or, even better, see more people switch to Ubuntu.
A neighbour asked if I would build him a grunty machine to do video production and as a general use computer. He told me he had heard Vista was a nightmare, he needed a machine now, and he wasn't sure what he should do.
I told him that XP probably wouldn't 'get the juice' out of the current generation of processors properly and that windows 7 won't be out for a while and would he like to give Ubuntu (studio) a go. I told him he would at least save on the price of a copy of windows and he might be able to buy some other gear. As suggested by a slashdotter here I let him know that there would probably be problems as any computer has but we can work through any issues that arise, so far all has gone well.
I was pleasantly surprised by the latest Ubuntu Studio Jaunty release. His video camera and mobile phone worked with it immediately, the webcam on the ASUS monitor works well with skype. We setup Amarok for his music collection. I showed him how to install more software, told him there were other video programs aside for Kino but to give this one a go, now he is using it to make dvd's of his fishing trips.
My neighbour is a fireman, and is quite humble about his proficiency as a computer user. I told him the machine is NOT windows or a mac but he is using the machine with confidence blowing away any pre-conceptions in my mind of Linux usability. He is about as far away from being a Linux geek as anyone can be and keeping the purchase price of windows, to him, meant he could afford a kick ass logitech speaker setup and most of the purchase price of a new HP printer. When I asked him a few days ago about how the new computer was going his exact word were:
"I'm lovin' it"
Linux may not be ready for the desktop, but I think it's fast becoming the new value proposition.
A freezer full of kangaroo steak. I've eaten Kangaroo and it's absolutely delicious, very lean and tender. Who would have thought that Australia's national symbol would taste so good. I can only imagine that because a wallaby is a smaller animal that it's probably pretty tasty to.
While that is great and I thank you for the information they are not really significant changes though. In essence they are resolving a really fundamental basis design issue. What I'm talking about are four trains accident mitigation like in the EPR, underground facilities, etc etc etc. Design changes which give the reactor an opportunity to mitigate accidents *when* they occur.
As for the ratio of, I think your conflating the design issues here.
No, it's exactly what I mean. you are talking about core cooling I am talking about core containment. The ratio is expressed as the containment buildings capacity to 'contain' the thermal pressures created in an accident scenario.
That's as close to greenfielding as you can get with the exception of some cooled spent fuel left on site.
So it's not actually 'greenfeild'. Thats the bottom line, there are still radioactive isotopes contained on the site.
However, now that some are attempting to attach a cost to it, nuclear power is more efficient hands down.
because like the coal industry got away with foisting it's externalities on the community, the Nuclear industry does exactly the same thing.
Is there a problem with that?
yes, it doesn't engender the long term thinking required to engineer a Nuclear reactor to function well beyond a human lifetime. The capacity of a Nuclear reactor hovers around 1Gw so engineering a 2-5Gw Nuclear reactor with a 1000 year lifespan should be achievable if we are to insist on using Nuclear power. Obsolescence should not be a factor if you have a standardised design with known basis design issues. This is the way to producing a technology platform to develop the technology commercially as opposed to designing the reactor to a price the market find appetising as with the AP-1000.
Yes, I knew it was a word and it was beyond your vocabulary. So, since you need it made obvious, you are a juvenile idiot. roflaMtfi
Or to put it into words, you said idiocracy when you meant
...exactly what I meant. It's a grown ups way of saying I don't know what your problem is but you should get help for it. To put it into your pathetic phraseology Michel,
That's right Michel, you're my bitch again, hahahaha.
lol, fucking moron trying to use big words, that's not a word
The dictionary (that's a place where you find the definition of words) does not agree with you.
Idiocracy Id`i*oc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Idiocrasies. [Idio- + Gr. ? a mixture, fr. ? to mix: cf. F. idiocrasie.] Peculiarity of constitution; that temperament, or state of constitution, which is peculiar to a person; idiosyncrasy.
Just because it doesn't show up on a spell chequer doesn't mean it's not a word, see for yourself bitch. For example "Michel's deep idiocracy was his impetus stupidity, he wasn't aware that most people thought he put the 'moron' on oxymoron by being such an idiot constantly." You should try reading books, you can learn stuff.
Who's the idiot?
Evidently you are an idiot Michel. You proved it yet again - Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha
You know I'm not even reading your comments anymore, right?
sure, sure. It's entertaining to see what troll ridden flamebait you have come up with.
