporation the Nuclear industry charter is profitability, safety is a cost and Nuclear safety is very expensive indeed.
Obviously the problem here is that not enough plants are being built, not that there is a problem with the energy source itself.
The article, however, does its best to make this seem like a negative for the power source.
It is not an article, it is the peer reviewed science that was used by the European Parliament and other credible bodies. This is what scientific research on the Nuclear Industry found.
to attribute all of the energy going into uranium enrichment and other accociated energy needs to energy produced from CO2 emitting sources when a nuclear power plant produces electricity at vastly greater scales then what is required for these things.
*IF* it was able to extract the potential energy there instead of the 0.3% that reactor technology can extract.
I'll admit though, after two completely bogus claims I stopped reading so maybe that site has something that stands up to simple reasoning somewhere in its contents.
And what do you offer to back up the claim that the actual science is bogus? FYI, these are the Universities internationally that contributed to the report. Australia. University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, Monash University, Belgium. NPX Research Leuven, IMEC Leuven, Germany. Universität Regensburg, Öko Institut Darmstadt, Italy. University of Florence, Netherlands. University of Utrecht, Technical University Eindhoven, ECN Petten, Singapore. National University of Singapore, Spain. Bank of Spain Economics
Switzerland. CERN Geneva, ETH Zürich
UK. Imperial College London, University of Edenburgh, Oxford Research Group London, USA Brookhaven National Laboratory, Columbia University New York, Princeton University
If you are able to overcome your prejudices and stop relying on your assumptions then you might learn what and why the issues exist.
The energy payback time of the currently operating nuclear energy systems, measured over the full cradle-to-grave period, is about 9 full-load years at the current world average uranium ore grade.
*IF* a nuclear power plant would operate at 100% of its nominal capacity during a full year without interruptions, which they don't. AND *IF* the ore grades mean the energetic input costs are low, which they aren't.
So what are you on about?
If you actually intend to have a serious discussion, instead of cherry picking lines from the report to make a point why don't you try honestly evaluating what is there? The "Aprs nous le dluge" attitude, that is what I'm on about.
I'll refer you to chapter 16 on "Energy Debt"
After closedown of a nuclear power plants a massive energy debt is left to society, increasing over time due to the unavoidable deterioration of the temporary storage facilities and increasing leaks.
You will find that statement is in context.
The polarization of this debate makes it difficult to discuss even the most benign criticism of the Nuclear industry. No doubt I'll be modded down for that however if the Nuclear industry wasn't so fragile perhaps it could tolerate the criticism and overcome many of the issues it has.
The peer reviewed science shows that Nuclear power provides no net energetic return and is not viable in its current form. Perhaps France has identified that and the vote will identify how well understood that is, unfortunately the political cycle is a lot shorter than the long range planning and oversight the Nuclear Industry requires.
The Nuclear industry has serious structural issues and the only way they can be solved is by looking at the facts in a realistic, analytic and pragmatic way. I welcome facts and a debate on this free of the general dogmatic skepticism and ad-hom attacks from nuclear fanbois, after all I am trying to learn as much as I can like any normal person about this important and complex subject.
I am not anti nuclear, I am Responsible Nuclear which is different from being pro or anti nuclear. Please understand the difference in that perspective before you test my radiation suit.
You would have to be nuts to pick a fight with one of them, sometimes not concerned with people either.
Someone had to show you guys how to surf ocean waves
It looks like the mountains are pushing up through the ice, I wonder if that is what produces the 'moated mountain' effect?
Perhaps the moated mountain could be called 'Golum's Keep'.
One does not simply walk into Mordor.
In the darkest depths or Mordor, I met a girl so fair
I have discovered an algorithm which can be used to decrypt any content protected by assymetrical key encryption, but the margins of this posting not large enough to record it here.
Have you implemented it yet?
There are things in this world that we want to hide even if we've done nothing wrong. I like responding to the "If you've got nothing to hide..." folks like this:
I generally reframe the statement to if you've got nothing to loose. People seem oblivious to the fact that these sorts of laws are a boon for organised crime and committing fraud on a massive scale.
Encryption represents the front line of the fight for maintaining freedom and the net is the battlefield.
A nice place to visit but I need something like the Bill of Rights to call a country home.
Many locals would agree and it is a long sort over goal for the country. When the country was presented an opportunity for its own Bill of Right in the 1980s many of the shock jock radio announcers lobbied heavily against it and it was defeated.
I hope that some day one of those radio announcers are on the business end of not having those rights. As for the many morons who voted against the Bill it just shows how sadly apathetic many Australians have become, largely due to Murdoch and the News empire that grew up in Australia before becoming an American company.
Faux News is the enemy of freedom in the land of the free.
Australia does things all the time that just casually violate what I consider to be sacred rights.
Yes, and many times it happens to promote American interests because our politicians are too spineless to stand up for themselves. No one likes it and the Trans Pacific Partnership is a fine example. We are not even allowed to see the text of a bill that is to be passed into law.
They are things that everyday Australians object to and I'm certain everyday Americans would find it offensive too.
