Where do these Solar Reserve plants exist? That's a website giving a proposal, as far as I can tell these solar thermal storage sites do not exist, none have been built.
Just like your wamsr salt reactor.
On the other hand we've seen hundreds of nuclear power plants built.
You mean nuclear technology of 50 years ago?
We've seen high temperature reactors built as prototypes, which would be well suited for molten salt thermal energy storage if we'd only dust off the old plans and update them a bit.
So naive, so adorable. I'm sure oil and coal will be all for that, let's see if they lobby to have nuclear take their market share.
If that solar thermal storage technology checks out then that leaves a wide door open for a nuclear reactor to step in and take over that space.
Sure and in the decade or so that it takes to run nuclear construction over budget and investors aren't getting the promised return the ones that invested in solar will have their money back two or three times. But you keep believing.
In the end you are comparing future solar technology to nuclear technology of 50 years ago.
You mean the hundreds of nuclear power plants built?
How about you compare modern existing solar power to modern existing nuclear power? Why bring up the RBMK at Chernobyl? Or BWR at Fukushima? Those were out dated second generation reactors. No one builds those any more.
Because they are the ones operating.
How about comparing existing solar power to third generation reactors that have been recently constructed?
You mean that cheap piece of shit the AP1000 based on the SNUPPS design with the lower thermal containment ratio of all the nuclear technology of 50 years ago with new untested failure modes that uses the containment building as a heat exchanger that has never been tested - that Turd generation reactor approved by the NRC?
If you want to bring up future solar power technology then compare that to fourth generation nuclear, like molten salt reactors. If you need to point to nonexistent solar power plants to make your case for solar power then you have a very weak case. If you need to bring up 30 year old nuclear power accidents to argue against future nuclear power reactors then that is also a weak case.
Solar and wind have ZERO waste and even your salt reactor has unknown failure modes. The future of nuclear is crap AP1000 or EPR which is better but is still a water cooled reactor, they are the only ones approved. Solar has ZERO chance of melting down, no radio-nuclides, is massively scalable. None of your turd generation reactors provide any of the thirty plus upgrades recommended by the industry itself. Not one of them are *underground* for example. At least EPR has some of the improvements, AP-1000 is a backward step compared to nuclear technology of 50 years ago.
Because this exact same technology is what is planned for in future molten salt nuclear reactors.
I think lead cooled reactors would be better.
Why?
Better burn up rate of the fuel as it becomes fissile ash. Longer cycle time inside the reactor between refueling.
Go ahead, bring on the molten salt solar thermal power. That will prove the technology for use in nuclear reactors.
Yeah, except in the technology your thinking of leaves a brand new waste stream and doesn't address the old one.
We have the internet and can read. Next generation reactors would consume the waste from old previous generation reactors. http://egeneration.org/solutio...
If you are permitted to bring up next generation solar to make your case then I can bring up next generation nuclear to make my case.
Looks like a fast burner without an integrated fuel reprocessing facility like IFR. Upgrade on IFR due to salt instead of sodium as a coolant. I am definitely interested in the anti-proliferation aspect. Looks promising once you get around the oil coal industry lobbying against it and enough reactor experience to have it NRC approved so I'll watch with interest.
Here's where nuclear beats out solar on the molten salt storage, it doesn't take multiple square miles to achieve 1 gigawatt of power.
It doesn't matter, solar is as closed cycle as it gets and produces no waste. There simply isn't a nuclear plant that does that. Solar scales really quickly.
It's going to take a few versions of this technology to get to 1Gw if you are claiming to have learned the lessons of safety from the previous nuclear industry. So as long as you don't try to scale the reactor to quickly and iron out the quirks, then you might learn something from the previous failure of an nuclear industry. This design will especially have to be underground and disposed of in situ so the length of the service life is going to tie into the materials technology used to build it. It will take 10-20 years to scale this technology to build enough reactor experience to get to 1Gw. Do you suggest we simply ignore those lessons from this nuclear industry and not build solar in the meantime as I have suggested?
I have no problem with the development of nuclear technology especially to deal with the spent fuel and weapons grade pu we have lying around. It would be good if it eats up DU however that is not clear. I'll check out the technology, thanks for the information.
Right, let's compare current reactors to one that is 50 years old, designed based on incomplete plans stolen from the USA, where important details were lost in translation, when built did not even meet the specifications from these flawed plans, was run by drunk Russians hired for their political connections rather than their technical abilities, and even then to get it to fail it required multiple safety systems to be overridden manually, and pushed beyond designed output levels.
Take responsibility for what you are advocating and you will be a lot more convincing. Humans will still run the reactor at an organization level which is where Fukushima and Chernobyl both failed.
Then there is Fukushima. These were reactors built before Chernobyl, so the lessons learned from that accident were not incorporated into this design.
And not to the AP100 and only some in EPR, the only two approved nuclear power plant designs approved for deployment.
