"Some observers mistakenly consider the Federal Reserve to be a private entity because the Reserve Banks are organized similarly to private corporations."
That took literally less than 30 seconds to check.
Well according to the link you sent me it says: (1) a central governing board--the Federal Reserve Board of Governors; (2) a decentralized operating structure of 12 Federal Reserve Banks; and (3) a blend of public and private characteristics.
So, it has a board (1), Shareholders (2) and (3) if it looks like a duck and quacks....
FYI - here is a list of the FEDs 12 shareholders-
- Rothschild Bank of London
- Rothschild Bank of Berlin
- Lazard Brothers of Paris
- Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
- Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
- Warburg Bank of Hamburg
- Lehman Brothers of New York
- Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
- Goldman, Sachs of New York
- Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
Well I guess you can scrub Lehman Brothers. So the FED says it's organized similarly to private corporations but it isn't the same thing. Uh Huh! very interesting.
I'm gonna leave you with Section 10 of the Federal Reserve Act where they talk about appointing members of the Board. All I had to do is read the link you sent me - thanks.
Wait, are you seriously saying Bitcoin is basically the same as the US dollar?
That's kinda batshit. I'm not sure what angle you're going for with the Federal Reserve comments either.
Well the Federal Reserve is privately owned and I find it interesting that people think that a central reserve is any different from a centrally planned economy.
You Nuclear Ideologists always have to get personal don't you. You can't talk about the merits and short comings of the technology just kick the magical thinking into overdrive and ridicule anyone that disagrees. For once maybe you should consider the flaws of Nuclear power and propose ways to fix them, instead of labeling me as anti-nuke to justify all slurs and avoid the issues.
Actually I did consider the flaws of nuclear power.
Specifically which ones?
Can you point to any Nuclear Industry experts who specialize in dealing with these issues?
It's just very hard to talk to an idiot
Indeed.
that thinks nuclear power plants don't produce net power.
W.....H......O.....O.....S.......H
If you can't engage the right mindset to think about Nuclear Power you should not advocate for it. If you can't think systemically then you aren't equipped mentally to discuss nuclear power.
I mean it takes a certain kind of crazy to take a look at say France a country that is almost entirely powered by nuclear power and has the lowest cost of electricity in the EU, and say nope they don't actually exist.
Oh and P.S.
Perhaps you are frustrated that you are too ignorant to understand and to lazy to educate yourself? I've given you the data, now all you have to do is overcome your own cognitive dissonance.
Considering that you are referring to the thermodynamic efficiency of GenIV reactors
Wrong again, would you like to try to demonstrate that you actually understand what thermodynamic efficiency means in this context and why even more importantly it's not relevant or at all important ?
No. I don't know how many times I have to tell you I wasn't talking about that, I really don't care about it and from the beginning of this conversation I wasn't interested in discussing it.
You still haven't been able to make the intuitive leap as to why it is not as important compared to the burn-up rate a reactor design achieves. I could give you an explanation using a molten salt or lead Gen IV design however since you think I'm a crazy idiot and continue to hurl insults what could I possibly offer you that you would rationally consider as it is clear you have made up your mind about my position.
I'm not really interested in insulting you back, I can't see a compelling reason why I would I waste my time giving you anything more than I already because I don't think you have much to offer this discussion.
Can you point to any Nuclear Industry experts who specialize in dealing with these issues?
Or do you wish to just keep on embarrassing yourself here ?
I thought not.
That isn't an issue that's fuel, and thousand is not mega it's kilo.
oh boy, here we go again with the magic breeder technology that may have worked if it wasn't lobbied out of existence by the oil and coal industry - quick b lame the nimbys and greenies for ruining the nuclear future you idealize.
Do you want to throw in mine tailings for less energy dense fuels ?
First mine tailings have to be created to extract the Uranium ore. Second a lot of CO is created in that process. Third it leaks radon gas permanently and that usually ends rolling down hill to any water source because gravity. Radon is highly water soluble.
Peer reviewed does not mean correct. The IAEA disagrees
The IAEA's charter says it is an organization that is dedicated to promoting Nuclear Power. That means it is biased towards promoting nuclear power. Or, shock, horror are you going to suggest that they ignore their own charter and NOT promote Nuclear Power?
No you shouldn't talk about things you don't understand, that was the thermodynamic efficiency of the power plant.
No, you shouldn't misrepresent claims whilst you're being condescending because it makes it much harder to forgive your mistakes when you act like a jerk.
Considering that you are referring to the thermodynamic efficiency of GenIV reactors that aren't approved for producing electricity your counterargument demonstrates your lack of understanding of the technology. The primary reasons for *having* a GenIV reactor is specifically *because* they have a high fuel burn-up rate than water cooled reactors. I'm not interested in the thermodynamic efficiency of the plant, I'm interested in the burn-up rate of the reactor and what materials technology extends the lifespan of the reactor core to 100+ years. That's what drives efficiency into the fuel cycle. If you don't understand why then how can you argue for the technology?
