You can't easily turn the thorium fuel for a power plant into a nuclear weapon, you can easily turn thorium into a nuclear weapon if you have a big fast neutron source... such as a nuclear power plant (thorium or not).
By giving a nation nuclear power plants and reprocessing technologies you are giving them everything they need to breed pure U233.
False, you have that exactly backwards. U-233 has a much more even and controllable neutron economy. U-235 and Pu-239 are more energetic and can produce a much faster and more violent chain reaction which is better for bombs. That's why Pu-239 is used in most bombs. One bomb from U-233 was made back in the early 50's but it didn't explode with the desired power. The Th-232 breeds into U-233 but also produces U-232 which must be separated from the U-233 to make a bomb. Also, the U-232 is a terrifyingly effective poison and highly radioactive (much more radioactive than anything else we know of with a half life measured in years). If you were to simply enter a room with a pile of U-232 of sufficient size (say measured in grams), you would die within an hour even if you had all but the heaviest protection suits. The U-Pu fuel cycle produces weapons material several different ways. The Th-U fuel cycle is only capable of 1 way and that way also produces U-232 which is a great anti-proliferation material. Finally, if you are talking about Protactinium, you must know that that element is highly unstable and highly radioactive and decays quickly while producing U-232 as it goes. The Th-U fuel cycle is much easier to protect than the U-Pu fuel cycle. Stop spreading factually incorrect information Pinky.
How many actually running, delivering power to the grid, thorium reactors can you name?
We have tried these here in Germany, turns out they are nice on paper, but not so nice in reality. Matter of fact, one of these is the highest contaminated reactor site in the world if measured by beta radiation. And thanks to the 14C half life of almost 6000 years it will stay this way for a very long time.
You tried solid fueled Thorium reactors with a manual breeding and reprocessing strategy. Thorium works much better in molten salt reactors where you use a nice aspect of Thorium's chemistry to separate out the newly breed material from the material that is still Thorium. Also, Thorium isn't water soluble like Uranium and Plutonium. Why does that matter? Well U and Pu are poisonous in addition to be radioactive. Thorium isn't poisonous and gives off 1/10th the radioactivity in its natural state. Also, we have large piles of Thorium anywhere rare earth mining takes place. So perhaps instead of letting it leach into the groundwater when it rains, we could use it for power?
Use steel reinforced concrete for shielding just like all existing production plants. The bigger issue is that Bill Gates is not taking the lead and using it as the coolant with the designs promoted by Terrapower.
Terrapower has 2 designs: 1) an old school LWR style reactor with a different method of managing the fuel rods and 2) a DMSR using a chloride salt as a coolant. I don't particularity like either design. I don't think Chlorine is a great replacement for Florine and we know less about how a chloride salt works in a nuclear reactor. I'm glad he is funding investment into nuclear though and the more we know about the technology, the more safely we can utilize it.
Then here is a thought. Who will insure wind and solar for not providing power 24x7? Will that be you? Will you pay us for not providing power?
Here's another thought: when your precious nuclear power plant goes down for planned (or worse, unplanned) maintenance - sometimes for years at a time - who's going to pay for another one to take its place? Will that be you? Who's going to insure the sudden gap of a few gigawatts in the power grid? Will that be you?
All the FUD thrown against wind and solar by nuke fanboys applies more to your favored method of heating water than it it does for wind and solar.
Nuclear has far and away the highest capacity factor of any power source. Just because you read about 1 of 100 reactors having an issue that took 5 years to fix (probably due to all the paperwork) doesn't mean that the rest of the fleet wasn't producing power the entire time. Also, who is going to build and pay for the giant batteries it would require for wind and solar to work. Right, nobody cause they will never exist. BTW, a natural gas plant has a capacity factor in the ~40%. For nuclear its closer to ~90%.
And nobody wants to heat water except for you. When you say that, we know you know nothing about nuclear power. LWR reactors are only still used because we can't get any other design approved for reasons of pure politics. The environmental movement needs to own up to its own copablity w.r.t Climate Change on this one.
Nuclear reactors provide one of the cheapest sources of energy besides natural hydro plants.
As much as a $2.5 million Bugatti is a cheap car for a person working at McDonalds, sure. You have tens of billions in upfront construction costs with nuclear power, and will have to deal with the waste for thousands of years. Cost, not hippies, is what's killing your extraordinarily expensive & dangerous way to heat water.