There were multiple safety violations during construction and operation,
And that's meant to reassure me that human nature won't be present for the construction of these reactors?
So we have two major fuck-ups on 50 year old reactor designs, among the 400+ nuclear reactors that have operated safely in the world, in which few people died, and you want to use that as a reason to not build NEW reactors? If that's the metric then I'll pull up some price and performance statistics from the 1980s to argue against wind and solar.
No, we've been very lucky there haven't been more and as they age and continue to operate they will do so. Show me the attention to detail a new nuclear industry warrants. Then argue the for case better than I can and that most of these nuclear ideaologists can't.
Be a Responsible Nuclear Advocate not a Nuclear Ideologist with an agenda to push.
Yes, I've seen that. The claim is that the sun can heat a molten salt,
No, the claim is it is more appropriate energy infrastructure for the 21st century, now that we've had the internet for decades and we can read.
That would be great if this solar technology existed today. Where are these solar thermal power plants that are cheap, reliable, and provide power 24/7?
Well the whole premise is that CO2 output of nuclear is a good argument *for* nuclear power. It's the best argument it's got going amongst a plethora of bad ones *against* nuclear power.
You've been given multiple citations that the arguments against nuclear power are at best based on outdated data, or at worst simply lies. Show some citations for your claims or STFU.
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?
oddly, the only nations that have reduced their CO2 to low numbers are those with hydro, geo-thermal, and/or nuke power. Those with wind/solar, esp. when they stopped their nuke powers, end up INCREASING their CO2. Germany and Japan are but 2 that actually increased their CO2, not lower it, since shutting down their nukes.
oddly, the only nations that have reduced their CO2 to low numbers are those with hydro, geo-thermal, and/or nuke power.
Well the whole premise is that CO2 output of nuclear is a good argument *for* nuclear power. It's the best argument it's got going amongst a plethora of bad ones *against* nuclear power.
You are probably referring to the latest IPCC numbers, which draw up work done by Vattenfal, a nuclear energy producer whose work was not peer reviewed and is now no longer available having been certified just long enough for the last IPCC report to be released. If you are able to produce the source report from the IPCC I'd be grateful as I only got to tear it to pieces once.
That report notoriously underestimates carbon output from mining, and the potency of CFC114, doesn't include energetic expenditure of reactor decommissioning, spent fuel containment and so on.
Essentially the greenhouse gas argument from nuclear is an inversion of the natural radio-isotopes in fly ash of coal mining argument. Two industrial activities that both should be controlled and not a good argument *for* nuclear power against a bunch of great arguments *against* nuclear power, or coal for that matter.
Both are really good arguments *for* solar, wind and geothermal which don't have either of those problems.
Are greenhouse gas emissions the cause of climate change?
Yes, there is plenty of unbiased science that doesn't come from the oil and coal industries. Historically Carbon, methane and CFCs have been the most potent chemical mechanisms that trap heat in the atmosphere.
Additionally geological sciences showed us that the Earth itself stopped giving up heat to radiate into space around 2003 in exchange for absorbing it which tells us the atmosphere reached heat saturation over a decade ago.
Our only saving grace for the moment is the oceans which will also reach heat saturation and become chemically acidic which will also have an effect on Phytoplanktons that are mainly responsible for producing the oxygen we breathe in the atmosphere.
It would seem we have been poor stewards of the earth.
How do we make massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions?
Massive investments in solar, wind and geothermal technology for the next 100 years to reduce the heat and chemical load on the environment. Once free of the oil and coal industry we *may* be able to devise a nuclear infrastructure that addresses the radio-isotope legacy we are leaving for future generations, the same way we were left with a carbon legacy.
What impact will it have on our society?
Depends on how quickly we implement it. The sooner we act the less impact it will have. However we have to take responsibility for the lack of vision of previous generations and that entails that there will be some impact to the way we do things.
We could change right now by investing heavily in high speed internet infrastructure and start taking tens of thousands of commuters off the road and provide tax incentives to companies that provide telecommuting infrastructure.
What impact will it have on developing countries?
They will suffer more, their land will become more arid. However they are closer to subsistence than we are and we have the most to loose.
Who's going to benefit the most, and who is going to lose the most when these reductions take place?
Local infrastructures win by reducing commuting as dollars stay in communities.
If we don't act, all of us loose, our entire society will suffer due to our dithering ambling indecision. We just loose in different ways. Right now we still have a choice *what* we loose. Maybe some things like sitting in our car with the AC on in the sun is something we can all give up. Maybe we can toughen up a bit and deal with 30 seconds of discomfort so that our society doesn't become completely energy constrained. Maybe we don't need some of the luxuries we have and the survival of our race is actually something important that we consider.
What if it doesn't work?
We die, the earth goes on. I mean you don't want it sugar coated do you? People go for a comfortable illusion over and uncomfortable truth because if you look to history it's only human error that the human race has adapted to. They call realism FUD.