I figured you wouldn't recognize it for what it is and you didn't disappoint.
You Nuclear Ideologists always have to get personal don't you. You can't talk about the merits and short comings of the technology just kick the magical thinking into overdrive and ridicule anyone that disagrees. For once maybe you should consider the flaws of Nuclear power and propose ways to fix them, instead of labeling me as anti-nuke to justify all slurs and avoid the issues.
Disown, insult, fuzz argument, repeat. That's why the arguments of Nuclear Ideologists have zero credibility and the Nuclear Industry can never evolve.
This is, of course, irrelevant to nuclear power. Pu-239 is produced for use in nuclear weapons only. A standard reactor doesn't produce Pu-239 any more than a gasoline engine produces plastics as a side-effect.
It's a good point. Considering a reactor core is around 160 tons and IIRC a refuel is on third of the core every eighteen months * 400 reactors world wide for since the 1950s, that's a lot of spent fuel from reactors I haven't included.
1. Nothing "Solves" climate change. The climate is going to keep changing no matter what.
Agreed.
2. Nuclear in this context is meant to eliminate CO2 emissions which are measured in megatons vs Rad waste which is measured in tons.
Current stockpiles of pu239 is 70,000 tons, current stockpiles of u235 is 700,000 plus tons, current stockpiles of radioactive mine tailings is also in megatons. Can you point to any Nuclear Industry experts who specialize in dealing with these issues?
The various mechanisms the man made radio isotope make it into the foodchain is process called bio-accumulate. If that wasn't a problem then we would be able to swim in places like Lake Karachay. Then there is the National Geographic article which took an inventory of the world nuclear waste and found that there is enough to fill a freight train that goes 1 and a half times around the equator of the earth.
Since the nuclear industry do not have a solution to this issue Nuclear energy is not a viable solution to the worlds energy needs. All it means is we have two problems instead of one.
3. Nuclear provides the best energy return currently available
Speaking of context, lets go back to the original context of what I said: This is mainly because water cooled reactors are less than one percent efficient wrt the energy potential in the fuel. Specifically I am referring to burnup rate of the nuclear fuel in the once through cycle. Now the wiki article is particularly generous saying that it is 5%, which I don't agree with however it makes my point adequately.
Second I read the page you sent, thank you. The 45% you are referring to are for reactors that are not deployed and not licensed to produce electricity. Any scaling of Gen IV reactor technology will be occurring very slowly *IF* and thats a big *IF* the materials technology come through to produce them (which I hope it does come through).
So much wrong in so short a post.
If I post an opinion on Nuclear Power, I check my facts before I post.
doom really cared about it we'd have gone balls to the wall nuclear power decades ago and have safe hi tech nukepower oozing out of every orifice.
Nuclear power doesn't solve climate change, it offsets the carbon problem into a radio-isotope problem, which is worse that a carbon problem. Nuclear Energy doesn't work because it doesn't provide an energy return on the energy invested. This is mainly because water cooled reactors are less than one percent efficient wrt the energy potential in the fuel.
There are other reasons, heat load on the environment is another. Nuclear looks great until you begin to understand and analyze it, then it looks like a really bad idea.
Trumps seems to get played a lot . By his wife from Slovenia, smart beautiful from a tough part of the world. Played by Kim Jong Un. Played by Putin.
I'm saying this to point out that someone as obviously personality disordered as they were in the Apprentice is really easy to manipulate by people with really rough violent psychologically abusive tendencies. They exist on a sliding scale and simply put, Trump isn't as good as it because he is the enabler.
Putin is KGB trained to manipulate people psychologically, he is a butcher and mass murderer. Does anyone here actually think that Trump with his salaried wife backed by a extreme right wing vice president is the guy pulling the levers here.
Please don't assume I'm supporting the war criminal Clinton either, perhaps Trumps greatest claim will be "well at least I didn't get us into another war!", I just think that there were better choices and the US appears to be at a juncture in your history when you are looking at your president and saying to yourself "I think I could have done a better job".
I say this because I wanted to present an apolitical context so people could focus on two predictions of history that are important and relevant to where we are now in time. We are these peoples future.
The first is Benjamin Franklin's prediction that the US constitution wasn't strong enough and said "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." Without bashing Trump does anyone think that he fits the profile of the type of leader Franklin was talking about considering the above context?
The second is more straightforward from Lincoln America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. Without bashing the US and her people just how much of your constitutional freedom have you lost?
I think the real danger with the amount of emotional vitriol that Trump inspires is that there are some very real fundamental issues (like chumming up with Putin - the butcher of Chechnya ) that are being ignored and the people being admired and elevated by Trump are the ones who are prepared to commit brutal human rights violations to get their way. They're hardly admirable.