You realise that replying to every of my comments you see and using my first name makes you sound like a creepy stalker?
Hahahahaha, your only offended because it's more personal than calling you 4D6963, Michel. If you were capable of conducting an intelligent conversation you might even be able to talk to the grown-ups. But it's obvious you can not even answer the most reasonable arguments, perhaps for fear of demonstrating the true nature of your deep idiocracy, which you do anyway.
Yeah, but you see, that's one of these great solutions that people don't want because "omg we then have to bury a few tons of radioactive material underground".
Oh Michel, that's such an imbecilic thing for you to say. If you were half as smart as you claim to be you would know that radioactive isotopes leak into the environment from every stage in the Industrial Nuclear process and that it bio-concentrates in the food chain. When ingested by a human being the isotope appears to the body like a nutrient (i.e strontium-90 looks like calcium to the body) and continues emit (alpha, beta or gamma) radiation causing the victim to contract cancer. This is a Medical FACT!
People see what's obvious, even if what they see isn't always such a big problem, but don't see the less obvious,
Well you can't see, smell or taste radioactive isotopes and you wouldn't know you are touching it immediately, it's not at all obvious, so how does that fit it with your philosophy?
This being said, I'm French and in my country most of the electricity is produced from nuclear power and it works just fine
I'm ashamed for the USA that you guys are too much of a bunch of pussies to do what we did.
What like committing an act of war on a peaceful country by sinking a Greenpeace boat and killing a foreign national to stop anyone from witnessing French government Nuclear tests near Muaroa Atoll. What a clever solution to Democracy, just blow up anyone who protests.
But seriously the answer to this question is there is not enough of them and the older a tree gets the more carbon it is capable of absorbing. That's why old growth forests are important, and I bet the maintenance costs of trees are less than the mechanical one. They are solar powered and can be installed with unskilled labour. A seed in some birdshit will do it.
The other functions that a tree provides are equally important. Trees have an enormous capacity to move water from the ground into the atmosphere and that makes clouds which reflect sunlight back into space, so they also mitigate drought whilst providing habitat for animals. Plus they grow just about anywhere and when they die they don't release all of their Co2 a lot of it is held in the soil.
Nature invented this technology because it's compatible with Earth V1.0, it's really old technology because it works. I bet they are quieter and prettier than some clunky machine too.
One of the things Microsoft learned well by observing others was the Osborne Effect. And its true: Would you buy a "new" Windows OS if you were told a better one was on it's way, and all the cool features it would have eventually?
I never said that was all that was spent. The Russian government spend quite a bit too. the 1 billion was to initial specific changes in which the Russian government followed with.
Where can I find information on this? Do you have a link? Who is Francis?
Of course Chernobyl happened partially because the shutdown process was disabled while some workers were conducting tests.
The operators were running the test out of spec after they xenon poisoned the reaction. When they actually started to do the testing the shift had changed and the operators were less experienced.
Of those 25 year old design recommendations, have any of them been revamped because of changes in processes? 25 years seem like a lot of time when advancements are made quite often.
You cannot implement significant changes to a reactor facility once it is operational. Since they are designed for a forty year life span you can consider those 25 year old design recommendations state of the art for a Nuclear reactor. Besides any technology development is an iterative process. The design changes I mentioned are the simplest and most straight forward ones I thought to list, yet they have not been implemented in new designs. I mean it's pretty basic, underground reactor.
The other concerns may be valid or not, I don't care to look into them. they won't cause a Chernobyl style accident.
To save money on construction costs the AP-1000 cuts back on concrete and steel - significantly. The result is a ratio of containment volume to thermal power below that of today's PWRs, thereby increasing the risk of containment over-pressurization and failure in event of a severe accident. That is the making of a core excursion style accident, like Chernobyl.
So your not concerned with the plant itself, your concerned with the entire idea. That's understandable.
Indeed, once you understand the engineering, it's hard not to be concerned.
However, it's probably impossible and impractical to design the plant to last the lifetime of the isotopes. You will end up with a functioning obsolete facility that is used for nothing but housing a small amount of wastes.
If the facility is performing the function it was designed for (to process, use and contain) radioactive isotopes then it is not obsolete, it is operating within it's designed lifetime.
It makes much more sense to decommission the unit and consolidate the radioactive material at a specific place, then either start fresh with a more efficient system that may not even include nuclear, or use the land and resources for something else.