We don't want to heat water with nuclear. That's a bad idea for a bunch of reasons including: 1) steam explosions (Chernobyl) 2) H2 production and explosions (Fuchishima and 3mi island), 3) lower energy carrying capacity, and 4) water is a natural moderator. We want to heat molten salt which is the same stuff in a solar plant (or perhaps liquid metal). We also want to reprocess nuclear waste and store it responsibly. Hippies have blocked all of these efforts in the courts. Where do you think all the expense is coming from? You really think its all concrete and lead? No its lawyers for the lawsuits that happen every time you do anything with nuclear even if its a good idea in the interest of public health. Its useless paperwork that meant to ensure safety but really just ensures cost. Good regulation is hard, good nuclear regulation is doubly so. But as long as its a political issue, you can bet it won't be solved. Its likely that it will just move to another jurisdiction who will hopefully be safe with it but who knows. The alternative is global warming so perhaps you might want to reconsider.
If you think nuclear power is too expensive now, then you wouldn't want to know how expensive it will be with fuel enriched to the same level the naval reactors need. This is the main reason there are no civilian nuclear powered ships except a couple of Russian ice breakers.
You don't need fuel enriched to that level. For civilian power, you don't even want that level of enrichment. You enrich to change the types of byproducts that are produced in the reactor and so you can have less volume in the reactor. This only really matters on a military ship. For a civilian reactor, it doesn't matter as the difference in size is dwarfed by the other safety systems a civilian reactor requires. Also, anti-proliferation methods often involve intentionally making nasty byproducts like Pu-238 for the U-Pu fuel cycle or U-232 for the Th-U fuel cycle. For example, in a Thorium reactor, you control the isotopic mixture of Th-230 (vs the Th-232 which is the fuel) going into the reactor so that in addition to the fissionable U-233 that is breed, you get U-232 which is poison. That U-232 both prevents people from stealing and prevents people from using it in weapons as U-232 makes the mixture unsuitable for weapons. As an upshot, U-232 only remains radioactive for about 300 years (half life of 68.7 years plus the decay chain which includes 3 gamma emitters) verses 10,000 years or more for the Pu-238 and other Actinides that are present in the waste.
Ok, I'll bite. What would it be? Unless you have some huge battery tech advancement that nobody knows about, then you simply haven't worked out the numbers. Cheap, CO2 free energy is currently only available from nuclear. Everything else either releases lots of CO2 or Methane, produces power intermittently, isn't available in enough places or with enough energy created, or isn't yet possible.
Instead, the public wants to continuously argue over climate change. We don't know for sure how big a problem climate change is, but wouldn't it be wonderful if the cure was a SIDE EFFECT of doing the right things for a myriad of OTHER good reasons?
Yea, but that has nothing to do with power production. That's about human psychology and its need for external conflict to deflect from internal issues. None of which are good reasons to not solve the problems of global warming right now.
Endless lawsuits are the biggest impediment in the US.
Gross corporatist propaganda to limit liability for negligence, incompetence and criminal actions.
Yea, but which greedy corporatists are you discussing, the engineers and scientists which are pushing for nuclear, or the folks pushing for natural gas? You might think we should do 100% solar and wind. In California (where I live) and Germany who have both pushed hard for solar and wind have caused two trends: 1) CO2 emissions are increasing, 2) prices are going up. This is because we can't store the energy generated intermittently and a huge innovation in battery tech would be needed. Its unlikely that this will happen which means when you deploy wind and solar you also deploy natural gas. Natural gas that probably leaks quite a bit and is mostly made of methane that's a 33x more potent GHG than CO2. Pumped hydro and chemical storage technologies have very poor efficiencies, often less than 20% (meaning you lose 4x the energy you discharge back).
We know how to do nuclear safely if governments would just let us. But groups who are largely ignorant (in the best case) about science and engineering have blocked all efforts at advancement, often at the expense of public health. Quite a few of the former leaders at the Sierra Club, who spoke about the evils of nuclear power for years have had major reversals for example Gwyneth Cravens. She and those like her were of course excommunicated and the obstructionism continues. Hell, they even oppose responsible treatment of nuclear waste both through fuel reprocessing and long term storage (see Yucca Mt). So get down off your high horse and make sure you know who you are backing. Because right now, you are backing global warming and fossil fuels; you just don't know it yet.
How about you ignore that 1 message and read the other 124999. Or like me, read none.
Because nothing generates clicks like rage and the algorithms are designed to generate clicks so they tend to show rage inducing tweets to rage-aholics aka people on the Internet.
Because the study is about women. Look, if you write a book about how to improve aircraft safety, no-one is going to attack you for not addressing automotive safety as well. You are not part of some giant airline conspiracy to make cars more dangerous by denying them research, you are just studying something else today.
Ah, a bad car analogy./. never disappoints for those. This is more like announcing you are studying aircraft safety but only studying when the wings failed but ignoring the crashes where other parts of the aircraft failed. And any scientist worth their salt would know to have a control group.
Why limit research to one segment to create a self confirming headline?
