Money isn't worth a whole lot if the country is overrun by communist, sorry, islamist hordes.
I can't say I'm a friend of either or any other ism that trashes Human Rights by torturing people.
You have to be able to point at fundamental characteristics of these violations of human dignity, caused by these groups with their hordes, that go into someone else's country, declare war on the people, spread lasting invasive aggression against their culture and, declare that to be evil.
Thank God we've got the U.S to protect us against such violations.
That "visual guide" is very misleading because it's only showing the discretionary budget,
TL;DR version: the budget for defense spending in 2018 was 21%, and in 2007 was 24%.
It's very interesting, thank you. I note that the spending on Education is 4% in 2007 and 3% in 2018.
I seem to remember that a lot of people are chained to education debt, it would seem to me that there are a lot of opportunities to increase spending in that area. educating people is a good thing isn't it? It looks like that waste millitary budget would do a lot of people a lot of good there don't you think?
BTW: The military-industrial complex died during Reagan years. Companies found that the U.S. military was small potatoes compared to the civilian economy and it shifted to it. Now, the Pentagon has to beg companies to produce for it since DoD's market is so small in comparison to the rest of the economy.
It gets better. Fukushima Daiichi had six units, for a combined total of 4696 MW, or 4.696 GW. In your ideal scenario, over twenty years, that is 822.74 terawatt-hours.
So 2959 petajoules for a reactor we don't get a full energetic return from AND we are still on the hook energetically to clean it up.
Of the 104 reactors operating in the U.S 41 have experienced year plus outages to restore their safety levels and 10 reactors did it twice. That's 51 'year plus' outages in operating nuclear reactors and I haven't even gone into general reactor availability and uptime. The most concerning of this indicates that the infrastructure is showing systemic signs of wear so it's unlikely we can expect to reach maximum yield of energy from the entire nuclear industry.
Taking into account the above and in the parent post, consider that there are other energetic inputs, like enrichment, that haven't been considered. The energy committed to demolishing the existing reactors hasn't been spent yet and is approximately 25770 to 43560 peta joules to clean up the current nuclear industry.
If it had had a somewhat higher sea-wall to avoid a flooding situation, it would still be making power today, too.
Well you are still going to need a higher sea wall because it is unlikely that it is the last Tsunami for those parts. The reactor needs protection now more than ever because it is so fragile.
References:
The pessimistic side of the discussion is Storm Smith which is also referenced by the EU parliament. I drew on the original Vattanfal documents for the optimistic side of the calculations which are referenced in the IPCC 4th assessment report, working group 3, chapter 4 "Energy Supply" - but now no longer seems to be available. So high side Storm/Smith, low side Vattenfal.
The industrial measurements for energy are in Joules.
If Unit 1 had been online, running flat-out for twenty years
The expected lifetime output of a brand new AP1000 reactor is about 1080 Peta joules if you are able to run the reactor at high levels of utilization and availability over its service life of forty years. This number can be more or less depending on the characteristics of the reactor.
Obviously operators want to extend the service life of an operating reactor to increase the energetic yield, so some are operated beyond their service life and pushing them out to 60 years.
(with magical, always-on... nuclear... fission-stuff, arguably more easily achievable than the always-on wind...)?
However due to a phenomenon cal neutron embrittlement, the steel of the reactor vessel itself can start to break apart, which leads to failure of the reactor and whatever consequences come from that, so you can't just keep extending the life. If you ran it at 50% of it's potential maximum and slowly wound it down to 0%, you might get it to 80 years.
So No.
Lets put that in watts, so the point really sinks home: 080,590,200,000,000 watt-hours.
Ok, that's an energetic budget of 290 peta joules, less than a third of what I specify for the AP1000.
one of the energetic inputs that has to be considered, the energetic expense of mining Uranium. You have to process so much rock (containing Uranium) to get so little uranium that it takes a lot of energy to get the ore in the first place. 2.4 giga joules per ton for soft ores and 5.5 giga joules per ton for hard hard ores. To get a kilogram of uranium you have to process about 500 tons of ore - even that assumes an extremely optimistic extraction efficiency approaching %50 and assumes you have a high grade ore.
So, you're at about 2.7 tera joules per kilo, to 2.7 peta joules per ton and at 160 tons U for the core of that AP-1000 you're talking about approximately 432 peta joules spent on producing the fuel before you've generated a single joule from the core of that ap-1000. Then approximately 140 peta joules to refuel the reactor (1/3 core).