But we don't die immediately, we suffer as we die as our world heats up and our options decrease. We can afford less and less petro chemical farming, food stocks dwindle, transport infrastructure becomes too expensive. The human race faces mass die offs.
Decreases in birth rate means our infrastructure can't be maintained and starts to decay, our society shrinks, radio-nuclide contamination becomes more prevalent, decreasing brainweight of the births that are successful. Our society decreases in size rapidly and the dystopian future many movies speak of becomes real. The people left look back on our generation that had everything and did nothing and hate us as they try to deal with all of the disasters created by our crumbling infrastructure.
Reduced output of solar and wind from the heat is not something any dinosaur news source is willing to write. Or rather not a headline Slashdot moderators would be wiling to bring up.
Because that is your Nuclear Ideology, it is your ism, your belief system that wants to make us believe the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing when it is hot. Only people who subscribe to your Nuclear Ideology would allow themselves to become stupider the way you want them to.
Solar Thermal is an immediate, viable, long term, economical and technologically underdeveloped base-load replacement for nuclear power. Domestic Solar is the perfect peaking solution to replace nuclear power. Wind is a new type of power generation mechanism with a vastly more dynamic upgrade cycle than anything we've see so far, it has massive promise to replace nuclear power.
It's not too hard to find sources giving the reduced output from PV panels and solar thermal systems in high heat, but that's not headline material for some reason. Maybe it's because we get so little of our energy from solar. But then why do we get so little of our energy from solar? Maybe because when we need it most the power isn't there?
Maybe it's more of your rhetoric. As you said of nuclear "they still produce power" the only difference is solar and wind don't explode and cause mass evacuations like a nuclear plant does when they overheat, they just make less power.
Unlike Nuclear power, wind and solar plants are upgradeable. Combined with IOT wind and solar variations are the most exciting developments that require new types of software systems to manage. Solar and wind are going to be a new source of huge employment sectors for Information Technology folk. I see a lot of new and interesting things.
Unlike Nuclear, coal and everything else developed in the 19th and 20th century that produce heat, solar and wind is a 21st century solution that reduces the heat load of the planet by *extracting* heat from the environment and converting it to electricity.
That's why Solar and Wind should be deployed in much larger ways, the more wind and solar deployed the less grid variation and more heat load removed. The more solar thermal and PV technology development the less we have to rely on yesterday's solutions invented and promoted by self interested people with less knowledge of the Earth's thermal systems.
The challenge of our generation is how we can retire these wasteful throwbacks to the cold war without further disasters and upgrade our energy infrastructure to solar, wind and geothermal solutions. That starts with doing away with obsolete nuclear rhetoric such as yours blindseer, which is kind of like looking at a 60 year old cheerleaders with too much makeup trying to convince everyone they still have the same promise they did when they were teenagers.
That ridiculous mental image is what I suggest your nuclear ideology is.
Relentless rhetoric from blindseer the rhetorician of Nuclear Ideology.
I can hear it now... "WTF? Nuclear power? But nuclear power plants had to reduce output because of the heat! Jackass!"
No, I would call you a Nuclear Idealist that transposes that idealism onto reality. A nuclear idealist that can't see people have woken up to the rhetoric from the nuclear industry as nothing more than a false reality. People aren't as naive as you need them to be to be receptive your Nuclear Ideology and events like these are just another nail in the coffin of your nuclear ideology.
The nuclear power plants had to reduce output but that's not the same as no output, they still produce power.
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.
Also, any power plant that uses a heat differential between the sea water...., or solar thermal.
Except that Solar thermal for power doesn't use sea water. They're in deserts where no one wants to live and use molten salt as opposed to Nuclear power plants that like to be with the community on precious water front properties pumping waste heat into the environment because that's how nuclear works.
Solar thermal near the sea is mainly used for producing drinking water, not power.
Solar and wind are perfect solutions for reducing the heat load on the planet. Any portion of heat we can *remove* from the atmosphere and convert to electricity is a big step forward so that would call for larger deployments of solar and wind to remove larger portions of heat from the environment and convert that to electricity we can use because that's how solar and wind work.
I've been lobbying the Australian government for 25 years on freedom of speech, association and censorship issues. As Australia does not have a bill of rights many really bad laws are attempted here so our populace has to be alert all the time. Unfortunately most don't because, lets face it, it's complicated and frustrating work - exactly what the govt. depends on so they have a path of minimum resistance.
Even though I really love Australia, I'll call my country out for being cunts, bottom line really, because I want our culture to evolve into something better. We're the template for modern covert fascism and I'll explain what I've observed in all those years of lobbying.
Years ago companies used to bring their wares to Australia first because we were a good test market for the US at 1/10th the population. That meant they could test marketing campaigns and product here first and figure out how they would sell it. Now I don't know exactly when it started however I think some clever politician figured out they could do that with political campaigns and when they wanted to legislate a new law they could try the shittiest version here then take it to other 5 I countries and pull out the things their bill of rights would not allow.