Again - I'm not getting personal about President Trump I'm asking if anyone tried to figure out what sort of future Trump is taking you to with the friends he makes?
High temperature molten salt solar is quickly developing into an excellent base-load power option. We know that the sun will be shining in the future or we'd have much bigger problems.
I believe this is an attempt to curb free speech on the internet.
That's exactly what it is. Too many people are becoming informed and educating themselves now policy decisions can be made to keep people wasting each others time watching cat vids on facebook whilst education and things important to running a free society are kept inaccessible.
Your post should be MODed UP instead of down, however that really shows how this is going to work.
And who do we have to blame for this state off affairs?
Why the poultry industry of course who decided it was a good idea to use a last line human defense anti-biotic to reduce the gut bacteria of chickens so they would grow faster.
So there is a consequences of us allowing these cunts to be cunts to the humble chicken.
I have the precise numbers. 2005 U.S Energy Policy Act.
Anti-nukes love to go on about indemnities, but the actual cost to date is close to if not $0, and isn't likely to grow much.
I'm not anti-nuke, I'm anti-stupid.
So what does that have to do with the funding of nuclear vs solar whilst you ignore billions of dollars of actual appropriations and input tax credits that rape the taxpayers wallet....Nothing.
What is laughable is your pitiful attempt to deceive people by ignoring the amount of energy generated while talking subsidies.
Except you already know that nuclear doesn't generate an energy return, otherwise you're too stupid to read the page I linked you before.
Even if you included all the ridiculous numbers you cited, an honest comparison of subsidy per kWh would indeed show a "gross form of corporate welfare", just not for nuclear or even fossil fuels.
Oh you mean the ridiculous numbers that congress passed into law.
Nuclear Ideologist and your crumbling nuclear ideology. All the funding is there for your new reactors and no one is using it. You're so naive it's pathetic. You know the nuclear industry calls you useful idiots don't you?
Seems like you have a bit of underdog syndrome going there blindseer. Nuclear has been going since the 50's when it was "too cheap to meter" and received billions of dollars of taxpayer funded subsidies - and still does.
I can't find the precise numbers right now but nuclear does get billions in subsidies, but wind and solar get many times more. Nuclear power produces about 20% of the electricity in the USA, while wind and solar produce less than 10% combined. That means we get much more electricity for each dollar spent on nuclear than from wind and solar.
I have the precise numbers. 2005 U.S Energy Policy Act.
Solar and wind are covered under SEC.812, the two combined get one section . They have to raise 20% of their own funding for research and %50 of their own funding for Commercial with no other appropriations under the Energy Act. Instead they have to seek funding through the Small Business Act.
As opposed to Nuclear that has twenty five sections dedicated to it, with funding allocations in various sections. Let's see:
$1662000000 from 2005-2020, that's the first section with 25 to go and nuclear already tramples solar and wind funding.
$10,000,000,000 in PERSONAL indemnities.
$500,000,000 indemnity for accident outside the US
One for EBR fans and sodium reactor fans $16,000,000 to destroy the technology - but keep blaming the Nimbys and greenies
$100,000,000 for *demonstration* hydrogen producing reactor That no one has utilized to replace oil
$500,000,000 to cover regulatory delays and another $250,000,000 for delays in the first 180 days PER CONTRACT
So your claims looks like more of your laughable rhetoric. Solar and wind get nothing compared to this gross form of corporate welfare. Everything from R&D to commercial operations are covered and the US government bends over backwards to ensure nuclear power gets everything it needs.
That's a nice list of predictions, here's mine:
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Seems like you have a bit of underdog syndrome going there blindseer. Nuclear has been going since the 50's when it was "too cheap to meter" and received billions of dollars of taxpayer funded subsidies - and still does.
Nuclear Ideologists have been laughing at solar, wind and geothermal projects for the entire time. You're a prime example of someone fighting those visions of the future by attempting to hold us to a failing nuclear past.
You've ignored solar, laughed at solar and you've been fighting solar so that it won't win.
I see nuclear power has now finally gone beyond being ignored. Seems we're at the "laugh at you" stage now.
No one is laughing at Nuclear Power, it's a very serious matter that we have to deal with in our generation. It's an onerous responsibility forced upon us by the Cold war generation. Our responsibility is to deal with the radionuclide AND carbon legacy left to us by a generation that didn't know any better because we do know better.
That's why people are tired of all your bullshit, and that's why they're laughing at you. Your Nuclear Ideology is so completely absurd and divorced from reality that you've made it clear it's everyone else. Here's my list of why they laugh at you:
You're all about blaming NIMBYs and greenies for the Nuclear industries woes instead of the fact that it isn't a cost effective investment.