"Greenfielding" an ex-nuclear reactor site has never been achieved. What you suggest introduces significant logistical challenges. Efficiency of Nuclear reactors is a joke, currently a 0.3% of available fuel capable of being utilised in todays designs.
It isn't like 100 years from when it gets decommissioned
No-one cares about people one-hundred years hence, it's their problem. People only care about getting their electricity now.
My information on this topic is sadly about 3 years out of date, so if anything new has come out since then, I'm unaware of it.
Just briefly graphite covered fuel kernels, helium gas cooled, no containment building. These factors in conjunction make for a serious accident considering the reactor is running well above the combustion temperature of the graphite. The issue is when the plant ages and air starts to leak into the system, causing cracks to the silicon carbide coating of the kernels and the graphite catches fire. It's the most obvious and probable failure mode.
The basis design issues are unknown for a PBMR. Building a proper containment building around them (the one thing they did right at TMI) to mitigate that risk makes the reactor more expensive and you are back to using PWR.
There are also issues with manufacturing the fuel kernels, which introduces a new toxic industry. Bottom line is the Nuclear Industrial process (not just waste) is a NIMG (Not In My Generation) issue. I favor development of reactors capable of using Pu-239 as a fuel so we can end uranium mining and have a forum for Nuclear disarmament. The reality is we don't have the material technologies to support them for commercial power generation, yet. If we are going to use Nuclear power, it should be engineered responsibly.
But we need to take a serious look at MODERN nuclear power, especially with re-using the waste, gas-cooled pebble bed designs, Thorium designs, etc.
Whilst I think we should develop reactor technology all of the design's you mention have significant inherent basis design and safety issues with them. Pebble bed reactors look great on paper until you realise the design has significant problems to implement and the containment buildings no better than what the RBMK style reactors use - really bad for when the reactor ages.
Trying to make ONE solution fix the problem is completely idiotic.
I completely agree. What about Solar, tidal and geothermal power. These are area's where we can make significant advances in technology if it is funded fairly.
Wrong. The true measure of a society is how they treat the most helpless, not the most despised.
I think you are mixing the concept of deliberate action (individual has cause to be despised by a crime) with unfortunate circumstances (individual has been struck with an illness). Society in general, regardless of political systems because it is the will of the populace, wants to assist those helpless and in need. People who have committed a crime against our sense of morality and cause us to be repelled by their actions, like a child molester, cause a gut reaction is to hurt them because we are offended by their actions.
I am speaking of a society that is strong enough to resist those urges and recognise those individuals as needing help, what you are speaking of is how a society reacts to risk.
At its core, socialism is a removal of individual consequences for individual actions.
I can also say Capitalism is a removal of individual consequences for mass actions or Communism is a removal of mass consequences for individual actions. None of it speaks to a societies measure because they are political philosophies not social morality and only related in the heads of political idealists.
All political systems operate at the behest of the social moralities of the populations and are subject to corruption. The Soviet Union and the United States operated vastly differing political systems but both were subject to corruption. I don't think you would call the Japanese socialist, yet they operate the largest social welfare system in the world that does exactly what you describe.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, I was wondering where I had heard that before but I think that was simply the first thing that came to his mind.
A neighbour asked if I would build him a grunty machine to do video production and as a general use computer. He told me he had heard Vista was a nightmare, he needed a machine now, and he wasn't sure what he should do.
I told him that XP probably wouldn't 'get the juice' out of the current generation of processors properly and that windows 7 won't be out for a while and would he like to give Ubuntu (studio) a go. I told him he would at least save on the price of a copy of windows and he might be able to buy some other gear. As suggested by a slashdotter here I let him know that there would probably be problems as any computer has but we can work through any issues that arise, so far all has gone well.
I was pleasantly surprised by the latest Ubuntu Studio Jaunty release. His video camera and mobile phone worked with it immediately, the webcam on the ASUS monitor works well with skype. We setup Amarok for his music collection. I showed him how to install more software, told him there were other video programs aside for Kino but to give this one a go, now he is using it to make dvd's of his fishing trips.
My neighbour is a fireman, and is quite humble about his proficiency as a computer user. I told him the machine is NOT windows or a mac but he is using the machine with confidence blowing away any pre-conceptions in my mind of Linux usability. He is about as far away from being a Linux geek as anyone can be and keeping the purchase price of windows, to him, meant he could afford a kick ass logitech speaker setup and most of the purchase price of a new HP printer. When I asked him a few days ago about how the new computer was going his exact word were:
"I'm lovin' it"
Linux may not be ready for the desktop, but I think it's fast becoming the new value proposition.