Let's also consider that when the nuclear industry settled on Uranium the energetic cost of mining it was a lot less and oil was a lot more plentiful. Their mindset wasn't considering the long term viability for energy infrastructure otherwise they would have used Thorium. However with all the easy to get ore gone we are either constantly looking for new cheap sources of Uranium to mine or the energetic cost continues to increase as the ore get harder to extract. So the energy estimates for mining is a key input.
That's a difference of one hundred and fifty two times. More than two orders of magnitude.
And much less energetic return than the wind turbine.
I'll take your slight 20+year ground contamination risk any day of the week, for the footprint reduction alone.
And you'd be a sucker, because none of the above numbers include the output costs including things like:
Energetic remediation of the mine tailing ?-joules.
Energetic estimates for construction of a nuclear power plant is somewhere between 39.6 peta joules and 126 peta joules
Energy cost for demolition around 198 - 252 peta joules
Dismantling and clean up of the reactor core 20.1 - 57.6 peta joules
Taking these factors into account we fast approach a point where this nuclear fuel cycle becomes energetically non-productive.
Per MWh of power generated, wind is actually more dangerous than nuclear. The month of the Great Tokoku Earthquake, a high school student in Ohio was killed when he climbed and fell off a wind turbine at his school which had been improperly locked up. So the month of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, wind power actually killed more people than nuclear power.
So because the kid was an idiot, wind power is bad? Because solar installers aren't wearing safety harnesses on roofs, solar is bad. The TEPCO executive are criminally negligent and obliterate the community surrounding their reactor.
So what you are saying is if you are stupid with wind or solar you die and the community moves on. If you are stupid with Nuclear Power everyone around it has to be evacuated and the community is destroyed even if no one dies.
Nuclear power kills communities when it goes wrong.
They covered large portions of Japan with radioactivity that will remain there for hundreds of thousands of years?
Hundreds of thousands of years? You know what has a half life of 100,000 years? Calcium. Calcium-41 to be precise.
No one is interested in benign isotopes. People are interested in the ones that are toxic and energetic radiation emitters. Try to stick with the radio isotopes the nuclear industry produces from its industrial processes. They're the ones that cause transgenic disease, cancers, reduced brain weight, failed pregnancies and everything else.
That doesn't mean it's necessarily safe since it is a heavy metal that can accumulate in the bones but unless you have a habit of licking spent fuel rods or nuclear weapon cores
Incorrect. Plutonium chloride that was inevitably made when seawater was put through the Fukushima reactor and will continue. As an Iron analogue it is highly soluble and *sought* by the body as a nutrient. As an energetic alpha emitter that is what it will do inside the bodies of all the creatures in the food chain all the way up to the human for the rest of that person's life.
the threat to your health is pretty minimal.
Right now. However it will continue to increase in likelihood as Fukushima, and many of the other Nuclear Industry accidents, including the weapons industry effluents continue to accumulate and become distributed in the environment.
You act as if Fukushima is the only one. Chernobyl, Windscale, TMI, Lake Karachy, Mine tailings, DU and so many more. We know very little about the Syrian Nuclear Reactor that was bombed and how much radio isotopes released, mainly because very few people know about it.
Your statements are unctuous and guileful because they violate people with your false reality.
This is a good example of what happens when an entitled disordered personality gets their hands on a weapon and perceives a slight against their egoic self. Since their own internal dialogue is already oriented around complete self destruction the best way for them to commit suicide is to get the police to do it for them, whilst taking those who inflicted the perceived injury with them.
This is because if they were to just commit suicide there would be no notoriety and attention from their actions. I counted the discharges and it sounded like a hand gun with a nine round magazine, a reload with a fresh magazine, then another 3 shots. More than likely the shooter pre-meditated a variety of scenarios where this *could* occur otherwise why bring a loaded firearm with a spare magazine? I doubt it was a rifle of some description.
This is the danger of Narcissistic Personality Disorder when it is hovering just below the the threshold of becoming Anti-social Personality Disorder. Those people walk around life always looking for ways to create destruction for everyone and looking at this guys eyes and face in the picture he just reeks of someone who can't sleep at night because his own unconscious self is barraging him with thoughts of what a loser he is. More so look at the facial expression of the Bills player - this is someone with enough social intelligence to pick up that there is something wrong with this kid. I know this is after the fact however it is possible to tell all this from a photo.
So when he lost at the one thing where he thought it was his domain, it pushed him over the edge he knew he was precariously resting on. The thing you can't obviously see is he was looking for a scenario to generate the worst possible outcome so that a notorious death was the one thing he could do so that people would pay attention, after all killing himself means nothing, killing others in the process confirms his own self destructive nature.
