Truthfully, if this technology became reality as it is described, my opposition to nuclear power would drastically diminish. The waste is the single largest issue surrounding these plants. Quite simply, it's immoral to leave future generations the obligation to take care of a problem, both physically and financially, that we generate today.
Having said that, my concern is that this is yet another distraction that will never actually bear out.
As for the reprocessing issue: My understanding is that the US does not reprocess waste for political reasons. Basically, it was a condition of some of the disarmament treaties designed to pacify some Russian concerns. Therefore, in order to begin reprocessing spent fuel, it would involve the re-negotiation of old, hard-won treaties. This would be a process which I can't really see being too high on Washington's to-do list for a long time to come.
Dude, the Zune was never really about making a money or even building a decent player (however thing work out in the end)... The idea was that Microsoft could not afford to sacrifice any market to any other company. So the scheme was to leverage the company, monetarily and otherwise, in order to create an entrant into this marketplace. Part of the idea with DRM was to damage Apples relationship with the music industry by giving them exactly what they wanted at the expense of the consumer. Microsoft has never really cared all that much about making money outside its core business... The fact that they would even consider scrapping the Zune, without a clear successor, is just another example of how Gate's influence is waning.
The Mayor BEGGED people to leave town on local television. Everybody had several days' warning, they just chose not to leave. And it's the idiots that didn't leave that were starving, peeing on and raping each other in the stadium a week later.
That statement is incredibly offensive. Yes there were some 'idiots' that chose not to leave, however, the majority of the people who ended up "peeing on and raping each other in the stadium" were the poor and the elderly and the sick of New Orleans who didn't have the resources to leave or the resources to stay anywhere else even if they could get out.
Strangely enough, most of the people who did manage to have the resources to get out were the white folks. When you take the fact that the government rescue effort was abysmal at best and didn't really get rolling until the airwaves were blanketed by some pretty ugly imagery, some might even speculate that 'George Bush hates black people'. Of course I would never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence. All the same, it seems like a sad state of affairs when the preferable alternative is multiple levels of sheer incompetence.
Much of what you say is true, however, I feel that in this case Mr. Chu might be just what the proverbial doctor ordered. Up to this point, the majority of decisions made in regards to environmental policy have been ideologically driven with the whims of business overriding sound environmental practise. Thus, the majority of environmental policy over the last decade or so, has been a dismal failure (unless your idea of environmental policy is to extract more resources with less government interference from said envronment).
I guess, the hope with a physicist in charge is that he will see through the lobbyist bullsh*t of 'this can't be done' as he knows full well that it can be done, you just don't want to.
I would be happy with the program as long as as a damn spell checker is functional after you install OOo. I installed the beta the other day and it seriously took me a half an hour of scanning through forums and messing around to get it working. And this was after already knowing that I had to do something from much earlier releases! Sure, it's easy once you know how, but it's a really bad first impression when you recommend the program as a alternative to MS word, only to end up receiving a phone call because the thing isn't spell checking! If a web browser can do it, there's not excuse for this. Of course, OOo isn't the only program guilty of this, (I'm looking at you too Abi word!)
Reactor designs have improved vastly since the ban on all new U.S. nuclear reactors 30+ years ago, and some of those designs can prevent meltdowns altogether.
True, but people designs haven't.
Not-so-random question: I wonder were wind, solar, and Geothermal would be if the billions invested in nuclear had gone their way instead?
The main difference between the two, though, is that nuclear reactors contain their waste and coal plants don't.
Umm, Nuclear reactors contain their waste until they need to be refueled. Anyone who wants an nuclear waste dump in their state raise their hands...
Another stupid question: What do you do with a nuclear plant when it's time to decommission it?
I can't tell what side of the fence you're on so thumbs up on a thoughtful post!
You make a good point, a technological solution to a technological problem is often simply a band-aid solution. In the grand scheme, we could manage the climate in several ways, be it: Carbon capture, spraying salt's into the air, or maybe building a giant umbrella in space. But in the end, you still have to ask: why?
On the surface, the climate change we are experiencing today is mainly a result of excessive production of CO2 and, if motivated, we can technically manage that or at least do an end run around the issue. But under the surface, it's a symptom of our resource consumption binge and if/when we tackle Climate Change another symptom is likely to rear it's ugly head; perhaps peak resources.