To answer your question: because you can't study everything at the same time without making assumptions you can't justify yet. This happens all the time in social sciences. Before you can safely lump things together you have to study them separately.
I was going to mod you down for this but I will comment instead. This isn't science. If someone thinks it is, then they need to turn in their science card at the library. Anytime you setup an experiment, you have a control group. The amount of anything experienced by one group only has meaning when compared to the amount experienced by another group(s) which usually includes a control group. In this case, probably a group of men (or at least non-women). If it came out that the control group is attacked by someone on twitter every second what conclusion would you draw from those two data sets. If instead it was once every minute that a person in the control group was abused, would your conclusions be different? Add to that that possibly there is a gender imbalance in numbers of interactions per capita between the two groups and this one bit of research is meaningless. And it's stuff like this that causes "social scientists" to be considered junk science and for their entire field to be put into quotes by other scientists. Because an experiment without a control group isn't an experiment. Its somewhere between bad science and propaganda.
The only real opposition for the war in Iraq came from Democrats, and very few outlier republicans.
Obama opposed it, as did most Democrats.
And it was the republicans in the Bush / Cheney that intentionally cooked up the intelligence on WMD that ensured the biggest war of the last generation was fought on a lie.
But again, you would have to be able to see the obvious and distinguish between vastly different actions from different parties.
Clearly you weren't an adult during that period. Both sides voted overwhelmingly for the war. As did H. Clinton but not Bernie (which is why Bernie was so popular). Yes it was Cheney's game plan and we all knew it was flawed (well 50% of the population did anyway) but very few politicians voted against the war. Obama wasn't a federal senator yet during that vote so nobody really knows how he would have voted on the Iraq war. Try again...
Solar power is at its strongest when power usage is at its highest — during the hottest parts of the hottest days. Solar power is a great choice to balance out the highly time-skewed loads caused by air conditioning during much of the year.
That's 100% false. Check any grid's total load and you will see its peak daily at 8pm. The only time that's not true is during the hottest 5% or so of days. OK, maybe its true in Phoenix but other than the high desert (where only a small % of the population lives) its BS. Also, we frack for natural gas. We absolutely don't need to do this but we do. Do you work for a natural gas company or something? Also, check CA's CO2 outputs. If anything you said was true, they wouldn't be going up but they are.
By comparison just about every car on the road today could be converted to hydrogen fuel cell for a $2500 investment. A far greater number of people can swallow $2500 much easier than $48,000. To make the sort of impact needed to reduce carbon emission, you are going to have to get these into the hands of people that dont even make $48k a year income.
Citation please. That seems absurd but I'm interested if I am wrong about that. The problem with Hydrogen is that it needs a completely new distribution network built to make it work. Otherwise you need to produce H2 at each filling station which isn't easy to do efficiently. So even if this is only for the car itself for $2500 I think its workable but I doubt a much larger cost to the cars would work.
H2 competes with electricity as its an energy storage technology (like other fuels). Also, chemical storage of power is probably the only way to do grid scale storage so its very possible that H2's use is for grid storage and not transportation. That would reduce the distribution issues of H2.
4) Solar and wind are coming on strong but aren't a slam dunk obvious economic choice just yet
Solar and wind are absurdly expensive and only battery tech that doesn't exist (and likely won't exist in our lifetimes) can save it. Unless you use nuclear, you are using natural gas. The harder you push solar and wind, the more natural gas you use (see the Cal ISO Duck). Natural gas that comes from fracturing rock 5 miles down and capturing a gas that has 33x the greenhouse impact as CO2 and is clearly leaking from many wells. Those that push solar and wind are ACTIVELY harming the environment. And engineers that push solar and wind are doubly bad as you can do the math and understand nuclear tech and still push natural gas (via pushing solar and wind). Either learn something about power production or trust those that do who are saying nuclear is the only way out of global warming at this point. Anything else is as selfish as those that push fossil fuels.
What ISO, ANSI, or ECMA standardized language do you prefer for cross platform development?
Any of them...all of them...pretty much anything else. BTW, C++ has Qt which is what Chromium uses to be cross platform. Perhaps the hipsters could use that instead. Nah, that's actual quality work and that's not going to happen here.
I spent many years building cross-platform applications using this new-fangled thing called Java.
Then, someone decided it would be great to build web applications in Java. Oh, and use XML as the communications protocol between server and clients. Oh, and transfer not just data, but objects over-the-wire. Then Spring came along to make things "simpler". Like hell.
Node.js, JavaScript (TypeScript if you prefer) and now Electron are all bringing us back to cross-platform nirvana, only this time using the browser/server interface properly, without a bunch of ill-fitting preconceptions carried over from native desktop applications.