You're all about everyone else being too stupid to see how good *some new reactor technology* is when it is the oil and coal companies that comprehensively dismantled that technology by lobbying government.
You're all about forcing lots of other people who have valid concerns to accept your worldview without addressing those concerns.
You're all about minimizing and refusing to take responsibility when someones community gets obliterated by an exploding nuclear reactor which you then point to and say - see it's perfectly safe.
You're all about relying on subterfuge and political point scoring to deny the effects these elements have on DNA in the environment, then pour scorn on people who are rightfully scared of that.
You want the best for everyone and don't care who gets hurt so you get your way.
While all the greenies were concerned with oil and coal companies polluting the air and water by protesting against that in previous decades, the oil and coal companies manipulated pro-nukkers into attacking greenies while they destroyed IFR in its infancy. You concentrated on blaming people that may have been your allies if you you weren't so morally superior and dogmatically skeptical.
Whenever anyone tried to explain that to you pro-nukkers you instead concentrated on destroying them for asking intelligent questions that you had no answer for. When they went out and found the answers themselves the true nightmare of the effect of radionuclide contamination on the human genome became apparent and you pretend it doesn't happen. That's when everyone could see that you were Nuclear Ideologists, that your worldview is a political system based in social proof, rhetoric and a very dangerous lie.
Nuclear Ideology, it's the false reality too expensive to maintain.
As the bogus Capacity Factor measurement goes down with the Availability Factor Nuclear Idealists never speak of. So much for the metric invented to make nuclear power look good.
Can you compare and contrast "capacity factor" with "availability factor"? You use those words but I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
I'll see your "capacity factor" with "availability factor" and raise you this B.D.I with a L.E.R.
Seems to me that "availability factor" was created to make solar look good. Availability factor subtracts out the night and twilight hours when the sun isn't shining so that instead of comparing capacity over 24 hours they compare "availability" over 10 hours. That turns a 25% capacity factor into 80% availability factor. Compared to nuclear which has a capacity factor of 90%+, and when the annual downtime for refuel and inspection is factored out, the availability factor comes to 95%+.
Oh, is it really a thing? I just made it up cause I thought it sounded cool.
How is either metric "invented" to make nuclear power look good?
It could be something to do with "Utilization" or maybe fairy floss, I can't remember which one. Look thanks for the wamsr information, I will say it does look interesting. I thought you may have actually known what you were talking about and why when you presented it but now I think it looks like dumb luck on your part.
I think your best contributions are behind you now as you have decided to insult me in the other thread, maybe it's you or some other atomicasshole, I'm not sure and I don't care. You are a scream the way you hammer more nails into the nuclear industries coffin so keep it up. I've given you enough hints in this post for you to work it out if you have a brain which should give you some closure when you
I've been providing citations for over ten years all ignored by your nuclear ideology, magic thinking. Specifically which ones are you looking for and why should I waste my time on you Mr AC?
Maybe some of us have not been on Slashdot for ten years. Might be helpful for the new guys to see where you get your data. Simply saying, "you have a computer, go Google it yourself!" is not helpful if someone does "Google it" and finds data contradicting your claims.
Poor baby. When I have more time, right now I'm just zoning from some really hard stuff I'm doing. BTW, this is not your best work Mr AC.
All you have been doing Mr. Kaos is making unsubstantiated claims, slinging insults, and generally making a fool of yourself.
I don't care what you think and I'm not going to be subscribing to the false reality of the accusations you're trying to impose in your inverted ad hom attack, especially after just telling me to STFU. Suddenly any respect I may have afforded you just disappeared.
As for specific citations I'm looking for, I'm not sure. Start with something, anything really, to make your case. How about this, you claim that nuclear CO2 footprint under estimates the mining, prove that. And, why bother answering the questions of an AC? Because it's not just one person that will read your response.
First get your head around this and when you are finished get your head around this. You'll find it's reviewed by (IIRC) ten major universities with nuclear energy systems specialization.
You have not been a paragon of solar power advocates. You've been insulting, rude, and claim solar power does everything perfectly and nuclear power does nothing but kill. Oh, and provide nothing for the new guys to verify your claims.
I'm truly sorry if I hurt your feelings. I hope your narcissistic rage calms before you sink into a deep depression for the next few weeks.
And, when people ask an honest question you accuse them of being a nuclear power ideologue.
I won't be play trite words games with your disingenuity. Every sincere person who suffers from this ism and genuinely educates themselves about the nuclear industry comes to the same conclusion - because there is no other conclusion to come to once you do. However now it would seem you are something new, perhaps I am looking at a true Nuclear Narcissist suffering Nuclear Narcissism, this must be what happens to ideologues who have their social proof shattered by truth.