I know my views are incomprehensible to many.
No they are not and many reasonable educated Australians would agree with you. We need a Bill of Rights more than ever. If you are prepared to make your views known to Australian politicians it would be most welcome.
I think the come and go of Concorde represents the peak of hydrocarbon based jet flight technology. Supersonic passenger services are unlikely to return in a form that is economically viable.
I wish I'd had a chance to travel on one.
Get an interception warrant. The government has access to enough legal vehicles for dealing with people obstructing justice and it's not as if there isn't a case for encryption already. It is illegal to open mail that is not addressed to you. The difference is that where an envelope reminds the holder to respect another persons privacy, encryption enforces a persons right to privacy.
Governments are not too happy with things that put peoples rights firmly with the people who own the government in the first place.
Very, very cool.
It used to be that SLASHDOT knew the difference between hackers and crackers. So the media is telling us what geek/nerd language is and how to use it. Allow me to FTFY:
A cracker gains illegitimate accesses to a computer system.
A hacker accesses systems so that they can learn. i.e. You don't learn to hack, you hack to learn.
It's bad enough hearing hipsters go 'lol'. Get.it.right.slashdot.news.for.nerds.not.noobs
Anyone who is a zealot is unbearable (and wrong).
Absolutely!
But, seriously, fans of any OS (or company, or similar) are just blinded by their biases and stuck that way because their ego will not let them change.
They just don't want to share the sandpit with any of the other kids.
I prefer to judge each by its own merits and I do not think I am exceptional in those regards.
True that, and if the platform doesn't do what you want then there is little point using it.
Thanks for being reasoned.
"If you don't like the way I insult you, you prove you also lack humor, you iMoron." +5 Insightful
Get help.
After reading pages of you trolling anyone who has said anything about Apple products the evidence suggests that you are quite a toxic individual. I watched a documentary about the science behind Apples marketing acting on the same parts of the brain as religion does. You're what they were talking about, more than a iFanboi.
You're an iDevout.
What concerns me is I do know Apple users who are actually nice people so I hope that they don't display the traits that you do if they cross whatever threshold you crossed. Are you an Apple professional? Is this how they all behave?
The difference between you an me is you think Apple's products are genius for what they are and I think they are genius for how they make you think that. For that Job's creation is genius.
But you are not. You are a product called an iDevout iFanboi of the iJobsian iEvangelical iChurch where the iClones all iWorship and iPractice their iFaith.
I would suggest you take your own advice however I find your thin skin to be absolutely fucking hilariously entertaining.
What does any of our "real conversation I avoid" (that you didn't even mention before) have to do with the topic being discussed?
Were I to use Apple Music on my collection, the user experiences I read about tell me I would have some pretty rare recordings deleted. Apple wouldn't care so I'm quite happy to manage my music collection myself and not allow Apple that control so I experience that frustration.
I repeat: Get Treatment. You are obviously losing grip on reality with every post you make.
Alternatively Mr iFanboi, you have a thin skin when Apple gets criticized because your substantial personal investment in their products makes criticism feel personal. Like someone calling you an iFool, iFanboi.
It is "snide" and "lose." Advanced users can usually spell. I only remember two of your spelling errors but there are probably more.
Indeed, my iFanboi friend did not deserve the time to proofread because he always pops up to troll anyone that looks vaguely like they are criticizing Apple. Though 'snyde' apparently means someone with a mental disorder to the urban dictionary.
No, I do not use a Mac. I own one and I own an iPod, I can not understand why people like them but I have, I admit, not taken enough time to use OSX or iOS to really get used to it. iOS is pretty intuitive so I manage that just fine but, still, never really use it. OSX is functional and, I am sure, a great desktop if I learn the ins and outs.
I found Gnome2 very customizable and it suits my workflow so there is little point spend my time on a mac. The Mac's UI does not seem like it is worth the investment in time when I can just use a linux box and the Apple hardware isn't any better than a T series lenovo.
The iFanbois attitudes are a particularly unattractive feature though.
you just imagined that people had problems with their iPhones when they drove into a tunnel because you thought that using iTunes would do that.
I suppose all these Apple Music users are just making it up.
You need to get treatment, boy. Seriously.
There is no substance in anything you say because you avoid the real conversation:
Apple is happy to take from the open source community Apple is not so happy to share with or even acknowledge the community of developers that OSX owes its existence to. Case in point, I can run posix apps on OSX, but can I run iTunes on FreeBSD - I somehow doubt it.
You have no answer. Those who are skilled enough, created something good that Apple built products on and the best you have to offer is snyde sarcasm and disdain.
There is little credibility in anything you have to say. Seriously.
I was making a little joke about your diatribe - and you come up with something about "fanboi attitude" - Hateboi, heal thyself.
It's clear to see that you are an apologist for Apple calming down any criticism of the company.
The lack of maturity in your response is a typical shallow Apple fanboi response. No capacity to argue the issues with any authority so you just call me a hater. It proves what I have to say - someone has to loose for you to win.
I don't care if that is your choice and just because I don't choose it, doesn't make me a hater however your response does show you to be a fanboi.