Firstly, cross-platform Java GUI apps never really took off (and I say that as someone who paid his rent in 2002 writing one). The Java as the web server/app took off rather quickly and the Java GUI's always looked terrible. Spring and Hibernate did improve things on the server but they should have shipped a default setup so things like transactions got intercepted and handled properly OOB and that never happened. XML was unnecessary but getting network ops to be happy with 20 custom network protocols probably wasn't a good idea either. But it wasn't that hard to get up and running and the web was still very much a moving target in those days. And those were also the days of IE6 so there was that making life hell.
However, moving Javascript to the server is the stupidest idea ever to come out of a human's mouth. I've never seen a node.js app that wasn't total shit and I've never seen someone who wrote a node.js app realize how shitty they app was while the ops get paged for the 74th time this week because his app fell over again.
Electron on the other hand is about client side caching in web apps. This is probably a terrible idea given Google's track record but it does make some mobile interactions easier. And there are better tools for the graphic designers to use to design the GUI when you are doing a web app. But this isn't about the user. This is about saving some hipster JS programmer some actual programming at the expense of your phone's battery life. Sadly this is exactly what Java was supposed to be good at. Unfortunately Java didn't fix its GUI toolkits until far too late (and many say they still haven't). Even C++ has a better GUI builder in Qt than Java has which is pretty sad.
This situation is a deeper example of what that usually implies. It is more than a case of just seeing those that are after you and knowing they are there. Having been a part of the conspiracy, these people know what they are up against.
Their use of a burner may very well be driven by knowledge of the systems and tactics they've been involved in creating. That makes finding that they are using burners a confirmation of sorts of our fears of what those systems are capable of and have actually been used for.
Posting to undo a mistake in moderating against this post...
In fact the cost to humans has skyrocketed when you consider places like Chernobyl and Fukushima. No-one can live there anymore so the cost might as well be infinite for those people.
Actually that's not true and due to a bad understanding of radio-toxicology. Most of those evacuated from Fukushima were evacuated unnecessarily due to our use of the linear no threshold model. 1600 people died due to this evacuation that was only done because we model radiation risk on the wrong model that overestimates risk at small doses and underestimates risk at large doses. Its also likely that our fear of nuclear power is more dangerous to us than nuclear power itself. Certainly coal is more dangerous to us than nuclear.
The Leaf is made by Nissan. GM makes the Chevy Volt and Bolt. These are a lot cheaper than anything Tesla makes, and they are selling as many electric cars as Tesla is (i.e. Both Tesla and GM are near the end of their tax subsidy eligibility which expires when a company sells 200,000 electric cars)
False. Tesla has sold 95k in the US (180k total) model 3s in 2018 alone. The Volt and Bolt sell about 27k total in 2018. And Telsa hit their limit in July of this year. GM isn't anywhere near theirs yet.
So its mostly coal and gas. Such a huge difference. And the question was what replaced nuclear, not what does Japan use. So if that coal was say 20% before 2011, then it was mostly coal that was added. People like you are the reason we will never have carbon free power and use so much coal. And you wonder why greenies don't win elections. Power production is an engineering task. Leave it to the engineers to solve. When politics enters into it, you can be assured that we won't find a good solution to the problem. The coal producers thank you for being such a useful idiot.
Based on a statistically insignificant 2 mins of searching, Tesla seems to be the #1 EV manufacturer in the US, closely followed by GM and Toyota (though they both include hybrids). That's probably why Tesla is seen as a bog boy in car sales.
The fact that they have maybe 1% of the car market (excluding SUVs and light trucks) doesn't really make it to the forefront of the conversation.
In publicity for EVs though Tesla is definitely #1
Tesla has delivered about 175,000 model 3s, and probably about 60,000 model S this year to date. Which is about 1.5% of the total US market. However, the cheapest Tesla is $45K and it just was released a couple of months ago. So that's 1.5% but its most of the top end of the curve which means big profit margins. It also means that at its price point its has significant market share because most new cars sold are less than $78k. The real test is moving down market into the mass end where volume is very high but margins are low. Not sure how much of a hurry I would be to move in that direction anyway if I was Elon. The semi, truck and SUV models seem like bigger money makers and will make scaling much easier.
What happened to/. Its been almost 100 posts and nobody has yet to mention the best keyboard on the market. Its mechanical, programmable and will cure you of CTS in a couple of weeks. Its expensive but worth it. Thought everyone already knew this...
'no'... and it's correct. nothing will change. not until zuck gets off his power tripping ride and/or the profits start drying up.
Well the stock price is only about 75% of what it was about a year ago when all of this started coming out which means Zuck has lost about a quarter of his wealth. So there's that...