You have your citations now, go read them and educate yourself as I can't see you contributing anything more of value to this conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
"Some observers mistakenly consider the Federal Reserve to be a private entity because the Reserve Banks are organized similarly to private corporations."
https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm
That took literally less than 30 seconds to check.
Well according to the link you sent me it says: (1) a central governing board--the Federal Reserve Board of Governors; (2) a decentralized operating structure of 12 Federal Reserve Banks; and (3) a blend of public and private characteristics.
So, it has a board (1), Shareholders (2) and (3) if it looks like a duck and quacks....
FYI - here is a list of the FEDs 12 shareholders- - Rothschild Bank of London - Rothschild Bank of Berlin - Lazard Brothers of Paris - Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy - Warburg Bank of Amsterdam - Warburg Bank of Hamburg - Lehman Brothers of New York - Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York - Goldman, Sachs of New York - Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
Well I guess you can scrub Lehman Brothers. So the FED says it's organized similarly to private corporations but it isn't the same thing. Uh Huh! very interesting.
I'm gonna leave you with Section 10 of the Federal Reserve Act where they talk about appointing members of the Board. All I had to do is read the link you sent me - thanks.
Actually, the Federal Reserve is not privately owned.
Are you sure?
And it's also totally different from a planned economy. Duh.
Well I did say I find it interesting.
Wait, are you seriously saying Bitcoin is basically the same as the US dollar?
That's kinda batshit. I'm not sure what angle you're going for with the Federal Reserve comments either.
Well the Federal Reserve is privately owned and I find it interesting that people think that a central reserve is any different from a centrally planned economy.
Just sayin
Actually I did consider the flaws of nuclear power.
Specifically which ones?
Can you point to any Nuclear Industry experts who specialize in dealing with these issues?
It's just very hard to talk to an idiot
Indeed.
that thinks nuclear power plants don't produce net power.
W.....H......O.....O.....S.......H
If you can't engage the right mindset to think about Nuclear Power you should not advocate for it. If you can't think systemically then you aren't equipped mentally to discuss nuclear power.
I mean it takes a certain kind of crazy to take a look at say France a country that is almost entirely powered by nuclear power and has the lowest cost of electricity in the EU, and say nope they don't actually exist.
Oh and P.S.
Perhaps you are frustrated that you are too ignorant to understand and to lazy to educate yourself? I've given you the data, now all you have to do is overcome your own cognitive dissonance.
Considering that you are referring to the thermodynamic efficiency of GenIV reactors
Wrong again, would you like to try to demonstrate that you actually understand what thermodynamic efficiency means in this context and why even more importantly it's not relevant or at all important ?
No. I don't know how many times I have to tell you I wasn't talking about that, I really don't care about it and from the beginning of this conversation I wasn't interested in discussing it.
You still haven't been able to make the intuitive leap as to why it is not as important compared to the burn-up rate a reactor design achieves. I could give you an explanation using a molten salt or lead Gen IV design however since you think I'm a crazy idiot and continue to hurl insults what could I possibly offer you that you would rationally consider as it is clear you have made up your mind about my position.
I'm not really interested in insulting you back, I can't see a compelling reason why I would I waste my time giving you anything more than I already because I don't think you have much to offer this discussion.
Have a nice day.
Can you point to any Nuclear Industry experts who specialize in dealing with these issues?
Or do you wish to just keep on embarrassing yourself here ?
I thought not.
That isn't an issue that's fuel, and thousand is not mega it's kilo.
oh boy, here we go again with the magic breeder technology that may have worked if it wasn't lobbied out of existence by the oil and coal industry - quick b lame the nimbys and greenies for ruining the nuclear future you idealize.
Do you want to throw in mine tailings for less energy dense fuels ?
First mine tailings have to be created to extract the Uranium ore. Second a lot of CO is created in that process. Third it leaks radon gas permanently and that usually ends rolling down hill to any water source because gravity. Radon is highly water soluble.
Peer reviewed does not mean correct. The IAEA disagrees
The IAEA's charter says it is an organization that is dedicated to promoting Nuclear Power. That means it is biased towards promoting nuclear power. Or, shock, horror are you going to suggest that they ignore their own charter and NOT promote Nuclear Power?
No you shouldn't talk about things you don't understand, that was the thermodynamic efficiency of the power plant.
No, you shouldn't misrepresent claims whilst you're being condescending because it makes it much harder to forgive your mistakes when you act like a jerk.
Considering that you are referring to the thermodynamic efficiency of GenIV reactors that aren't approved for producing electricity your counterargument demonstrates your lack of understanding of the technology. The primary reasons for *having* a GenIV reactor is specifically *because* they have a high fuel burn-up rate than water cooled reactors. I'm not interested in the thermodynamic efficiency of the plant, I'm interested in the burn-up rate of the reactor and what materials technology extends the lifespan of the reactor core to 100+ years. That's what drives efficiency into the fuel cycle. If you don't understand why then how can you argue for the technology?