The latest version I see in the US is refugees, but we've been being cunts to refugees for years. We completely destroy their lives and when we're done making them wait however many years we send them back to where they came from to get tortured and killed. As an Australian, I have to say, I'm totally fucking ashamed.
I really believed in Democracy and I always thought that countries like ours were places where dissidents running from tyranny could come, I thought Australia was a designated protest zone, because freedom is the most important thing. I hope western countries can fix it because their is a lot of really good things about western culture.
And it's not that the everyday person is a bad person, they're not. However I think the time has come when we wake the fuck up and realise we are being deceived, before all western cultures loose this really good thing we have.
I hope you can see this is not bagging western culture it's trying to save it from being corrupted.
So human rights could be rolled back to a 1989 level where every person did not carry a powerful encryption device.
It started when they took everyones guns away...and now, the govt will start to progress a bit further to take more freedoms/rights away from the populace.
You are bang on right. After the Port Arthur massacre a wave of legislative changes began, starting with the aggregation of the parliamentary voting system in the lower house to corral voting preferences to the major parties. It's been all down hill since then.
Sure it is; copyright theft is the theft of the right (control) to copy.
True that, however that really needs to be balanced against time and the community built up around those works. If we look at Disney they claimed huge amount of European works as the basis for their stories then lobbied to keep extending their copyright control (for lifetime of artist + 120 years now IIRC). So who exactly has the right to perpetual copyright control over our culture?
There has to be a time when, as Spock once said, The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, should I pay CBS a licence for saying that? They got paid for making a contribution to our culture, for creating something that grew, matured and then faded into memory. They made a lot of money. When do we get to finish paying the lease on memories?
If Nintendo aren't maintaining the works and the community is where is the harm of people getting joy out of playing them? Is Nintendo offering these games for sale anymore, have they offered the sites a means to create a licensing option for people who what to play them or did they just come to the party to spoil everyone's fun? Sure they offered a retro console recently but does that allow a method to access these works?
The bottom line here is when these companies start acting like a member of the community, instead of pretending they own it, is when our culture will be richer for all.
First of all, not all coals are contaminated with radioactive materials. It simply depends which kind of rock or sediments are around the coal.
Yes agreed, ore quality.
Radioactivity comes mainly from Radon, Uranium, Thorium and some Lead isotopes.
Seems like what you would expect.
As ash is collected and the typical "fly ash" no longer exists in industrialized countries, not much is escaping.
It's commonly used as a concrete additive where I live.
The numbers one can find are that worst case the ash is as concentrated as yellow cake uranium ore from pit mines.
Yes, a big energy input of Nuclear Energy, usually fuel oil where they mine it. We have that in my country and they allow something that is illegal in America and Russia - in situ-acid leach mine to get yellow cake which leaves concentrated naturally radioactive sulfuric acid. There was an accident where a 2 Mega litre dam burst. Pollutes ground water quite effectively.
Yes, I fully agree that isotopes where every they come from should not be spread around.
Nuclear idealists do not treat this stuff with respect and I think it was my day to be pissed off with their pig headed willful ignorance of published indications that radio isotopes bio-accumulating in produce on the western United States sold on the benefit of dating wines in a immature wine making market. Not what they're dong there in the first place.
They just bury their head in the sand and say it's fine, no problem no need to do anything to try to stop the damn thing thing leaking - just leave it to Tepco, it's their problem not ours as the years drag on and still no international effort to take it out of those incompetent idiots hands and sort it out with some urgency.
Future generations will loathe us for not doing something sooner.
I think that people have forgotten how to mix fun with seriousness. Everything has to be drama drama drama and if they don't get their dopamine hit everything is lame.
I can't remember which episode it was when Kirk was explaining to the leaders of a population "You just make the decision. We won't kill Today!" humorous and serious at the same time.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about. Are you a holocaust denier too?
I've been writing a book about these types of personality disorders and how people can heal themselves from this type of mental illness. I know a lot more about this subject than I want to know.
Slashdot Mirror
Where do these Solar Reserve plants exist? That's a website giving a proposal, as far as I can tell these solar thermal storage sites do not exist, none have been built.
Just like your wamsr salt reactor.
On the other hand we've seen hundreds of nuclear power plants built.
You mean nuclear technology of 50 years ago?
We've seen high temperature reactors built as prototypes, which would be well suited for molten salt thermal energy storage if we'd only dust off the old plans and update them a bit.
So naive, so adorable. I'm sure oil and coal will be all for that, let's see if they lobby to have nuclear take their market share.
If that solar thermal storage technology checks out then that leaves a wide door open for a nuclear reactor to step in and take over that space.
Sure and in the decade or so that it takes to run nuclear construction over budget and investors aren't getting the promised return the ones that invested in solar will have their money back two or three times. But you keep believing.
In the end you are comparing future solar technology to nuclear technology of 50 years ago.
You mean the hundreds of nuclear power plants built?