How do I see this? I have been writing a book on this subject because it is a common problem that generally only manifests as psychological abuse. At 24 he didn't have enough social experience to defend himself from the perception of the abuse repeated from his childhood nor the impulse control to stop his own destructive nature manifesting.
Yes, you can blame the parents too. At least one was abusive and the other enabled the abuse, possibly tried to compensate and they projected their own toxicity into this kid, from which they will draw their own supply for the rest of their lives. I'm going to predict, he was probably a quiet kid, didn't make much trouble, no one really noticed him. Never had a criminal record, no history of violence, very few friends, probably all on line.
This, I feel, is the core issue with the weapons violence in the US, it is a manifestation of mental health issues like these. Start fixing the mental health issues and you will see a reduction in gun violence.
Thanks for a well thought out post, to answer it properly I have to break up your post and answer in sections to build context. My opinions are based upon the currently deployed Nuclear reactor technology licensed to be operating today, that is water cooled once through cycle reactors.
The expected lifetime output of a brand new AP1000 reactor is about 1080 Peta joules if you are able to run the reactor at high levels of utilization and availability over its service life of forty years. This number can be more or less depending on the characteristics of the reactor. Obviously operators want to extend the service life of an operating reactor to increase the energetic yield, so some are operated beyond their service life and pushing them out to 60 years.
However due to a phenomenon cal neutron embrittlement, the steel of the reactor vessel itself can start to break apart, which leads to failure of the reactor and whatever consequences come from that, so you can't just keep extending the life. If you ran it at 50% of it's potential maximum and slowly wound it down to 0%, you might get it to 80 years.
This study uses 150 years operational life for the reactor, so that's the pessimistic side of the discussion which is also referenced by the EU parliament. I drew on the original Vattanfal documents for the optimistic side of the calculations which are referenced in the IPCC 4th assessment report, working group 3, chapter 4 "Energy Supply" - but now no longer seems to be available. So high side Storm/Smith, low side Vattenfal.
I don't think I'm following your reasoning here. It looks like you're referring to Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROEI) graph in section 12, however, the graph for Nuclear EROEI seems is based on the assumption that high quality uranium to fuel nuclear power plants will run out in the year 2070.
This one of the energetic inputs that has to be considered, the energetic expense of mining Uranium. You have to process so much rock (containing Uranium) to get so little uranium that it takes a lot of energy to get the ore in the first place. 2.4 giga joules per ton for soft ores and 5.5 giga joules per ton for hard hard ores. To get a kilogram of uranium you have to process about 500 tons of ore - even that assumes an extremely optimistic extraction efficiency approaching %50 and assumes you have a high grade ore.
So, you're at about 2.7 tera joules per kilo, to 2.7 peta joules per ton and at 160 tons U for the core of that AP-1000 you're talking about approximately 432 peta joules spent on producing the fuel before you've generated a single joule from the core of that ap-1000. Then approximately 140 peta joules to refuel the reactor (1/3 core).
Let's also consider that when the nuclear industry settled on Uranium the energetic cost of mining it was a lot less and oil was a lot more plentiful. Their mindset wasn't considering the long term viability for energy infrastructure otherwise they would have used Thorium. However with all the easy to get ore gone we are either constantly looking for new cheap sources of Uranium to mine or the energetic cost continues to increase as the ore get harder to extract. So the energy estimates for mining is a key input.
That makes the EROEI for the plants go to 0 at that point (which is worst than break even, because it represents a 100% loss of the invested energy).
Yes, because none of the above numbers include the output costs including things like:
Energetic remediation of the mine tailing ?-joules.
Energetic estimates for construction of a nuclear power plant is somewhere between 39.6 peta joules and 126 peta joules
Energy cost for demolition around 198 - 252 peta joules
Dismantling and clean up of the reactor core 20.1 - 57.6 peta joules
Taking these factors into account we fast approach a point where this nuclear fuel cycle becomes energetically non-productiv
You are engaging in double think. Look at the act for yourself. Calling everything a conspiracy is a way of reducing the variables to one thing you can refute with minimum thought.
Nope. You're just snatching the first dubious links from anti-Semitic conspiracy websites in order to affirm your believes. Without even a cursory attempt to double-check them.
I said the FED was privately owned which means it is not owned by the everyday, average man on the street taxpayer.
Incorrect. Fed is not privately owned. Its member banks are. They have no impact on Fed policy which is set by its board, appointed directly by the President. Fed also operates under the charter provided by the Congress.