So again, Why? Why would we want to lurch from crisis to crisis? Why would we spend all this time and energy and money to enable ourselves to keep doing the same old? Is it to buy ourselves time or is it because there are many powerful interests invested in the status quo? I don't know. What I do know is that I like my lifestyle today and I would very much like to figure some way that my children don't wind up back in the stone age.
Somehow you manage to draw you enemies all together under the banner of tree hugging geniuses. Then, you ingeniously lump disparate environmental issues together. Next you demonstrate profound insight into the mind of nature. You follow all this up by advocating what, to the untrained eye, would seem like some random course of action unfettered with the burden of proof. But you're not done! Somehow you still manage to finish this sweeping literary tour de force by utterly decapitating that nebulous group of government worshiping tree-huggers doubtlessly responsible for countless environmental and economical catastrophes going back untold millennia!
Rest easy tonight sir, secure in the knowledge that the world is better place you in it.
Yes, I'm aware that the H3 gets better gas mileage than many other large vehicles. (which is more of an indictment of those other vehicles than saying the H3 gets good mileage.) However, if you read the tone of the parent, it is clear that he doesn't care what mileage his vehicle gets, he is just using the Hummer because it represents conspicuous consumption.
I don't have exact numbers but I do know that power loss, sometimes referred to as line loss, can be quite significant. I assume this extra expense in cooling is more than offset by transmission gains. If not, then I'm sure someone will be kind enough to explain the benefits of this system.
I hear what you're saying and I agree with you. My only point would be that any system is only as good as the maintenance the operator puts into it. Sure, old hanging copper may require proportionately less, but if this supercooled system is properly maintained it should be as reliable as the old system, (baring new technology hiccups.)
Efficiency is fine and good but it doesn't solve anything in the long run. The world needs enough clean energy that we can afford to waste it.
I agree and I disagree. Efficiency both solves nothing in the long run, but it solves everything in the long run! (Yes folks, I'll save you the trouble, my parents aren't married and I'm half a retard.)
You are correct, anyway you slice it, more people and activity will require more energy. This energy must be clean because we've passed the limit of what the world can sustain doing what we're doing.
However, we have a fundamental problem that no one really want's to talk about despite that fact that virtually all environmental problems have been stem from this and will continue to stem from this. The problem is that fundamentally, we are wasteful.
The world doesn't care that one Forest gets logged or that one river gets dammed or that one country burns coal or that somebody eats a dolphin. What the world does care about is that everyone wants to do it. Simply arguing that an abundant source of clean energy will make our problems disappear is short sighted. (I realize that this NOT at all what you were trying to imply. You're talking about energy and the economy in particular whereas I'm talking about an overall problem generating proclivity, so don't take this personally because you're point is well made.)
Abundant clean energy will solve our current energy problem in the short to medium term, but ultimately it's just piling one more deck on top of a giant house of cards. As a species, if we don't get our wasteful ways under control we will just run into another problem. Perhaps it will come in the form of running out of water or certain minerals. You see where I'm going with this? Our energy problems are, in some ways, nothing more than a symptom of bad modus operandi.
What do you mean by "use less energy"? Like take cold showers? Ban hot tubs? Stop driving (or just certain cars like the evil SUV that no one in these discussions ever seems to own, but I see all over the freaking roads)? Or more easily adoptable things like using energy star appliances and them funny lookin' lightbulbs?
I wasn't just talking about consumers, I was actually referring to the macro picture. Overall, it's cheaper to generate efficiencies than to expand capacity. For example, instead of expanding capacity by 1% in anticipation of growing need, you do something like legislate new electrical devices cannot use more than 1 watt when in standby and so on. First hit the low-hanging fruit, like the incandescent bulb and move on to building and city design.
Now the somewhat paradoxical part. What I just said makes sense from an energy perspective, but as we all know we don't live in a world solely populated by energy planners. This kind of thing is unpopular with regular folks who feel that government is already too invasive and with politicians because they don't want to risk angering people who seem to get horny by using little tungsten filaments all over their house. Imagine the outcry if you were to tell architects, seduced by the beauty of a shear wall of south facing windows, that they must put an awning on their building! The other problem is that you're fighting convention. In the days where energy was cheap, there were things you just did. If you building was too hot you installed an air conditioner, too cold a bigger heater. Being more thoughtful by design is difficult if for no other reason than the fact that we didn't do it yesterday.