A freezer full of kangaroo steak. I've eaten Kangaroo and it's absolutely delicious, very lean and tender. Who would have thought that Australia's national symbol would taste so good. I can only imagine that because a wallaby is a smaller animal that it's probably pretty tasty to.
If they do I'm certain the XP model is going to be around for a veeery looong time.
Only in your -completely divorced from reality mind- Michel. Whatever drugs you are doing - you should stop.
Go right ahead Michel. I don't have to try much to make you look like a buffoon when you do the work yourself.
The buck's stop's hear!
While that is great and I thank you for the information they are not really significant changes though. In essence they are resolving a really fundamental basis design issue. What I'm talking about are four trains accident mitigation like in the EPR, underground facilities, etc etc etc. Design changes which give the reactor an opportunity to mitigate accidents *when* they occur.
No, it's exactly what I mean. you are talking about core cooling I am talking about core containment. The ratio is expressed as the containment buildings capacity to 'contain' the thermal pressures created in an accident scenario.
So it's not actually 'greenfeild'. Thats the bottom line, there are still radioactive isotopes contained on the site.
because like the coal industry got away with foisting it's externalities on the community, the Nuclear industry does exactly the same thing.
yes, it doesn't engender the long term thinking required to engineer a Nuclear reactor to function well beyond a human lifetime. The capacity of a Nuclear reactor hovers around 1Gw so engineering a 2-5Gw Nuclear reactor with a 1000 year lifespan should be achievable if we are to insist on using Nuclear power. Obsolescence should not be a factor if you have a standardised design with known basis design issues. This is the way to producing a technology platform to develop the technology commercially as opposed to designing the reactor to a price the market find appetising as with the AP-1000.
200 Buck's, might be worth waiting till the next version of Windows comes out since they are releasing it early and often nowadays.
You lose, Michel.
Yes, I knew it was a word and it was beyond your vocabulary. So, since you need it made obvious, you are a juvenile idiot. roflaMtfi
Fail
That's right Michel, you're my bitch again, hahahaha.
The dictionary (that's a place where you find the definition of words) does not agree with you.
Idiocracy Id`i*oc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Idiocrasies. [Idio- + Gr. ? a mixture, fr. ? to mix: cf. F. idiocrasie.] Peculiarity of constitution; that temperament, or state of constitution, which is peculiar to a person; idiosyncrasy.
Just because it doesn't show up on a spell chequer doesn't mean it's not a word, see for yourself bitch. For example "Michel's deep idiocracy was his impetus stupidity, he wasn't aware that most people thought he put the 'moron' on oxymoron by being such an idiot constantly." You should try reading books, you can learn stuff.
Evidently you are an idiot Michel. You proved it yet again - Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha
sure, sure. It's entertaining to see what troll ridden flamebait you have come up with.
Hahahahaha, your only offended because it's more personal than calling you 4D6963, Michel. If you were capable of conducting an intelligent conversation you might even be able to talk to the grown-ups. But it's obvious you can not even answer the most reasonable arguments, perhaps for fear of demonstrating the true nature of your deep idiocracy, which you do anyway.
Oh Michel, that's such an imbecilic thing for you to say. If you were half as smart as you claim to be you would know that radioactive isotopes leak into the environment from every stage in the Industrial Nuclear process and that it bio-concentrates in the food chain. When ingested by a human being the isotope appears to the body like a nutrient (i.e strontium-90 looks like calcium to the body) and continues emit (alpha, beta or gamma) radiation causing the victim to contract cancer. This is a Medical FACT!
Well you can't see, smell or taste radioactive isotopes and you wouldn't know you are touching it immediately, it's not at all obvious, so how does that fit it with your philosophy?
Yeah, it's a real success story.
What like committing an act of war on a peaceful country by sinking a Greenpeace boat and killing a foreign national to stop anyone from witnessing French government Nuclear tests near Muaroa Atoll. What a clever solution to Democracy, just blow up anyone who protests.
But seriously the answer to this question is there is not enough of them and the older a tree gets the more carbon it is capable of absorbing. That's why old growth forests are important, and I bet the maintenance costs of trees are less than the mechanical one. They are solar powered and can be installed with unskilled labour. A seed in some birdshit will do it.