And even individual Fed banks are only "private". Their "owners" can not hold more than $25k in its stock, this stock can't sold, loaned or used as a collateral.
You said: The US Federal Reserve System is a stand-alone government entity, like the National Park Service or the IRS. this is clearly not the case. I said the FED was privately owned which means it is not owned by the everyday, average man on the street taxpayer.
Again, you're just glossing over everything.
You are at once saying the above and Stocks in the Fed are the way to participate for the membership FDIC-insured banks Can a bank purchase stocks in the IRS? No so, clearly the Federal Reserve is like no other government entity, clearly it is a unique structure.
Is the Federal Reserve owned by private banking interests? Yes it is, therefore it is privately owned. What "owning" means is a different discussion.
Even encyclopedia Britannica says A Federal Reserve bank is a privately owned corporation established pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act to serve the public interest; . So does that mean all of the 12 member banks that own shares in the Federal Reserve Corporation privately owned? Yes they are. Are the other member banks privately owned? yes they are. Does the Federal Reserve "stand-alone" without these member banks? No it does not.
Therefore the Federal Reserve can't be described as "a stand-alone government entity" because it isn't.
Also, your list is just a pure BS from a conspiracy site.
You are engaging in double think. Look at the act for yourself. Calling everything a conspiracy is a way of reducing the variables to one thing you can refute with minimum thought. Nothing personal but calling something a conspiracy theory is like admitting you're not capable of examining the arguments rationally because it means challenging your assumptions and thinking - please see my sig.
Obviously people paradigms are challenged by this information so show me where the budget funds the federal reserve to back up what you say if indeed this all is a conspiracy. The LAW spells out how the Federal Reserve behaves and is structured with history left to describe why it got that way. There is nothing conspiratorial about looking at the facts in law and drawing a conclusion as opposed to someone's opinion to support a point. If you don't agree, that's fine, however throwing your emotional turds at me isn't what I qualify as a convincing argument.
Owning something means that it belongs to you. You can sell it. You can keep the profits. You can gift it to someone else. You can do with it what you please. None of those are true with the Fed.
That's what owning means to you. Owning shares in a reserve bank means power
There IS NO OWNER, no matter how much you want to claim there is.
Again with the strawman, I said privately owned what that means to the owners is a whole lot different to what you believe it means AND NO AMOUNT OF CAPS WILL CHANGE THAT.
So what? All your claims are the strawman that you set up, I made no claim to profit, the board of governors. My only claim was that it is privately owned, it clearly IS according to the ACT.
There is no such thing as 'the 12 shareholders'. Every bank that is part of the federal reserve system is a shareholder.
The Federal Reserve act talks about share allocations in Sec 4.2
Yup. The US Federal Reserve System is a stand-alone government entity, like the National Park Service or the IRS.
I can see where you're confused. I checked the Federal Reserve Act. The Government part is the Board of Governors, the rest is corporate. Otherwise you wouldn't have a "Chairman of the Board". Nor would you have Section under the Federal Reserve Act for appointing a board. I was only trying to point out it was privately owned, which it clearly is, not that it was privately controlled - which it looks like it is according to the act.
What trips some people is the fact that the Fed uses multiple private banks to perform its duties instead of a single government bank like in most of other countries.
Upon the filing of such certificate with the Comptroller of the Currency as aforesaid, the said Federal reserve bank shall become a body corporate and as such, and in the name designated in such organization certificate, shall have power--
First. To adopt and use a corporate seal.
Second. To have succession after the approval of this Act until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law.
Third. To make contracts
Fourth. To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any court of law or equity.
Fifth. To appoint by its board of directors a president, vice presidents, and such officers and employees as are not otherwise provided for in this Act, to define their duties, require bonds for them and fix the penalty thereof, and to dismiss at pleasure such officers or employees.
It goes on with directors and so on then Section 24 talks about how to qualify shareholders. If it wasn't privately owned, which is true otherwise Section 24 would not exist however I wasn't trying to claim it was a corporation, which now I've had a look at the Act, it clearly is arranged that way, a Chartered Corporation (I think).
Slashdot Mirror
Money isn't worth a whole lot if the country is overrun by communist, sorry, islamist hordes.
I can't say I'm a friend of either or any other ism that trashes Human Rights by torturing people.
You have to be able to point at fundamental characteristics of these violations of human dignity, caused by these groups with their hordes, that go into someone else's country, declare war on the people, spread lasting invasive aggression against their culture and, declare that to be evil.