How about you compare modern existing solar power to modern existing nuclear power? Why bring up the RBMK at Chernobyl? Or BWR at Fukushima? Those were out dated second generation reactors. No one builds those any more.
Because they are the ones operating.
How about comparing existing solar power to third generation reactors that have been recently constructed?
You mean that cheap piece of shit the AP1000 based on the SNUPPS design with the lower thermal containment ratio of all the nuclear technology of 50 years ago with new untested failure modes that uses the containment building as a heat exchanger that has never been tested - that Turd generation reactor approved by the NRC?
If you want to bring up future solar power technology then compare that to fourth generation nuclear, like molten salt reactors. If you need to point to nonexistent solar power plants to make your case for solar power then you have a very weak case. If you need to bring up 30 year old nuclear power accidents to argue against future nuclear power reactors then that is also a weak case.
Solar and wind have ZERO waste and even your salt reactor has unknown failure modes. The future of nuclear is crap AP1000 or EPR which is better but is still a water cooled reactor, they are the only ones approved. Solar has ZERO chance of melting down, no radio-nuclides, is massively scalable. None of your turd generation reactors provide any of the thirty plus upgrades recommended by the industry itself. Not one of them are *underground* for example. At least EPR has some of the improvements, AP-1000 is a backward step compared to nuclear technology of 50 years ago.
Because this exact same technology is what is planned for in future molten salt nuclear reactors.
I think lead cooled reactors would be better.
Why?
Better burn up rate of the fuel as it becomes fissile ash. Longer cycle time inside the reactor between refueling.
Go ahead, bring on the molten salt solar thermal power. That will prove the technology for use in nuclear reactors.
Yeah, except in the technology your thinking of leaves a brand new waste stream and doesn't address the old one.
We have the internet and can read. Next generation reactors would consume the waste from old previous generation reactors.
http://egeneration.org/solutio...
If you are permitted to bring up next generation solar to make your case then I can bring up next generation nuclear to make my case.
Looks like a fast burner without an integrated fuel reprocessing facility like IFR. Upgrade on IFR due to salt instead of sodium as a coolant. I am definitely interested in the anti-proliferation aspect. Looks promising once you get around the oil coal industry lobbying against it and enough reactor experience to have it NRC approved so I'll watch with interest.
Here's where nuclear beats out solar on the molten salt storage, it doesn't take multiple square miles to achieve 1 gigawatt of power.
It doesn't matter, solar is as closed cycle as it gets and produces no waste. There simply isn't a nuclear plant that does that. Solar scales really quickly.
It's going to take a few versions of this technology to get to 1Gw if you are claiming to have learned the lessons of safety from the previous nuclear industry. So as long as you don't try to scale the reactor to quickly and iron out the quirks, then you might learn something from the previous failure of an nuclear industry. This design will especially have to be underground and disposed of in situ so the length of the service life is going to tie into the materials technology used to build it. It will take 10-20 years to scale this technology to build enough reactor experience to get to 1Gw. Do you suggest we simply ignore those lessons from this nuclear industry and not build solar in the meantime as I have suggested?
I have no problem with the development of nuclear technology especially to deal with the spent fuel and weapons grade pu we have lying around. It would be good if it eats up DU however that is not clear. I'll check out the technology, thanks for the information.
Right, let's compare current reactors to one that is 50 years old, designed based on incomplete plans stolen from the USA, where important details were lost in translation, when built did not even meet the specifications from these flawed plans, was run by drunk Russians hired for their political connections rather than their technical abilities, and even then to get it to fail it required multiple safety systems to be overridden manually, and pushed beyond designed output levels.
Take responsibility for what you are advocating and you will be a lot more convincing. Humans will still run the reactor at an organization level which is where Fukushima and Chernobyl both failed.
Then there is Fukushima. These were reactors built before Chernobyl, so the lessons learned from that accident were not incorporated into this design.
And not to the AP100 and only some in EPR, the only two approved nuclear power plant designs approved for deployment.
There were multiple safety violations during construction and operation,
And that's meant to reassure me that human nature won't be present for the construction of these reactors?
So we have two major fuck-ups on 50 year old reactor designs, among the 400+ nuclear reactors that have operated safely in the world, in which few people died, and you want to use that as a reason to not build NEW reactors? If that's the metric then I'll pull up some price and performance statistics from the 1980s to argue against wind and solar.
No, we've been very lucky there haven't been more and as they age and continue to operate they will do so. Show me the attention to detail a new nuclear industry warrants. Then argue the for case better than I can and that most of these nuclear ideaologists can't.
Be a Responsible Nuclear Advocate not a Nuclear Ideologist with an agenda to push.
Yes, I've seen that. The claim is that the sun can heat a molten salt,
No, the claim is it is more appropriate energy infrastructure for the 21st century, now that we've had the internet for decades and we can read.
That would be great if this solar technology existed today. Where are these solar thermal power plants that are cheap, reliable, and provide power 24/7?
Here ya go.