Slashdot Mirror
You can't easily turn the thorium fuel for a power plant into a nuclear weapon, you can easily turn thorium into a nuclear weapon if you have a big fast neutron source ... such as a nuclear power plant (thorium or not).
By giving a nation nuclear power plants and reprocessing technologies you are giving them everything they need to breed pure U233.
False, you have that exactly backwards. U-233 has a much more even and controllable neutron economy. U-235 and Pu-239 are more energetic and can produce a much faster and more violent chain reaction which is better for bombs. That's why Pu-239 is used in most bombs. One bomb from U-233 was made back in the early 50's but it didn't explode with the desired power. The Th-232 breeds into U-233 but also produces U-232 which must be separated from the U-233 to make a bomb. Also, the U-232 is a terrifyingly effective poison and highly radioactive (much more radioactive than anything else we know of with a half life measured in years). If you were to simply enter a room with a pile of U-232 of sufficient size (say measured in grams), you would die within an hour even if you had all but the heaviest protection suits. The U-Pu fuel cycle produces weapons material several different ways. The Th-U fuel cycle is only capable of 1 way and that way also produces U-232 which is a great anti-proliferation material. Finally, if you are talking about Protactinium, you must know that that element is highly unstable and highly radioactive and decays quickly while producing U-232 as it goes. The Th-U fuel cycle is much easier to protect than the U-Pu fuel cycle. Stop spreading factually incorrect information Pinky.
How many actually running, delivering power to the grid, thorium reactors can you name? We have tried these here in Germany, turns out they are nice on paper, but not so nice in reality. Matter of fact, one of these is the highest contaminated reactor site in the world if measured by beta radiation. And thanks to the 14C half life of almost 6000 years it will stay this way for a very long time.
You tried solid fueled Thorium reactors with a manual breeding and reprocessing strategy. Thorium works much better in molten salt reactors where you use a nice aspect of Thorium's chemistry to separate out the newly breed material from the material that is still Thorium. Also, Thorium isn't water soluble like Uranium and Plutonium. Why does that matter? Well U and Pu are poisonous in addition to be radioactive. Thorium isn't poisonous and gives off 1/10th the radioactivity in its natural state. Also, we have large piles of Thorium anywhere rare earth mining takes place. So perhaps instead of letting it leach into the groundwater when it rains, we could use it for power?
Use steel reinforced concrete for shielding just like all existing production plants. The bigger issue is that Bill Gates is not taking the lead and using it as the coolant with the designs promoted by Terrapower.
Terrapower has 2 designs: 1) an old school LWR style reactor with a different method of managing the fuel rods and 2) a DMSR using a chloride salt as a coolant. I don't particularity like either design. I don't think Chlorine is a great replacement for Florine and we know less about how a chloride salt works in a nuclear reactor. I'm glad he is funding investment into nuclear though and the more we know about the technology, the more safely we can utilize it.
Here's another thought: when your precious nuclear power plant goes down for planned (or worse, unplanned) maintenance - sometimes for years at a time - who's going to pay for another one to take its place? Will that be you? Who's going to insure the sudden gap of a few gigawatts in the power grid? Will that be you?
All the FUD thrown against wind and solar by nuke fanboys applies more to your favored method of heating water than it it does for wind and solar.
Nuclear has far and away the highest capacity factor of any power source. Just because you read about 1 of 100 reactors having an issue that took 5 years to fix (probably due to all the paperwork) doesn't mean that the rest of the fleet wasn't producing power the entire time. Also, who is going to build and pay for the giant batteries it would require for wind and solar to work. Right, nobody cause they will never exist. BTW, a natural gas plant has a capacity factor in the ~40%. For nuclear its closer to ~90%.
And nobody wants to heat water except for you. When you say that, we know you know nothing about nuclear power. LWR reactors are only still used because we can't get any other design approved for reasons of pure politics. The environmental movement needs to own up to its own copablity w.r.t Climate Change on this one.
As much as a $2.5 million Bugatti is a cheap car for a person working at McDonalds, sure. You have tens of billions in upfront construction costs with nuclear power, and will have to deal with the waste for thousands of years. Cost, not hippies, is what's killing your extraordinarily expensive & dangerous way to heat water.
We don't want to heat water with nuclear. That's a bad idea for a bunch of reasons including: 1) steam explosions (Chernobyl) 2) H2 production and explosions (Fuchishima and 3mi island), 3) lower energy carrying capacity, and 4) water is a natural moderator. We want to heat molten salt which is the same stuff in a solar plant (or perhaps liquid metal). We also want to reprocess nuclear waste and store it responsibly. Hippies have blocked all of these efforts in the courts. Where do you think all the expense is coming from? You really think its all concrete and lead? No its lawyers for the lawsuits that happen every time you do anything with nuclear even if its a good idea in the interest of public health. Its useless paperwork that meant to ensure safety but really just ensures cost. Good regulation is hard, good nuclear regulation is doubly so. But as long as its a political issue, you can bet it won't be solved. Its likely that it will just move to another jurisdiction who will hopefully be safe with it but who knows. The alternative is global warming so perhaps you might want to reconsider.