Thank God we've got the U.S to protect us against such violations.
That "visual guide" is very misleading because it's only showing the discretionary budget,
TL;DR version: the budget for defense spending in 2018 was 21%, and in 2007 was 24%.
It's very interesting, thank you. I note that the spending on Education is 4% in 2007 and 3% in 2018.
I seem to remember that a lot of people are chained to education debt, it would seem to me that there are a lot of opportunities to increase spending in that area. educating people is a good thing isn't it? It looks like that waste millitary budget would do a lot of people a lot of good there don't you think?
Hmm, 330 megapeople, $13B....
That works out to about $40 per person. So, maybe one doctor's visit per person, at best?
That's a lot of doctors visits. I know it's not a great deal of money however consider it also from another perspective, the amount of money the military wastes with The Washington post exposing $125 Billion in wasted Military spending . That's roughly 10 doctors visits per person, just from the waste spending alone.
BTW: The military-industrial complex died during Reagan years. Companies found that the U.S. military was small potatoes compared to the civilian economy and it shifted to it. Now, the Pentagon has to beg companies to produce for it since DoD's market is so small in comparison to the rest of the economy.
Do try to keep up, eh?
Here is a handy visual guide to US budget allocations from 2007.
There is nothing more salient that Eisenhower's warning about the Military Industrial Complex. I wonder how much healthcare could be provided with the taxpayers $13 Billion?
Labor mobility is ultimately about freedom.
Who's freedom?
Thank you Mr AC.
It gets better. Fukushima Daiichi had six units, for a combined total of 4696 MW, or 4.696 GW. In your ideal scenario, over twenty years, that is 822.74 terawatt-hours.
So 2959 petajoules for a reactor we don't get a full energetic return from AND we are still on the hook energetically to clean it up.
Of the 104 reactors operating in the U.S 41 have experienced year plus outages to restore their safety levels and 10 reactors did it twice. That's 51 'year plus' outages in operating nuclear reactors and I haven't even gone into general reactor availability and uptime. The most concerning of this indicates that the infrastructure is showing systemic signs of wear so it's unlikely we can expect to reach maximum yield of energy from the entire nuclear industry.
Taking into account the above and in the parent post, consider that there are other energetic inputs, like enrichment, that haven't been considered. The energy committed to demolishing the existing reactors hasn't been spent yet and is approximately 25770 to 43560 peta joules to clean up the current nuclear industry.
If it had had a somewhat higher sea-wall to avoid a flooding situation, it would still be making power today, too.
Well you are still going to need a higher sea wall because it is unlikely that it is the last Tsunami for those parts. The reactor needs protection now more than ever because it is so fragile.
References:
The pessimistic side of the discussion is Storm Smith which is also referenced by the EU parliament. I drew on the original Vattanfal documents for the optimistic side of the calculations which are referenced in the IPCC 4th assessment report, working group 3, chapter 4 "Energy Supply" - but now no longer seems to be available. So high side Storm/Smith, low side Vattenfal.
The industrial measurements for energy are in Joules.
If Unit 1 had been online, running flat-out for twenty years
The expected lifetime output of a brand new AP1000 reactor is about 1080 Peta joules if you are able to run the reactor at high levels of utilization and availability over its service life of forty years. This number can be more or less depending on the characteristics of the reactor. Obviously operators want to extend the service life of an operating reactor to increase the energetic yield, so some are operated beyond their service life and pushing them out to 60 years.
(with magical, always-on ... nuclear... fission-stuff, arguably more easily achievable than the always-on wind...)?
However due to a phenomenon cal neutron embrittlement, the steel of the reactor vessel itself can start to break apart, which leads to failure of the reactor and whatever consequences come from that, so you can't just keep extending the life. If you ran it at 50% of it's potential maximum and slowly wound it down to 0%, you might get it to 80 years.
So No.
Lets put that in watts, so the point really sinks home: 080,590,200,000,000 watt-hours.
Ok, that's an energetic budget of 290 peta joules, less than a third of what I specify for the AP1000.
one of the energetic inputs that has to be considered, the energetic expense of mining Uranium. You have to process so much rock (containing Uranium) to get so little uranium that it takes a lot of energy to get the ore in the first place. 2.4 giga joules per ton for soft ores and 5.5 giga joules per ton for hard hard ores. To get a kilogram of uranium you have to process about 500 tons of ore - even that assumes an extremely optimistic extraction efficiency approaching %50 and assumes you have a high grade ore.