I figured you wouldn't recognize it for what it is and you didn't disappoint.
You Nuclear Ideologists always have to get personal don't you. You can't talk about the merits and short comings of the technology just kick the magical thinking into overdrive and ridicule anyone that disagrees. For once maybe you should consider the flaws of Nuclear power and propose ways to fix them, instead of labeling me as anti-nuke to justify all slurs and avoid the issues.
Disown, insult, fuzz argument, repeat. That's why the arguments of Nuclear Ideologists have zero credibility and the Nuclear Industry can never evolve.
Well, except the "My ism, it's full of beliefs.", which is spot on.
Well at least you can admit to it.
This is, of course, irrelevant to nuclear power. Pu-239 is produced for use in nuclear weapons only. A standard reactor doesn't produce Pu-239 any more than a gasoline engine produces plastics as a side-effect.
It's a good point. Considering a reactor core is around 160 tons and IIRC a refuel is on third of the core every eighteen months * 400 reactors world wide for since the 1950s, that's a lot of spent fuel from reactors I haven't included.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Just out of curiosity, how are you at checking and accounting for confirmation bias?
Which bias are you assuming I have?
1. Nothing "Solves" climate change. The climate is going to keep changing no matter what.
Agreed.
2. Nuclear in this context is meant to eliminate CO2 emissions which are measured in megatons vs Rad waste which is measured in tons.
Current stockpiles of pu239 is 70,000 tons, current stockpiles of u235 is 700,000 plus tons, current stockpiles of radioactive mine tailings is also in megatons. Can you point to any Nuclear Industry experts who specialize in dealing with these issues?
The various mechanisms the man made radio isotope make it into the foodchain is process called bio-accumulate. If that wasn't a problem then we would be able to swim in places like Lake Karachay. Then there is the National Geographic article which took an inventory of the world nuclear waste and found that there is enough to fill a freight train that goes 1 and a half times around the equator of the earth.
Since the nuclear industry do not have a solution to this issue Nuclear energy is not a viable solution to the worlds energy needs. All it means is we have two problems instead of one.
3. Nuclear provides the best energy return currently available
No. The peer reviewed science from over 10 universities around the world beg to differ in a study that uses established methods for industrial energetic input. Nuclear power provides no energetic return on energy invested.
4. Nuclear power current designs hit 45% efficiency https://energyeducation.ca/enc...
Speaking of context, lets go back to the original context of what I said: This is mainly because water cooled reactors are less than one percent efficient wrt the energy potential in the fuel. Specifically I am referring to burnup rate of the nuclear fuel in the once through cycle. Now the wiki article is particularly generous saying that it is 5%, which I don't agree with however it makes my point adequately.
Second I read the page you sent, thank you. The 45% you are referring to are for reactors that are not deployed and not licensed to produce electricity. Any scaling of Gen IV reactor technology will be occurring very slowly *IF* and thats a big *IF* the materials technology come through to produce them (which I hope it does come through).
So much wrong in so short a post.
If I post an opinion on Nuclear Power, I check my facts before I post.
Thank you for being an example.
No, Thank you!
doom really cared about it we'd have gone balls to the wall nuclear power decades ago and have safe hi tech nukepower oozing out of every orifice.
Nuclear power doesn't solve climate change, it offsets the carbon problem into a radio-isotope problem, which is worse that a carbon problem. Nuclear Energy doesn't work because it doesn't provide an energy return on the energy invested. This is mainly because water cooled reactors are less than one percent efficient wrt the energy potential in the fuel.
There are other reasons, heat load on the environment is another. Nuclear looks great until you begin to understand and analyze it, then it looks like a really bad idea.
Trumps seems to get played a lot . By his wife from Slovenia, smart beautiful from a tough part of the world. Played by Kim Jong Un. Played by Putin.
I'm saying this to point out that someone as obviously personality disordered as they were in the Apprentice is really easy to manipulate by people with really rough violent psychologically abusive tendencies. They exist on a sliding scale and simply put, Trump isn't as good as it because he is the enabler.
Putin is KGB trained to manipulate people psychologically, he is a butcher and mass murderer. Does anyone here actually think that Trump with his salaried wife backed by a extreme right wing vice president is the guy pulling the levers here.
Please don't assume I'm supporting the war criminal Clinton either, perhaps Trumps greatest claim will be "well at least I didn't get us into another war!", I just think that there were better choices and the US appears to be at a juncture in your history when you are looking at your president and saying to yourself "I think I could have done a better job".
I say this because I wanted to present an apolitical context so people could focus on two predictions of history that are important and relevant to where we are now in time. We are these peoples future.
The first is Benjamin Franklin's prediction that the US constitution wasn't strong enough and said "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." Without bashing Trump does anyone think that he fits the profile of the type of leader Franklin was talking about considering the above context?