Well the whole premise is that CO2 output of nuclear is a good argument *for* nuclear power. It's the best argument it's got going amongst a plethora of bad ones *against* nuclear power.
You've been given multiple citations that the arguments against nuclear power are at best based on outdated data, or at worst simply lies. Show some citations for your claims or STFU.
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?
I just handed you your head on a platter and that's the best you got?
Wrong again. You never really have anything useful to contribute to these conversations blindseer, just a tired old nuclear ideology. Boring.
Yes, I've seen that. The claim is that the sun can heat a molten salt,
No, the claim is it is more appropriate energy infrastructure for the 21st century, now that we've had the internet for decades and we can read.
Because this exact same technology is what is planned for in future molten salt nuclear reactors.
I think lead cooled reactors would be better.
Go ahead, bring on the molten salt solar thermal power. That will prove the technology for use in nuclear reactors.
Yeah, except in the technology your thinking of leaves a brand new waste stream and doesn't address the old one.
Here's where nuclear beats out solar on the molten salt storage, it doesn't take multiple square miles to achieve 1 gigawatt of power.
So what. They don't take up multiple exclusion zones when they blow up (3600sqKm for Chernobyl) and they can be put in places where people aren't.
oddly, the only nations that have reduced their CO2 to low numbers are those with hydro, geo-thermal, and/or nuke power. Those with wind/solar, esp. when they stopped their nuke powers, end up INCREASING their CO2. Germany and Japan are but 2 that actually increased their CO2, not lower it, since shutting down their nukes.
oddly, the only nations that have reduced their CO2 to low numbers are those with hydro, geo-thermal, and/or nuke power.
Well the whole premise is that CO2 output of nuclear is a good argument *for* nuclear power. It's the best argument it's got going amongst a plethora of bad ones *against* nuclear power.
You are probably referring to the latest IPCC numbers, which draw up work done by Vattenfal, a nuclear energy producer whose work was not peer reviewed and is now no longer available having been certified just long enough for the last IPCC report to be released. If you are able to produce the source report from the IPCC I'd be grateful as I only got to tear it to pieces once.
That report notoriously underestimates carbon output from mining, and the potency of CFC114, doesn't include energetic expenditure of reactor decommissioning, spent fuel containment and so on.
Essentially the greenhouse gas argument from nuclear is an inversion of the natural radio-isotopes in fly ash of coal mining argument. Two industrial activities that both should be controlled and not a good argument *for* nuclear power against a bunch of great arguments *against* nuclear power, or coal for that matter.
Both are really good arguments *for* solar, wind and geothermal which don't have either of those problems.
You bring up a good point Mr AC. Ore quality is a major factor in the viability of nuclear power.
That ridiculous mental image is what I suggest your nuclear ideology is.
Citation needed.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
>Massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
Are greenhouse gas emissions the cause of climate change?
Yes, there is plenty of unbiased science that doesn't come from the oil and coal industries. Historically Carbon, methane and CFCs have been the most potent chemical mechanisms that trap heat in the atmosphere.
Additionally geological sciences showed us that the Earth itself stopped giving up heat to radiate into space around 2003 in exchange for absorbing it which tells us the atmosphere reached heat saturation over a decade ago.
Our only saving grace for the moment is the oceans which will also reach heat saturation and become chemically acidic which will also have an effect on Phytoplanktons that are mainly responsible for producing the oxygen we breathe in the atmosphere.
It would seem we have been poor stewards of the earth.
How do we make massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions?
Massive investments in solar, wind and geothermal technology for the next 100 years to reduce the heat and chemical load on the environment. Once free of the oil and coal industry we *may* be able to devise a nuclear infrastructure that addresses the radio-isotope legacy we are leaving for future generations, the same way we were left with a carbon legacy.
What impact will it have on our society?
Depends on how quickly we implement it. The sooner we act the less impact it will have. However we have to take responsibility for the lack of vision of previous generations and that entails that there will be some impact to the way we do things.
We could change right now by investing heavily in high speed internet infrastructure and start taking tens of thousands of commuters off the road and provide tax incentives to companies that provide telecommuting infrastructure.
What impact will it have on developing countries?
They will suffer more, their land will become more arid. However they are closer to subsistence than we are and we have the most to loose.
Who's going to benefit the most, and who is going to lose the most when these reductions take place?
Local infrastructures win by reducing commuting as dollars stay in communities.
If we don't act, all of us loose, our entire society will suffer due to our dithering ambling indecision. We just loose in different ways. Right now we still have a choice *what* we loose. Maybe some things like sitting in our car with the AC on in the sun is something we can all give up. Maybe we can toughen up a bit and deal with 30 seconds of discomfort so that our society doesn't become completely energy constrained. Maybe we don't need some of the luxuries we have and the survival of our race is actually something important that we consider.
What if it doesn't work?
We die, the earth goes on. I mean you don't want it sugar coated do you? People go for a comfortable illusion over and uncomfortable truth because if you look to history it's only human error that the human race has adapted to. They call realism FUD.