So, you're at about 2.7 tera joules per kilo, to 2.7 peta joules per ton and at 160 tons U for the core of that AP-1000 you're talking about approximately 432 peta joules spent on producing the fuel before you've generated a single joule from the core of that ap-1000. Then approximately 140 peta joules to refuel the reactor (1/3 core).
Let's also consider that when the nuclear industry settled on Uranium the energetic cost of mining it was a lot less and oil was a lot more plentiful. Their mindset wasn't considering the long term viability for energy infrastructure otherwise they would have used Thorium. However with all the easy to get ore gone we are either constantly looking for new cheap sources of Uranium to mine or the energetic cost continues to increase as the ore get harder to extract. So the energy estimates for mining is a key input.
That's a difference of one hundred and fifty two times. More than two orders of magnitude.
And much less energetic return than the wind turbine.
I'll take your slight 20+year ground contamination risk any day of the week, for the footprint reduction alone.
And you'd be a sucker, because none of the above numbers include the output costs including things like:
Taking these factors into account we fast approach a point where this nuclear fuel cycle becomes energetically non-productive.
Per MWh of power generated, wind is actually more dangerous than nuclear. The month of the Great Tokoku Earthquake, a high school student in Ohio was killed when he climbed and fell off a wind turbine at his school which had been improperly locked up. So the month of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, wind power actually killed more people than nuclear power.
So because the kid was an idiot, wind power is bad? Because solar installers aren't wearing safety harnesses on roofs, solar is bad. The TEPCO executive are criminally negligent and obliterate the community surrounding their reactor.
So what you are saying is if you are stupid with wind or solar you die and the community moves on. If you are stupid with Nuclear Power everyone around it has to be evacuated and the community is destroyed even if no one dies.
Nuclear power kills communities when it goes wrong.
They covered large portions of Japan with radioactivity that will remain there for hundreds of thousands of years?
Hundreds of thousands of years? You know what has a half life of 100,000 years? Calcium. Calcium-41 to be precise.
No one is interested in benign isotopes. People are interested in the ones that are toxic and energetic radiation emitters. Try to stick with the radio isotopes the nuclear industry produces from its industrial processes. They're the ones that cause transgenic disease, cancers, reduced brain weight, failed pregnancies and everything else.
That doesn't mean it's necessarily safe since it is a heavy metal that can accumulate in the bones but unless you have a habit of licking spent fuel rods or nuclear weapon cores
Incorrect. Plutonium chloride that was inevitably made when seawater was put through the Fukushima reactor and will continue. As an Iron analogue it is highly soluble and *sought* by the body as a nutrient. As an energetic alpha emitter that is what it will do inside the bodies of all the creatures in the food chain all the way up to the human for the rest of that person's life.
the threat to your health is pretty minimal.
Right now. However it will continue to increase in likelihood as Fukushima, and many of the other Nuclear Industry accidents, including the weapons industry effluents continue to accumulate and become distributed in the environment.
You act as if Fukushima is the only one. Chernobyl, Windscale, TMI, Lake Karachy, Mine tailings, DU and so many more. We know very little about the Syrian Nuclear Reactor that was bombed and how much radio isotopes released, mainly because very few people know about it.
Your statements are unctuous and guileful because they violate people with your false reality.
Just like McSkillet
Good call Mr AC - just like McSkillet.
Las Vegas wasn't built on people winning. Gambling was invented for losers.
This is a good example of what happens when an entitled disordered personality gets their hands on a weapon and perceives a slight against their egoic self. Since their own internal dialogue is already oriented around complete self destruction the best way for them to commit suicide is to get the police to do it for them, whilst taking those who inflicted the perceived injury with them.
This is because if they were to just commit suicide there would be no notoriety and attention from their actions. I counted the discharges and it sounded like a hand gun with a nine round magazine, a reload with a fresh magazine, then another 3 shots. More than likely the shooter pre-meditated a variety of scenarios where this *could* occur otherwise why bring a loaded firearm with a spare magazine? I doubt it was a rifle of some description.
This is the danger of Narcissistic Personality Disorder when it is hovering just below the the threshold of becoming Anti-social Personality Disorder. Those people walk around life always looking for ways to create destruction for everyone and looking at this guys eyes and face in the picture he just reeks of someone who can't sleep at night because his own unconscious self is barraging him with thoughts of what a loser he is. More so look at the facial expression of the Bills player - this is someone with enough social intelligence to pick up that there is something wrong with this kid. I know this is after the fact however it is possible to tell all this from a photo.