The second is more straightforward from Lincoln America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. Without bashing the US and her people just how much of your constitutional freedom have you lost?
I think the real danger with the amount of emotional vitriol that Trump inspires is that there are some very real fundamental issues (like chumming up with Putin - the butcher of Chechnya ) that are being ignored and the people being admired and elevated by Trump are the ones who are prepared to commit brutal human rights violations to get their way. They're hardly admirable.
Again - I'm not getting personal about President Trump I'm asking if anyone tried to figure out what sort of future Trump is taking you to with the friends he makes?
All the best.
Wait. What cavity search?
Opportunist is referring to the anti-terrorism laws like the Patriot act which includes body cavity search provisions.
Just to be sure.
It's the one time it really fits and is on topic.
High temperature molten salt solar is quickly developing into an excellent base-load power option. We know that the sun will be shining in the future or we'd have much bigger problems.
It looks awesome too!
I believe this is an attempt to curb free speech on the internet.
That's exactly what it is. Too many people are becoming informed and educating themselves now policy decisions can be made to keep people wasting each others time watching cat vids on facebook whilst education and things important to running a free society are kept inaccessible.
Your post should be MODed UP instead of down, however that really shows how this is going to work.
I'll take "things that never happened" for $590, Alex.
Detection of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus Spp. (VRE) from Poultry
Persistence of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci in New Zealand Broilers after Discontinuation of Avoparcin Use
BENEFITS OF DIETARY ANTIBIOTIC AND MANNANOLIGOSACCHARIDE SUPPLEMENTATION FOR POULTRY which says: The specific vanA gene cluster that encodes for vancomycin resistance has been isolated from Enterococcus faecium in farm animals destined for human consumption (Bates et al., 1994; Klare et al., 1995).
What did they ever do for us?
We could eat them.
And who do we have to blame for this state off affairs?
Why the poultry industry of course who decided it was a good idea to use a last line human defense anti-biotic to reduce the gut bacteria of chickens so they would grow faster.
So there is a consequences of us allowing these cunts to be cunts to the humble chicken.
Google ThePirateBay.org so we know how to find it.
I have the precise numbers. 2005 U.S Energy Policy Act.
Anti-nukes love to go on about indemnities, but the actual cost to date is close to if not $0, and isn't likely to grow much.
I'm not anti-nuke, I'm anti-stupid. So what does that have to do with the funding of nuclear vs solar whilst you ignore billions of dollars of actual appropriations and input tax credits that rape the taxpayers wallet. ...Nothing.
What is laughable is your pitiful attempt to deceive people by ignoring the amount of energy generated while talking subsidies.
Except you already know that nuclear doesn't generate an energy return, otherwise you're too stupid to read the page I linked you before.
Even if you included all the ridiculous numbers you cited, an honest comparison of subsidy per kWh would indeed show a "gross form of corporate welfare", just not for nuclear or even fossil fuels.
Oh you mean the ridiculous numbers that congress passed into law.
Nuclear Ideologist and your crumbling nuclear ideology. All the funding is there for your new reactors and no one is using it. You're so naive it's pathetic. You know the nuclear industry calls you useful idiots don't you?
Seems like you have a bit of underdog syndrome going there blindseer. Nuclear has been going since the 50's when it was "too cheap to meter" and received billions of dollars of taxpayer funded subsidies - and still does.
I can't find the precise numbers right now but nuclear does get billions in subsidies, but wind and solar get many times more. Nuclear power produces about 20% of the electricity in the USA, while wind and solar produce less than 10% combined. That means we get much more electricity for each dollar spent on nuclear than from wind and solar.
I have the precise numbers. 2005 U.S Energy Policy Act.
Solar and wind are covered under SEC.812, the two combined get one section . They have to raise 20% of their own funding for research and %50 of their own funding for Commercial with no other appropriations under the Energy Act. Instead they have to seek funding through the Small Business Act.
As opposed to Nuclear that has twenty five sections dedicated to it, with funding allocations in various sections. Let's see:
So your claims looks like more of your laughable rhetoric. Solar and wind get nothing compared to this gross form of corporate welfare. Everything from R&D to commercial operations are covered and the US government bends over backwards to ensure nuclear power gets everything it needs.
That's a nice list of predictions, here's mine: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Seems like you have a bit of underdog syndrome going there blindseer. Nuclear has been going since the 50's when it was "too cheap to meter" and received billions of dollars of taxpayer funded subsidies - and still does.
Nuclear Ideologists have been laughing at solar, wind and geothermal projects for the entire time. You're a prime example of someone fighting those visions of the future by attempting to hold us to a failing nuclear past.
You've ignored solar, laughed at solar and you've been fighting solar so that it won't win.