But we don't die immediately, we suffer as we die as our world heats up and our options decrease. We can afford less and less petro chemical farming, food stocks dwindle, transport infrastructure becomes too expensive. The human race faces mass die offs.
Decreases in birth rate means our infrastructure can't be maintained and starts to decay, our society shrinks, radio-nuclide contamination becomes more prevalent, decreasing brainweight of the births that are successful. Our society decreases in size rapidly and the dystopian future many movies speak of becomes real. The people left look back on our generation that had everything and did nothing and hate us as they try to deal with all of the disasters created by our crumbling infrastructure.
If humanity survives we ente
Reduced output of solar and wind from the heat is not something any dinosaur news source is willing to write. Or rather not a headline Slashdot moderators would be wiling to bring up.
Because that is your Nuclear Ideology, it is your ism, your belief system that wants to make us believe the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing when it is hot. Only people who subscribe to your Nuclear Ideology would allow themselves to become stupider the way you want them to.
Solar Thermal is an immediate, viable, long term, economical and technologically underdeveloped base-load replacement for nuclear power. Domestic Solar is the perfect peaking solution to replace nuclear power. Wind is a new type of power generation mechanism with a vastly more dynamic upgrade cycle than anything we've see so far, it has massive promise to replace nuclear power.
It's not too hard to find sources giving the reduced output from PV panels and solar thermal systems in high heat, but that's not headline material for some reason. Maybe it's because we get so little of our energy from solar. But then why do we get so little of our energy from solar? Maybe because when we need it most the power isn't there?
Maybe it's more of your rhetoric. As you said of nuclear "they still produce power" the only difference is solar and wind don't explode and cause mass evacuations like a nuclear plant does when they overheat, they just make less power.
Unlike Nuclear power, wind and solar plants are upgradeable. Combined with IOT wind and solar variations are the most exciting developments that require new types of software systems to manage. Solar and wind are going to be a new source of huge employment sectors for Information Technology folk. I see a lot of new and interesting things.
Unlike Nuclear, coal and everything else developed in the 19th and 20th century that produce heat, solar and wind is a 21st century solution that reduces the heat load of the planet by *extracting* heat from the environment and converting it to electricity.
That's why Solar and Wind should be deployed in much larger ways, the more wind and solar deployed the less grid variation and more heat load removed. The more solar thermal and PV technology development the less we have to rely on yesterday's solutions invented and promoted by self interested people with less knowledge of the Earth's thermal systems.
The challenge of our generation is how we can retire these wasteful throwbacks to the cold war without further disasters and upgrade our energy infrastructure to solar, wind and geothermal solutions. That starts with doing away with obsolete nuclear rhetoric such as yours blindseer, which is kind of like looking at a 60 year old cheerleaders with too much makeup trying to convince everyone they still have the same promise they did when they were teenagers.
That ridiculous mental image is what I suggest your nuclear ideology is.
What action is necessary?
More nuclear power.
Relentless rhetoric from blindseer the rhetorician of Nuclear Ideology.
I can hear it now... "WTF? Nuclear power? But nuclear power plants had to reduce output because of the heat! Jackass!"
No, I would call you a Nuclear Idealist that transposes that idealism onto reality. A nuclear idealist that can't see people have woken up to the rhetoric from the nuclear industry as nothing more than a false reality. People aren't as naive as you need them to be to be receptive your Nuclear Ideology and events like these are just another nail in the coffin of your nuclear ideology.
The nuclear power plants had to reduce output but that's not the same as no output, they still produce power.
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.
Also, any power plant that uses a heat differential between the sea water ...., or solar thermal.
Except that Solar thermal for power doesn't use sea water. They're in deserts where no one wants to live and use molten salt as opposed to Nuclear power plants that like to be with the community on precious water front properties pumping waste heat into the environment because that's how nuclear works.
Solar thermal near the sea is mainly used for producing drinking water, not power.
Solar and wind are perfect solutions for reducing the heat load on the planet. Any portion of heat we can *remove* from the atmosphere and convert to electricity is a big step forward so that would call for larger deployments of solar and wind to remove larger portions of heat from the environment and convert that to electricity we can use because that's how solar and wind work.
I love the cadence of how Kirk says it, "We won't kill, Today!" - total Shakespeare.
> emotional intelligence and cognitive flexibility
If you have to ask the question you wouldn't understand the answer.
Are those actually real things, and do they have real-world applications?
More than you know, grasshopper. Only by learning will you figure out what it means to you.
I've been lobbying the Australian government for 25 years on freedom of speech, association and censorship issues. As Australia does not have a bill of rights many really bad laws are attempted here so our populace has to be alert all the time. Unfortunately most don't because, lets face it, it's complicated and frustrating work - exactly what the govt. depends on so they have a path of minimum resistance.
Even though I really love Australia, I'll call my country out for being cunts, bottom line really, because I want our culture to evolve into something better. We're the template for modern covert fascism and I'll explain what I've observed in all those years of lobbying.