So when he lost at the one thing where he thought it was his domain, it pushed him over the edge he knew he was precariously resting on. The thing you can't obviously see is he was looking for a scenario to generate the worst possible outcome so that a notorious death was the one thing he could do so that people would pay attention, after all killing himself means nothing, killing others in the process confirms his own self destructive nature.
How do I see this? I have been writing a book on this subject because it is a common problem that generally only manifests as psychological abuse. At 24 he didn't have enough social experience to defend himself from the perception of the abuse repeated from his childhood nor the impulse control to stop his own destructive nature manifesting.
Yes, you can blame the parents too. At least one was abusive and the other enabled the abuse, possibly tried to compensate and they projected their own toxicity into this kid, from which they will draw their own supply for the rest of their lives. I'm going to predict, he was probably a quiet kid, didn't make much trouble, no one really noticed him. Never had a criminal record, no history of violence, very few friends, probably all on line.
This, I feel, is the core issue with the weapons violence in the US, it is a manifestation of mental health issues like these. Start fixing the mental health issues and you will see a reduction in gun violence.
The expected lifetime output of a brand new AP1000 reactor is about 1080 Peta joules if you are able to run the reactor at high levels of utilization and availability over its service life of forty years. This number can be more or less depending on the characteristics of the reactor. Obviously operators want to extend the service life of an operating reactor to increase the energetic yield, so some are operated beyond their service life and pushing them out to 60 years.
However due to a phenomenon cal neutron embrittlement, the steel of the reactor vessel itself can start to break apart, which leads to failure of the reactor and whatever consequences come from that, so you can't just keep extending the life. If you ran it at 50% of it's potential maximum and slowly wound it down to 0%, you might get it to 80 years.
This study uses 150 years operational life for the reactor, so that's the pessimistic side of the discussion which is also referenced by the EU parliament. I drew on the original Vattanfal documents for the optimistic side of the calculations which are referenced in the IPCC 4th assessment report, working group 3, chapter 4 "Energy Supply" - but now no longer seems to be available. So high side Storm/Smith, low side Vattenfal.
This one of the energetic inputs that has to be considered, the energetic expense of mining Uranium. You have to process so much rock (containing Uranium) to get so little uranium that it takes a lot of energy to get the ore in the first place. 2.4 giga joules per ton for soft ores and 5.5 giga joules per ton for hard hard ores. To get a kilogram of uranium you have to process about 500 tons of ore - even that assumes an extremely optimistic extraction efficiency approaching %50 and assumes you have a high grade ore.
So, you're at about 2.7 tera joules per kilo, to 2.7 peta joules per ton and at 160 tons U for the core of that AP-1000 you're talking about approximately 432 peta joules spent on producing the fuel before you've generated a single joule from the core of that ap-1000. Then approximately 140 peta joules to refuel the reactor (1/3 core).
Let's also consider that when the nuclear industry settled on Uranium the energetic cost of mining it was a lot less and oil was a lot more plentiful. Their mindset wasn't considering the long term viability for energy infrastructure otherwise they would have used Thorium. However with all the easy to get ore gone we are either constantly looking for new cheap sources of Uranium to mine or the energetic cost continues to increase as the ore get harder to extract. So the energy estimates for mining is a key input.
Yes, because none of the above numbers include the output costs including things like:
Taking these factors into account we fast approach a point where this nuclear fuel cycle becomes energetically non-productiv
Yes. They aren't offered to the public.
You are engaging in double think. Look at the act for yourself. Calling everything a conspiracy is a way of reducing the variables to one thing you can refute with minimum thought.
Nope. You're just snatching the first dubious links from anti-Semitic conspiracy websites in order to affirm your believes. Without even a cursory attempt to double-check them.
The Federal Reserve Act is the link I sent you.
I said the FED was privately owned which means it is not owned by the everyday, average man on the street taxpayer.
Incorrect. Fed is not privately owned. Its member banks are. They have no impact on Fed policy which is set by its board, appointed directly by the President. Fed also operates under the charter provided by the Congress. And even individual Fed banks are only "private". Their "owners" can not hold more than $25k in its stock, this stock can't sold, loaned or used as a collateral.
None of which changes that it is privately owned.
You said: The US Federal Reserve System is a stand-alone government entity, like the National Park Service or the IRS. this is clearly not the case. I said the FED was privately owned which means it is not owned by the everyday, average man on the street taxpayer.
Again, you're just glossing over everything.
You are at once saying the above and Stocks in the Fed are the way to participate for the membership FDIC-insured banks Can a bank purchase stocks in the IRS? No so, clearly the Federal Reserve is like no other government entity, clearly it is a unique structure.