If you think nuclear power is too expensive now, then you wouldn't want to know how expensive it will be with fuel enriched to the same level the naval reactors need. This is the main reason there are no civilian nuclear powered ships except a couple of Russian ice breakers.
You don't need fuel enriched to that level. For civilian power, you don't even want that level of enrichment. You enrich to change the types of byproducts that are produced in the reactor and so you can have less volume in the reactor. This only really matters on a military ship. For a civilian reactor, it doesn't matter as the difference in size is dwarfed by the other safety systems a civilian reactor requires. Also, anti-proliferation methods often involve intentionally making nasty byproducts like Pu-238 for the U-Pu fuel cycle or U-232 for the Th-U fuel cycle. For example, in a Thorium reactor, you control the isotopic mixture of Th-230 (vs the Th-232 which is the fuel) going into the reactor so that in addition to the fissionable U-233 that is breed, you get U-232 which is poison. That U-232 both prevents people from stealing and prevents people from using it in weapons as U-232 makes the mixture unsuitable for weapons. As an upshot, U-232 only remains radioactive for about 300 years (half life of 68.7 years plus the decay chain which includes 3 gamma emitters) verses 10,000 years or more for the Pu-238 and other Actinides that are present in the waste.
And it doesn't have to be just nuclear.
Ok, I'll bite. What would it be? Unless you have some huge battery tech advancement that nobody knows about, then you simply haven't worked out the numbers. Cheap, CO2 free energy is currently only available from nuclear. Everything else either releases lots of CO2 or Methane, produces power intermittently, isn't available in enough places or with enough energy created, or isn't yet possible.
Instead, the public wants to continuously argue over climate change. We don't know for sure how big a problem climate change is, but wouldn't it be wonderful if the cure was a SIDE EFFECT of doing the right things for a myriad of OTHER good reasons?
Yea, but that has nothing to do with power production. That's about human psychology and its need for external conflict to deflect from internal issues. None of which are good reasons to not solve the problems of global warming right now.
Regulations exist for a reason.
Gross corporatist propaganda to limit liability for negligence, incompetence and criminal actions.
Yea, but which greedy corporatists are you discussing, the engineers and scientists which are pushing for nuclear, or the folks pushing for natural gas? You might think we should do 100% solar and wind. In California (where I live) and Germany who have both pushed hard for solar and wind have caused two trends: 1) CO2 emissions are increasing, 2) prices are going up. This is because we can't store the energy generated intermittently and a huge innovation in battery tech would be needed. Its unlikely that this will happen which means when you deploy wind and solar you also deploy natural gas. Natural gas that probably leaks quite a bit and is mostly made of methane that's a 33x more potent GHG than CO2. Pumped hydro and chemical storage technologies have very poor efficiencies, often less than 20% (meaning you lose 4x the energy you discharge back).
We know how to do nuclear safely if governments would just let us. But groups who are largely ignorant (in the best case) about science and engineering have blocked all efforts at advancement, often at the expense of public health. Quite a few of the former leaders at the Sierra Club, who spoke about the evils of nuclear power for years have had major reversals for example Gwyneth Cravens. She and those like her were of course excommunicated and the obstructionism continues. Hell, they even oppose responsible treatment of nuclear waste both through fuel reprocessing and long term storage (see Yucca Mt). So get down off your high horse and make sure you know who you are backing. Because right now, you are backing global warming and fossil fuels; you just don't know it yet.
How about you ignore that 1 message and read the other 124999. Or like me, read none.
Because nothing generates clicks like rage and the algorithms are designed to generate clicks so they tend to show rage inducing tweets to rage-aholics aka people on the Internet.
Why would that be, exactly?
Because the study is about women. Look, if you write a book about how to improve aircraft safety, no-one is going to attack you for not addressing automotive safety as well. You are not part of some giant airline conspiracy to make cars more dangerous by denying them research, you are just studying something else today.
Ah, a bad car analogy. /. never disappoints for those. This is more like announcing you are studying aircraft safety but only studying when the wings failed but ignoring the crashes where other parts of the aircraft failed. And any scientist worth their salt would know to have a control group.
Why limit research to one segment to create a self confirming headline?
To answer your question: because you can't study everything at the same time without making assumptions you can't justify yet. This happens all the time in social sciences. Before you can safely lump things together you have to study them separately.