Anyway, that's the angle I was taking with the original quote.
Overall I agree, but a couple other points to toss in the mix. First demand globally is really growing. The US consumer could conceivably cut way back on oil consumption and still see demand outstrip supply and watch as the prices still spike. Just think 2 billion Chinese and Indians suddenly start driving Nano's. Individually they may only spend a dollar or two on fuel per day, but collectively this demand puts a strain on already tight supplies. Which brings me to my second point, which is that despite billions in exploration we haven't been able to push supply higher than 2005 levels. Since it is unlikely that we will be able to find a source (in the ground) that will both offset declining current production and dramatically push global supplies up, we should expect to see oil prices follow a slow jagged line skyward.
I suppose you figure out how to mine and transport it with zero impact. Then you strip all the pollutants out of the smoke. Then you take the CO2 and pump it down an old oil well in the belief that it will stay there and that the tremendous pressure won't force pollutants along underground fissures into the surrounding groundwater like it now seems to be doing in the Weyburn oilfield. On the other hand, the pressure might increase old well production, especially in the old wells which had all that 'useless' natural gas flared off in the '50s and '60s. Oh and this is very cost effective, especially if you're in the coal business.
I agree with you, although, I wouldn't want to be so alarmist. With a few notable exceptions, most nuclear plants globally have a reasonable track record of safety, so far at least. Be wary though, as the old saying goes: if you build a foolproof technology, they'll just breed a better fool...
Joking aside, my problems with nuclear are many. First, it's not a green as proponents seem to think. Before you can generate steam, you must mine, transport and refine the uranium.
Next you have the issue of the waste. Eventually it must be transported and stored. Say what you will about our ability to store this stuff for a million years, frankly, it's an unknown. I'm aware that many/.'ers strongly believe that this is not a problem. I disagree. You're dealing with once in a million years events, geological, astronomical and political. Hell, a nuclear waste dump would be the ultimate dirty bomb. Now, beyond the ethical question of downloading this responsibility of maintaining our waste safely onto successive generations (another discussion in itself), who's ultimately holding the bag financially for this long term storage?
Another problem is that eventually someone has to decommission all the nuclear plants that have been built. How do you do this and has this cost been factored into the price? How many plants globally have been successfully decommissioned and who gets to pay for it? Is Yucca mountain designed to have old reactors tossed into it?
Finally, here in Canada, the nuclear industry has been plagued by major cost and time overruns and even once built, reactors are not achieving the up times that were promised. It's an industry that could not survive financially without government assistance. I suspect that the same is true for many other installations world-wide.
In the end, the most persuasive argument against nuclear for me is that we (especially in North America) simply don't need nuclear. As a society we would be farther ahead to put the effort and money associated with nuclear into a combination of Geo-thermal, Solar-thermal, Wind and one day even fusion.
As others point out, most large scale solar installations look to be the solar-thermal type as they are capable of providing base-load power without the use of electrical batteries. (So yes, they work at night). Wikipedia has a nice little overview of the different types out there (and some cool pics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy
Having said that, it is important to study what effect, if any, solar installations would have on the local environment. Only by understanding what effects may be caused can we mitigate or eliminate them.
I'm sorry but what species of plant and animal are you referring to? A solar installation does not turn the ground black, even under the collectors as they are mounted several feet off the ground, and as the sun moves, so to will the shadow they cast. Now, I grant you that if you go into a forest and cut down all the trees to install your collectors, you will change the ecosystem, but logically, the best locations for solar installations are going to be the desert locations that receive the highest levels of sun which, in turn, eliminates all but the hardiest plants and animals anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
...I still don't understand why we don't use hemp instead of corn.
HEMP??? For the love of God, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! ;)
How much different can Windows 7 really be with such a shortened beta cycle?
Truthfully, if this technology became reality as it is described, my opposition to nuclear power would drastically diminish. The waste is the single largest issue surrounding these plants. Quite simply, it's immoral to leave future generations the obligation to take care of a problem, both physically and financially, that we generate today.
Having said that, my concern is that this is yet another distraction that will never actually bear out.