Is the Federal Reserve owned by private banking interests? Yes it is, therefore it is privately owned. What "owning" means is a different discussion.
Even encyclopedia Britannica says A Federal Reserve bank is a privately owned corporation established pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act to serve the public interest; . So does that mean all of the 12 member banks that own shares in the Federal Reserve Corporation privately owned? Yes they are. Are the other member banks privately owned? yes they are. Does the Federal Reserve "stand-alone" without these member banks? No it does not.
Therefore the Federal Reserve can't be described as "a stand-alone government entity" because it isn't.
Also, your list is just a pure BS from a conspiracy site.
You are engaging in double think. Look at the act for yourself. Calling everything a conspiracy is a way of reducing the variables to one thing you can refute with minimum thought. Nothing personal but calling something a conspiracy theory is like admitting you're not capable of examining the arguments rationally because it means challenging your assumptions and thinking - please see my sig.
Obviously people paradigms are challenged by this information so show me where the budget funds the federal reserve to back up what you say if indeed this all is a conspiracy. The LAW spells out how the Federal Reserve behaves and is structured with history left to describe why it got that way. There is nothing conspiratorial about looking at the facts in law and drawing a conclusion as opposed to someone's opinion to support a point. If you don't agree, that's fine, however throwing your emotional turds at me isn't what I qualify as a convincing argument.
got a link? I wouldn't mind checking that out.
Owning something means that it belongs to you. You can sell it. You can keep the profits. You can gift it to someone else. You can do with it what you please. None of those are true with the Fed.
That's what owning means to you. Owning shares in a reserve bank means power
There IS NO OWNER, no matter how much you want to claim there is.
Again with the strawman, I said privately owned what that means to the owners is a whole lot different to what you believe it means AND NO AMOUNT OF CAPS WILL CHANGE THAT.
So what? All your claims are the strawman that you set up, I made no claim to profit, the board of governors. My only claim was that it is privately owned, it clearly IS according to the ACT.
There is no such thing as 'the 12 shareholders'. Every bank that is part of the federal reserve system is a shareholder .
The Federal Reserve act talks about share allocations in Sec 4.2
Whole lotta crazy there.
I think you need to calm down.
Wow - people are really uncomfortable with ideas that challenge their assumptions. Check the Federal Reserve Act and have a nice day.
Actually, the Federal Reserve is not privately owned.
Are you sure?
I don't know. Are you unable to read wikipedia?
I prefer to go straight to the Federal Reserve Act to sort it out from there.
Are you sure?
Yup. The US Federal Reserve System is a stand-alone government entity, like the National Park Service or the IRS.
I can see where you're confused. I checked the Federal Reserve Act. The Government part is the Board of Governors, the rest is corporate. Otherwise you wouldn't have a "Chairman of the Board". Nor would you have Section under the Federal Reserve Act for appointing a board. I was only trying to point out it was privately owned, which it clearly is, not that it was privately controlled - which it looks like it is according to the act.
What trips some people is the fact that the Fed uses multiple private banks to perform its duties instead of a single government bank like in most of other countries.
Well that's the privately owned part I was talking about. The thing that *really* trips me up is Section 4, Part 4 of the Federal Reserve Act
refers to its organization as a corporation:
4. General corporate powers
Upon the filing of such certificate with the Comptroller of the Currency as aforesaid, the said Federal reserve bank shall become a body corporate and as such, and in the name designated in such organization certificate, shall have power--
First. To adopt and use a corporate seal.
Second. To have succession after the approval of this Act until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law.
Third. To make contracts
Fourth. To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any court of law or equity.
Fifth. To appoint by its board of directors a president, vice presidents, and such officers and employees as are not otherwise provided for in this Act, to define their duties, require bonds for them and fix the penalty thereof, and to dismiss at pleasure such officers or employees.
It goes on with directors and so on then Section 24 talks about how to qualify shareholders. If it wasn't privately owned, which is true otherwise Section 24 would not exist however I wasn't trying to claim it was a corporation, which now I've had a look at the Act, it clearly is arranged that way, a Chartered Corporation (I think).
Btw - I already pointed out the List of federal reserve shareholders (The private owners) to Mr AC in case you were interested.
This is no different from Pentagon using Boeing or Lockheed to build its planes.
So the government uses the banks to set its monetary policy for the taxpayer. hmmmm, I'm not sure that's such a good idea.
Perhaps it is time to question your assumptions?