Years ago companies used to bring their wares to Australia first because we were a good test market for the US at 1/10th the population. That meant they could test marketing campaigns and product here first and figure out how they would sell it. Now I don't know exactly when it started however I think some clever politician figured out they could do that with political campaigns and when they wanted to legislate a new law they could try the shittiest version here then take it to other 5 I countries and pull out the things their bill of rights would not allow.
The latest version I see in the US is refugees, but we've been being cunts to refugees for years. We completely destroy their lives and when we're done making them wait however many years we send them back to where they came from to get tortured and killed. As an Australian, I have to say, I'm totally fucking ashamed.
I really believed in Democracy and I always thought that countries like ours were places where dissidents running from tyranny could come, I thought Australia was a designated protest zone, because freedom is the most important thing. I hope western countries can fix it because their is a lot of really good things about western culture.
And it's not that the everyday person is a bad person, they're not. However I think the time has come when we wake the fuck up and realise we are being deceived, before all western cultures loose this really good thing we have.
I hope you can see this is not bagging western culture it's trying to save it from being corrupted.
All the best to you.
Sure it is; copyright theft is the theft of the right (control) to copy.
True that
In what way?
If there is no incentive for people to create something why would they spend their time and money doing so?
Get a grip, it's give and take. Not take take take like everyone seems entitled to do.
He said it was all-white. I thought he had a lisp.
*poof*
Gosh, don't share any information on HOW TO FIX SOMETHING ffs.
It started when they took everyones guns away...and now, the govt will start to progress a bit further to take more freedoms/rights away from the populace.
You are bang on right. After the Port Arthur massacre a wave of legislative changes began, starting with the aggregation of the parliamentary voting system in the lower house to corral voting preferences to the major parties. It's been all down hill since then.
Sure it is; copyright theft is the theft of the right (control) to copy.
True that, however that really needs to be balanced against time and the community built up around those works. If we look at Disney they claimed huge amount of European works as the basis for their stories then lobbied to keep extending their copyright control (for lifetime of artist + 120 years now IIRC). So who exactly has the right to perpetual copyright control over our culture?
There has to be a time when, as Spock once said, The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, should I pay CBS a licence for saying that? They got paid for making a contribution to our culture, for creating something that grew, matured and then faded into memory. They made a lot of money. When do we get to finish paying the lease on memories?
If Nintendo aren't maintaining the works and the community is where is the harm of people getting joy out of playing them? Is Nintendo offering these games for sale anymore, have they offered the sites a means to create a licensing option for people who what to play them or did they just come to the party to spoil everyone's fun? Sure they offered a retro console recently but does that allow a method to access these works?
The bottom line here is when these companies start acting like a member of the community, instead of pretending they own it, is when our culture will be richer for all.
Let's hope that one day they see that.
Something being out of circulation does not give you the right to access it freely.
What if I do own the rom and I can't access the console anymore? Do I have a right to play the games I really like if I can play it on an emulator?
Is the rom media the license or is it the method of delivering the software?
First of all, not all coals are contaminated with radioactive materials. It simply depends which kind of rock or sediments are around the coal.
Yes agreed, ore quality.
Radioactivity comes mainly from Radon, Uranium, Thorium and some Lead isotopes.
Seems like what you would expect.
As ash is collected and the typical "fly ash" no longer exists in industrialized countries, not much is escaping.
It's commonly used as a concrete additive where I live.
The numbers one can find are that worst case the ash is as concentrated as yellow cake uranium ore from pit mines.
Yes, a big energy input of Nuclear Energy, usually fuel oil where they mine it. We have that in my country and they allow something that is illegal in America and Russia - in situ-acid leach mine to get yellow cake which leaves concentrated naturally radioactive sulfuric acid. There was an accident where a 2 Mega litre dam burst. Pollutes ground water quite effectively.
Yes, I fully agree that isotopes where every they come from should not be spread around.
Nuclear idealists do not treat this stuff with respect and I think it was my day to be pissed off with their pig headed willful ignorance of published indications that radio isotopes bio-accumulating in produce on the western United States sold on the benefit of dating wines in a immature wine making market. Not what they're dong there in the first place.
They just bury their head in the sand and say it's fine, no problem no need to do anything to try to stop the damn thing thing leaking - just leave it to Tepco, it's their problem not ours as the years drag on and still no international effort to take it out of those incompetent idiots hands and sort it out with some urgency.
Future generations will loathe us for not doing something sooner.
I think that people have forgotten how to mix fun with seriousness. Everything has to be drama drama drama and if they don't get their dopamine hit everything is lame.
I can't remember which episode it was when Kirk was explaining to the leaders of a population "You just make the decision. We won't kill Today!" humorous and serious at the same time.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about. Are you a holocaust denier too?
I've been writing a book about these types of personality disorders and how people can heal themselves from this type of mental illness. I know a lot more about this subject than I want to know.