What kind of argument is that? All trees are solar powered and they most definitely don't have any PV cells.
My belief is that solar thermal won't go anywhere because they don't have a cost advantage over solar cells.
Well, as you can see, your belief is wrong, otherwise solar thermal power plants would not be built.
There are more benefits of solar thermal than just building heating: - the ability to save the heat in the molten salt to keep producing electrical power at night - the ability to use heat engines and even gas turbines, which leads to a higher efficiency than current photovoltaic cells - usage of solar heat directly for steel melting or hydrogen production
First, RTFA, this power plant is not photovoltaic but solar thermal. There are no solar cells there.
Second, things won't get cheaper by magic, they get cheaper by the economy of scale, but that only after development costs are amortized. If there is no investment in any technology while it is expensive, it won't ever get cheaper.
Even modest generation of power outside of peak solar (which I might add is also times of low power demand) won't help very much.
Dude, this is Nevada we are talking about. Even I know that the people living there use air conditioning at the time of peak solar, so a solar power plant is essentialy a good idea there.
Power generation for the night hours is an additional bonus, low power production meets low power demand.
No, I didn't. If 90% of the population earns only 54% of the total gross income, then they don't profit as much from the society, so their fair share of taxes would be lower.
If you still don't get it:
The proportions between 10% of earners and 46% of earnings are different than between 90% of earners and 54% of gross income.
The rich 10% of the earners profit 7.6 times more from the society, than the rest, so they actually should pay 7.6 times than the rest. Instead they pay about 1.5 times more. No way they are paying their fair share.
If the richest 10% earn 46% of the total gross income, as you have mentioned, then they profit disproportionaly from the society. Why should they not pay more in taxes, than most people? They certainly get good value for their taxes.
I used to love meat and to eat it at least two times a day. A year ago, though, the doctor has told me to curb my meat consumption if I don't want to get the gout.
Since then I've replaced meat with cheese, joghurt and an occasional fish, eating meat only once or twice a week. First few months I've craved for meat, but nowadays, to be honest, while I could eat meat more often, I just don't like the taste that much anymore. If in a restaurant I have a choice between a beef steak and a fish, I always go for fish. Chicken tastes better, but still I can eat it two times a week at best.
I guess it just happens sometimes, that people lose their taste for something.
But Foveon sensors overstate their native resolution just like the Beyer pattern sensors.
Nope, not the sensors, just the camera names. The native resolution of SD10 is IIRC 3.2 megapixels and the photos are shot in the native resolution, without interpolation.
Anyway, even that bad practise will stop with SD1, and also the fall behind Bayer sensor cameras.
I have read this one months ago. The article is worded so you, as a nuclear power fan, are fooled by it, without even trying to think about what is written there.
You also seem not to have read editor's note on the page two where you can see sentences like "In most areas, the ash contains less uranium than some common rocks".
So, pray tell me how can the ash contain less uranium than some common rocks and at the same time be more radioactive than spent nuclear fuel?
2% of who? the US? France produces 75% of their power from nuclear (from the first article that you have ignored twice).
Of the world, of course. Yes, France produces a large part of their power from nuclear. Germany, where I live, on the other hand, only around 20%, Austria whole zero percent.
Nuclear power is an intermediate solution at best, until fusion arrives.
I see you have confused 99mTc, which is produced for nuclear medicine, with 99Tc, which is produced in every nuclear reactor, is discharged into the sea after reprocessing and has a half life of somewhat more than 211000 years.
My argument still stands. Capture fly ash, extract uranium, sell it for profit. Problem solved, making the point about coal power plants spewing radioactivity moot.
Oh, by the way, before you call other people idiots, you should do your research. What I've described above was actually done. Coal power plants are often built at a close proximity of a coal mine to make the transportation of coal easier. The power plants are also optimised for the kind of coal that can be fond at the nearby coal seam. Coal from some seams indeed has got larger amounts of uranium in it, and fly ash from powerplants that burn this coal was indeed successfully "mined" for uranium, which can be worth the costs since real uranium mining is not an easy job.
Modern coal power plants do run very clean, and flyash is captured and is used in some industrial processes. Older ones can be easily (well, for certain definition of easy) upgraded, as it was done to combat sulfur dioxide pollution two decades ago by adding scrubbers.
See my other comment about how great current reprocessing is. Also, if coal is really as radioactive as you trying to fear monger, then nuclear power plants should actually use coal instead of uranium since it is far cheaper and much easier to mine.
And given the fact, that there has been a serious nuclear accident on average every 20 years, and that when nuclear power plants produce just tiny 2% of our current power needs. If there were so many nuclear power plants as there are coal power plants at the moment, we would have a meltdown every single year.
The amount of technetium-99 from nuclear reactors released into the environment up to 1986 is on the order of 1000 TBq (about 1600 kg), primarily by nuclear fuel reprocessing; most of this was discharged into the sea. Reprocessing methods have reduced emissions since then, but as of 2005 the primary release of technetium-99 into the environment is by the Sellafield plant, which released an estimated 550 TBq (about 900 kg) from 1995-1999 into the Irish Sea.
I don't know, maybe in some parallel universe those items still radioactive are indeed stored, but not in this reality.
iPhone display sucked in comparison to that of many Windows Mobile devices, of all things, which had full VGA resolution by 2004 and WVGA by 2008. Only the fourth generation of Apple's overhyped devices actually has got an impressive display.
Slashdot Mirror
What kind of argument is that? All trees are solar powered and they most definitely don't have any PV cells.