I see nuclear power has now finally gone beyond being ignored. Seems we're at the "laugh at you" stage now.
No one is laughing at Nuclear Power, it's a very serious matter that we have to deal with in our generation. It's an onerous responsibility forced upon us by the Cold war generation. Our responsibility is to deal with the radionuclide AND carbon legacy left to us by a generation that didn't know any better because we do know better.
That's why people are tired of all your bullshit, and that's why they're laughing at you. Your Nuclear Ideology is so completely absurd and divorced from reality that you've made it clear it's everyone else. Here's my list of why they laugh at you:
While all the greenies were concerned with oil and coal companies polluting the air and water by protesting against that in previous decades, the oil and coal companies manipulated pro-nukkers into attacking greenies while they destroyed IFR in its infancy. You concentrated on blaming people that may have been your allies if you you weren't so morally superior and dogmatically skeptical.
Whenever anyone tried to explain that to you pro-nukkers you instead concentrated on destroying them for asking intelligent questions that you had no answer for. When they went out and found the answers themselves the true nightmare of the effect of radionuclide contamination on the human genome became apparent and you pretend it doesn't happen. That's when everyone could see that you were Nuclear Ideologists, that your worldview is a political system based in social proof, rhetoric and a very dangerous lie.
Nuclear Ideology, it's the false reality too expensive to maintain.
wouldn't that be "teh bassline" every electricity grid needs a good bassline.
As the bogus Capacity Factor measurement goes down with the Availability Factor Nuclear Idealists never speak of. So much for the metric invented to make nuclear power look good.
Can you compare and contrast "capacity factor" with "availability factor"? You use those words but I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
I'll see your "capacity factor" with "availability factor" and raise you this B.D.I with a L.E.R.
Seems to me that "availability factor" was created to make solar look good. Availability factor subtracts out the night and twilight hours when the sun isn't shining so that instead of comparing capacity over 24 hours they compare "availability" over 10 hours. That turns a 25% capacity factor into 80% availability factor. Compared to nuclear which has a capacity factor of 90%+, and when the annual downtime for refuel and inspection is factored out, the availability factor comes to 95%+.
Oh, is it really a thing? I just made it up cause I thought it sounded cool.
How is either metric "invented" to make nuclear power look good?
It could be something to do with "Utilization" or maybe fairy floss, I can't remember which one. Look thanks for the wamsr information, I will say it does look interesting. I thought you may have actually known what you were talking about and why when you presented it but now I think it looks like dumb luck on your part.
I think your best contributions are behind you now as you have decided to insult me in the other thread, maybe it's you or some other atomicasshole, I'm not sure and I don't care. You are a scream the way you hammer more nails into the nuclear industries coffin so keep it up. I've given you enough hints in this post for you to work it out if you have a brain which should give you some closure when you
I've been providing citations for over ten years all ignored by your nuclear ideology, magic thinking. Specifically which ones are you looking for and why should I waste my time on you Mr AC?
Maybe some of us have not been on Slashdot for ten years. Might be helpful for the new guys to see where you get your data. Simply saying, "you have a computer, go Google it yourself!" is not helpful if someone does "Google it" and finds data contradicting your claims.
Poor baby. When I have more time, right now I'm just zoning from some really hard stuff I'm doing. BTW, this is not your best work Mr AC.
All you have been doing Mr. Kaos is making unsubstantiated claims, slinging insults, and generally making a fool of yourself.
I don't care what you think and I'm not going to be subscribing to the false reality of the accusations you're trying to impose in your inverted ad hom attack, especially after just telling me to STFU. Suddenly any respect I may have afforded you just disappeared.
As for specific citations I'm looking for, I'm not sure. Start with something, anything really, to make your case. How about this, you claim that nuclear CO2 footprint under estimates the mining, prove that. And, why bother answering the questions of an AC? Because it's not just one person that will read your response.
First get your head around this and when you are finished get your head around this. You'll find it's reviewed by (IIRC) ten major universities with nuclear energy systems specialization.
You have not been a paragon of solar power advocates. You've been insulting, rude, and claim solar power does everything perfectly and nuclear power does nothing but kill. Oh, and provide nothing for the new guys to verify your claims.
I'm truly sorry if I hurt your feelings. I hope your narcissistic rage calms before you sink into a deep depression for the next few weeks.
And, when people ask an honest question you accuse them of being a nuclear power ideologue.
I won't be play trite words games with your disingenuity. Every sincere person who suffers from this ism and genuinely educates themselves about the nuclear industry comes to the same conclusion - because there is no other conclusion to come to once you do. However now it would seem you are something new, perhaps I am looking at a true Nuclear Narcissist suffering Nuclear Narcissism, this must be what happens to ideologues who have their social proof shattered by truth.
You have your citations now, go read them and educate yourself as I can't see you contributing anything more of value to this conversation.