I was going to mod you down for this but I will comment instead. This isn't science. If someone thinks it is, then they need to turn in their science card at the library. Anytime you setup an experiment, you have a control group. The amount of anything experienced by one group only has meaning when compared to the amount experienced by another group(s) which usually includes a control group. In this case, probably a group of men (or at least non-women). If it came out that the control group is attacked by someone on twitter every second what conclusion would you draw from those two data sets. If instead it was once every minute that a person in the control group was abused, would your conclusions be different? Add to that that possibly there is a gender imbalance in numbers of interactions per capita between the two groups and this one bit of research is meaningless. And it's stuff like this that causes "social scientists" to be considered junk science and for their entire field to be put into quotes by other scientists. Because an experiment without a control group isn't an experiment. Its somewhere between bad science and propaganda.
the tribalism has been around as long humanity has been around.
Politics makes a lot more sense when viewed through the lens of tribalism...
The only real opposition for the war in Iraq came from Democrats, and very few outlier republicans.
Obama opposed it, as did most Democrats.
And it was the republicans in the Bush / Cheney that intentionally cooked up the intelligence on WMD that ensured the biggest war of the last generation was fought on a lie.
But again, you would have to be able to see the obvious and distinguish between vastly different actions from different parties.
Clearly you weren't an adult during that period. Both sides voted overwhelmingly for the war. As did H. Clinton but not Bernie (which is why Bernie was so popular). Yes it was Cheney's game plan and we all knew it was flawed (well 50% of the population did anyway) but very few politicians voted against the war. Obama wasn't a federal senator yet during that vote so nobody really knows how he would have voted on the Iraq war. Try again...
Solar power is at its strongest when power usage is at its highest — during the hottest parts of the hottest days. Solar power is a great choice to balance out the highly time-skewed loads caused by air conditioning during much of the year.
That's 100% false. Check any grid's total load and you will see its peak daily at 8pm. The only time that's not true is during the hottest 5% or so of days. OK, maybe its true in Phoenix but other than the high desert (where only a small % of the population lives) its BS. Also, we frack for natural gas. We absolutely don't need to do this but we do. Do you work for a natural gas company or something? Also, check CA's CO2 outputs. If anything you said was true, they wouldn't be going up but they are.
By comparison just about every car on the road today could be converted to hydrogen fuel cell for a $2500 investment. A far greater number of people can swallow $2500 much easier than $48,000. To make the sort of impact needed to reduce carbon emission, you are going to have to get these into the hands of people that dont even make $48k a year income.
Citation please. That seems absurd but I'm interested if I am wrong about that. The problem with Hydrogen is that it needs a completely new distribution network built to make it work. Otherwise you need to produce H2 at each filling station which isn't easy to do efficiently. So even if this is only for the car itself for $2500 I think its workable but I doubt a much larger cost to the cars would work.
H2 competes with electricity as its an energy storage technology (like other fuels). Also, chemical storage of power is probably the only way to do grid scale storage so its very possible that H2's use is for grid storage and not transportation. That would reduce the distribution issues of H2.
4) Solar and wind are coming on strong but aren't a slam dunk obvious economic choice just yet
Solar and wind are absurdly expensive and only battery tech that doesn't exist (and likely won't exist in our lifetimes) can save it. Unless you use nuclear, you are using natural gas. The harder you push solar and wind, the more natural gas you use (see the Cal ISO Duck). Natural gas that comes from fracturing rock 5 miles down and capturing a gas that has 33x the greenhouse impact as CO2 and is clearly leaking from many wells. Those that push solar and wind are ACTIVELY harming the environment. And engineers that push solar and wind are doubly bad as you can do the math and understand nuclear tech and still push natural gas (via pushing solar and wind). Either learn something about power production or trust those that do who are saying nuclear is the only way out of global warming at this point. Anything else is as selfish as those that push fossil fuels.
What ISO, ANSI, or ECMA standardized language do you prefer for cross platform development?
Any of them...all of them...pretty much anything else. BTW, C++ has Qt which is what Chromium uses to be cross platform. Perhaps the hipsters could use that instead. Nah, that's actual quality work and that's not going to happen here.
I spent many years building cross-platform applications using this new-fangled thing called Java.
Then, someone decided it would be great to build web applications in Java. Oh, and use XML as the communications protocol between server and clients. Oh, and transfer not just data, but objects over-the-wire. Then Spring came along to make things "simpler". Like hell.
Node.js, JavaScript (TypeScript if you prefer) and now Electron are all bringing us back to cross-platform nirvana, only this time using the browser/server interface properly, without a bunch of ill-fitting preconceptions carried over from native desktop applications.