Well, as you can see, your belief is wrong, otherwise solar thermal power plants would not be built.
There are more benefits of solar thermal than just building heating:
- the ability to save the heat in the molten salt to keep producing electrical power at night
- the ability to use heat engines and even gas turbines, which leads to a higher efficiency than current photovoltaic cells
- usage of solar heat directly for steel melting or hydrogen production
Probably even earlier. peak power is the most expensive power and peak power correlates nicely with peak solar at that place.
First, RTFA, this power plant is not photovoltaic but solar thermal. There are no solar cells there.
Second, things won't get cheaper by magic, they get cheaper by the economy of scale, but that only after development costs are amortized. If there is no investment in any technology while it is expensive, it won't ever get cheaper.
Dude, this is Nevada we are talking about. Even I know that the people living there use air conditioning at the time of peak solar, so a solar power plant is essentialy a good idea there.
Power generation for the night hours is an additional bonus, low power production meets low power demand.
So you conveniently ignore the deaths of uranium mining accidents?
Demagogue.
No, I didn't. If 90% of the population earns only 54% of the total gross income, then they don't profit as much from the society, so their fair share of taxes would be lower.
If you still don't get it:
The proportions between 10% of earners and 46% of earnings are different than between 90% of earners and 54% of gross income.
The rich 10% of the earners profit 7.6 times more from the society, than the rest, so they actually should pay 7.6 times than the rest. Instead they pay about 1.5 times more. No way they are paying their fair share.
If the richest 10% earn 46% of the total gross income, as you have mentioned, then they profit disproportionaly from the society. Why should they not pay more in taxes, than most people? They certainly get good value for their taxes.
I normally do my own cooking and I do them myself once a year. Then they are edible, but still it is nothing I would eat often.
No, thanks.
Even back when I ate lots of meat, I've hated burgers with passion.
Why crazy?
I used to love meat and to eat it at least two times a day. A year ago, though, the doctor has told me to curb my meat consumption if I don't want to get the gout.
Since then I've replaced meat with cheese, joghurt and an occasional fish, eating meat only once or twice a week. First few months I've craved for meat, but nowadays, to be honest, while I could eat meat more often, I just don't like the taste that much anymore. If in a restaurant I have a choice between a beef steak and a fish, I always go for fish. Chicken tastes better, but still I can eat it two times a week at best.
I guess it just happens sometimes, that people lose their taste for something.
Actually the text does rather sound like machine translation to me, you can feel that the author doesn't think in German.
Strike Germany from that list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kr%C3%BCmmel_Nuclear_Power_Plant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor
Since there is no "-1 Disagree" mod option, yes.
Nope, not the sensors, just the camera names. The native resolution of SD10 is IIRC 3.2 megapixels and the photos are shot in the native resolution, without interpolation.
Anyway, even that bad practise will stop with SD1, and also the fall behind Bayer sensor cameras.
Gee, I cannot imagine, why.
Not in comparison to same photo shot with a Foveon sensor camera.
I have read this one months ago. The article is worded so you, as a nuclear power fan, are fooled by it, without even trying to think about what is written there.
You also seem not to have read editor's note on the page two where you can see sentences like "In most areas, the ash contains less uranium than some common rocks".
So, pray tell me how can the ash contain less uranium than some common rocks and at the same time be more radioactive than spent nuclear fuel?
Of the world, of course. Yes, France produces a large part of their power from nuclear. Germany, where I live, on the other hand, only around 20%, Austria whole zero percent.
Nuclear power is an intermediate solution at best, until fusion arrives.
I see you have confused 99mTc, which is produced for nuclear medicine, with 99Tc, which is produced in every nuclear reactor, is discharged into the sea after reprocessing and has a half life of somewhat more than 211000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium-99
So much for "that is the longer stability isotope".
My argument still stands. Capture fly ash, extract uranium, sell it for profit. Problem solved, making the point about coal power plants spewing radioactivity moot.
Oh, by the way, before you call other people idiots, you should do your research. What I've described above was actually done. Coal power plants are often built at a close proximity of a coal mine to make the transportation of coal easier. The power plants are also optimised for the kind of coal that can be fond at the nearby coal seam. Coal from some seams indeed has got larger amounts of uranium in it, and fly ash from powerplants that burn this coal was indeed successfully "mined" for uranium, which can be worth the costs since real uranium mining is not an easy job.
Modern coal power plants do run very clean, and flyash is captured and is used in some industrial processes. Older ones can be easily (well, for certain definition of easy) upgraded, as it was done to combat sulfur dioxide pollution two decades ago by adding scrubbers.
See my other comment about how great current reprocessing is.
Also, if coal is really as radioactive as you trying to fear monger, then nuclear power plants should actually use coal instead of uranium since it is far cheaper and much easier to mine.
And given the fact, that there has been a serious nuclear accident on average every 20 years, and that when nuclear power plants produce just tiny 2% of our current power needs. If there were so many nuclear power plants as there are coal power plants at the moment, we would have a meltdown every single year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium
I don't know, maybe in some parallel universe those items still radioactive are indeed stored, but not in this reality.
If by "reprocessing" you mean "recover uranium, plutonium and some other actinides, dump the rest into a river" then by all means, be my guest.
If coal is as radioactive as you want me to believe, why don't they use coal instead of uranium in nuclear power plants?
I think Steve Hogarth used something like that
iPhone display sucked in comparison to that of many Windows Mobile devices, of all things, which had full VGA resolution by 2004 and WVGA by 2008. Only the fourth generation of Apple's overhyped devices actually has got an impressive display.