The other functions that a tree provides are equally important. Trees have an enormous capacity to move water from the ground into the atmosphere and that makes clouds which reflect sunlight back into space, so they also mitigate drought whilst providing habitat for animals. Plus they grow just about anywhere and when they die they don't release all of their Co2 a lot of it is held in the soil.
Nature invented this technology because it's compatible with Earth V1.0, it's really old technology because it works. I bet they are quieter and prettier than some clunky machine too.
Valid question though.
These are basic design issues which all PBMR share.
the idont bother.
Not fixing, I just wanted to see how it looked.
Yeah, it's realy, really, really, really, old technology.
Where can I find information on this? Do you have a link? Who is Francis?
The operators were running the test out of spec after they xenon poisoned the reaction. When they actually started to do the testing the shift had changed and the operators were less experienced.
You cannot implement significant changes to a reactor facility once it is operational. Since they are designed for a forty year life span you can consider those 25 year old design recommendations state of the art for a Nuclear reactor. Besides any technology development is an iterative process. The design changes I mentioned are the simplest and most straight forward ones I thought to list, yet they have not been implemented in new designs. I mean it's pretty basic, underground reactor.
To save money on construction costs the AP-1000 cuts back on concrete and steel - significantly. The result is a ratio of containment volume to thermal power below that of today's PWRs, thereby increasing the risk of containment over-pressurization and failure in event of a severe accident. That is the making of a core excursion style accident, like Chernobyl.
Indeed, once you understand the engineering, it's hard not to be concerned.
If the facility is performing the function it was designed for (to process, use and contain) radioactive isotopes then it is not obsolete, it is operating within it's designed lifetime.
"Greenfielding" an ex-nuclear reactor site has never been achieved. What you suggest introduces significant logistical challenges. Efficiency of Nuclear reactors is a joke, currently a 0.3% of available fuel capable of being utilised in todays designs.
No-one cares about people one-hundred years hence, it's their problem. People only care about getting their electricity now.
Just briefly graphite covered fuel kernels, helium gas cooled, no containment building. These factors in conjunction make for a serious accident considering the reactor is running well above the combustion temperature of the graphite. The issue is when the plant ages and air starts to leak into the system, causing cracks to the silicon carbide coating of the kernels and the graphite catches fire. It's the most obvious and probable failure mode.
The basis design issues are unknown for a PBMR. Building a proper containment building around them (the one thing they did right at TMI) to mitigate that risk makes the reactor more expensive and you are back to using PWR.
There are also issues with manufacturing the fuel kernels, which introduces a new toxic industry. Bottom line is the Nuclear Industrial process (not just waste) is a NIMG (Not In My Generation) issue. I favor development of reactors capable of using Pu-239 as a fuel so we can end uranium mining and have a forum for Nuclear disarmament. The reality is we don't have the material technologies to support them for commercial power generation, yet. If we are going to use Nuclear power, it should be engineered responsibly.
Whilst I think we should develop reactor technology all of the design's you mention have significant inherent basis design and safety issues with them. Pebble bed reactors look great on paper until you realise the design has significant problems to implement and the containment buildings no better than what the RBMK style reactors use - really bad for when the reactor ages.
I completely agree. What about Solar, tidal and geothermal power. These are area's where we can make significant advances in technology if it is funded fairly.
I think you are mixing the concept of deliberate action (individual has cause to be despised by a crime) with unfortunate circumstances (individual has been struck with an illness). Society in general, regardless of political systems because it is the will of the populace, wants to assist those helpless and in need. People who have committed a crime against our sense of morality and cause us to be repelled by their actions, like a child molester, cause a gut reaction is to hurt them because we are offended by their actions.
I am speaking of a society that is strong enough to resist those urges and recognise those individuals as needing help, what you are speaking of is how a society reacts to risk.
I can also say Capitalism is a removal of individual consequences for mass actions or Communism is a removal of mass consequences for individual actions. None of it speaks to a societies measure because they are political philosophies not social morality and only related in the heads of political idealists.
All political systems operate at the behest of the social moralities of the populations and are subject to corruption. The Soviet Union and the United States operated vastly differing political systems but both were subject to corruption. I don't think you would call the Japanese socialist, yet they operate the largest social welfare system in the world that does exactly what you describe.
I can see it now -- 'Well you're gonna have to learn about sex some day, Michel'.
The true measure of a society is not how they treat the most valued, but how they treat the most despised.
Because "Lotuslands" just doesn't have the same ring to it as "Torchwood".