Firstly, cross-platform Java GUI apps never really took off (and I say that as someone who paid his rent in 2002 writing one). The Java as the web server/app took off rather quickly and the Java GUI's always looked terrible. Spring and Hibernate did improve things on the server but they should have shipped a default setup so things like transactions got intercepted and handled properly OOB and that never happened. XML was unnecessary but getting network ops to be happy with 20 custom network protocols probably wasn't a good idea either. But it wasn't that hard to get up and running and the web was still very much a moving target in those days. And those were also the days of IE6 so there was that making life hell.
However, moving Javascript to the server is the stupidest idea ever to come out of a human's mouth. I've never seen a node.js app that wasn't total shit and I've never seen someone who wrote a node.js app realize how shitty they app was while the ops get paged for the 74th time this week because his app fell over again.
Electron on the other hand is about client side caching in web apps. This is probably a terrible idea given Google's track record but it does make some mobile interactions easier. And there are better tools for the graphic designers to use to design the GUI when you are doing a web app. But this isn't about the user. This is about saving some hipster JS programmer some actual programming at the expense of your phone's battery life. Sadly this is exactly what Java was supposed to be good at. Unfortunately Java didn't fix its GUI toolkits until far too late (and many say they still haven't). Even C++ has a better GUI builder in Qt than Java has which is pretty sad.
This situation is a deeper example of what that usually implies. It is more than a case of just seeing those that are after you and knowing they are there. Having been a part of the conspiracy, these people know what they are up against.
Their use of a burner may very well be driven by knowledge of the systems and tactics they've been involved in creating. That makes finding that they are using burners a confirmation of sorts of our fears of what those systems are capable of and have actually been used for.
Posting to undo a mistake in moderating against this post...
In fact the cost to humans has skyrocketed when you consider places like Chernobyl and Fukushima. No-one can live there anymore so the cost might as well be infinite for those people.
Actually that's not true and due to a bad understanding of radio-toxicology. Most of those evacuated from Fukushima were evacuated unnecessarily due to our use of the linear no threshold model. 1600 people died due to this evacuation that was only done because we model radiation risk on the wrong model that overestimates risk at small doses and underestimates risk at large doses. Its also likely that our fear of nuclear power is more dangerous to us than nuclear power itself. Certainly coal is more dangerous to us than nuclear.
The Leaf is made by Nissan. GM makes the Chevy Volt and Bolt. These are a lot cheaper than anything Tesla makes, and they are selling as many electric cars as Tesla is (i.e. Both Tesla and GM are near the end of their tax subsidy eligibility which expires when a company sells 200,000 electric cars)
False. Tesla has sold 95k in the US (180k total) model 3s in 2018 alone. The Volt and Bolt sell about 27k total in 2018. And Telsa hit their limit in July of this year. GM isn't anywhere near theirs yet.
Mostly coal.
Nope. In 2015 Japan was:
39% gas 34% coal 9% oil 8.4% hydro ~4.3% other renewables 0.9% nuclear
Data from the IEA: https://www.iea.org/statistics...
So its mostly coal and gas. Such a huge difference. And the question was what replaced nuclear, not what does Japan use. So if that coal was say 20% before 2011, then it was mostly coal that was added. People like you are the reason we will never have carbon free power and use so much coal. And you wonder why greenies don't win elections. Power production is an engineering task. Leave it to the engineers to solve. When politics enters into it, you can be assured that we won't find a good solution to the problem. The coal producers thank you for being such a useful idiot.
Based on a statistically insignificant 2 mins of searching, Tesla seems to be the #1 EV manufacturer in the US, closely followed by GM and Toyota (though they both include hybrids). That's probably why Tesla is seen as a bog boy in car sales. The fact that they have maybe 1% of the car market (excluding SUVs and light trucks) doesn't really make it to the forefront of the conversation.
In publicity for EVs though Tesla is definitely #1
Tesla has delivered about 175,000 model 3s, and probably about 60,000 model S this year to date. Which is about 1.5% of the total US market. However, the cheapest Tesla is $45K and it just was released a couple of months ago. So that's 1.5% but its most of the top end of the curve which means big profit margins. It also means that at its price point its has significant market share because most new cars sold are less than $78k. The real test is moving down market into the mass end where volume is very high but margins are low. Not sure how much of a hurry I would be to move in that direction anyway if I was Elon. The semi, truck and SUV models seem like bigger money makers and will make scaling much easier.
What happened to /. Its been almost 100 posts and nobody has yet to mention the best keyboard on the market. Its mechanical, programmable and will cure you of CTS in a couple of weeks. Its expensive but worth it. Thought everyone already knew this...
'no'... and it's correct. nothing will change. not until zuck gets off his power tripping ride and/or the profits start drying up.
Well the stock price is only about 75% of what it was about a year ago when all of this started coming out which means Zuck has lost about a quarter of his wealth. So there's that...