As for the reprocessing issue: My understanding is that the US does not reprocess waste for political reasons. Basically, it was a condition of some of the disarmament treaties designed to pacify some Russian concerns. Therefore, in order to begin reprocessing spent fuel, it would involve the re-negotiation of old, hard-won treaties. This would be a process which I can't really see being too high on Washington's to-do list for a long time to come.
I consider myself an objective observer... I've never used a Zune OR and ipod...
Dude, the Zune was never really about making a money or even building a decent player (however thing work out in the end)... The idea was that Microsoft could not afford to sacrifice any market to any other company. So the scheme was to leverage the company, monetarily and otherwise, in order to create an entrant into this marketplace. Part of the idea with DRM was to damage Apples relationship with the music industry by giving them exactly what they wanted at the expense of the consumer. Microsoft has never really cared all that much about making money outside its core business... The fact that they would even consider scrapping the Zune, without a clear successor, is just another example of how Gate's influence is waning.
The Mayor BEGGED people to leave town on local television. Everybody had several days' warning, they just chose not to leave. And it's the idiots that didn't leave that were starving, peeing on and raping each other in the stadium a week later.
That statement is incredibly offensive. Yes there were some 'idiots' that chose not to leave, however, the majority of the people who ended up "peeing on and raping each other in the stadium" were the poor and the elderly and the sick of New Orleans who didn't have the resources to leave or the resources to stay anywhere else even if they could get out.
Strangely enough, most of the people who did manage to have the resources to get out were the white folks. When you take the fact that the government rescue effort was abysmal at best and didn't really get rolling until the airwaves were blanketed by some pretty ugly imagery, some might even speculate that 'George Bush hates black people'. Of course I would never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence. All the same, it seems like a sad state of affairs when the preferable alternative is multiple levels of sheer incompetence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_solar_power
Beam the energy in the form of microwaves to rectennas on the ground.
Much of what you say is true, however, I feel that in this case Mr. Chu might be just what the proverbial doctor ordered. Up to this point, the majority of decisions made in regards to environmental policy have been ideologically driven with the whims of business overriding sound environmental practise. Thus, the majority of environmental policy over the last decade or so, has been a dismal failure (unless your idea of environmental policy is to extract more resources with less government interference from said envronment).
I guess, the hope with a physicist in charge is that he will see through the lobbyist bullsh*t of 'this can't be done' as he knows full well that it can be done, you just don't want to.
I would be happy with the program as long as as a damn spell checker is functional after you install OOo. I installed the beta the other day and it seriously took me a half an hour of scanning through forums and messing around to get it working. And this was after already knowing that I had to do something from much earlier releases! Sure, it's easy once you know how, but it's a really bad first impression when you recommend the program as a alternative to MS word, only to end up receiving a phone call because the thing isn't spell checking! If a web browser can do it, there's not excuse for this. Of course, OOo isn't the only program guilty of this, (I'm looking at you too Abi word!)
Reactor designs have improved vastly since the ban on all new U.S. nuclear reactors 30+ years ago, and some of those designs can prevent meltdowns altogether.
True, but people designs haven't.
Not-so-random question: I wonder were wind, solar, and Geothermal would be if the billions invested in nuclear had gone their way instead?
The main difference between the two, though, is that nuclear reactors contain their waste and coal plants don't.
Umm, Nuclear reactors contain their waste until they need to be refueled. Anyone who wants an nuclear waste dump in their state raise their hands...
Another stupid question: What do you do with a nuclear plant when it's time to decommission it?
I can't tell what side of the fence you're on so thumbs up on a thoughtful post!
You make a good point, a technological solution to a technological problem is often simply a band-aid solution. In the grand scheme, we could manage the climate in several ways, be it: Carbon capture, spraying salt's into the air, or maybe building a giant umbrella in space. But in the end, you still have to ask: why?
On the surface, the climate change we are experiencing today is mainly a result of excessive production of CO2 and, if motivated, we can technically manage that or at least do an end run around the issue. But under the surface, it's a symptom of our resource consumption binge and if/when we tackle Climate Change another symptom is likely to rear it's ugly head; perhaps peak resources.
So again, Why? Why would we want to lurch from crisis to crisis? Why would we spend all this time and energy and money to enable ourselves to keep doing the same old? Is it to buy ourselves time or is it because there are many powerful interests invested in the status quo? I don't know. What I do know is that I like my lifestyle today and I would very much like to figure some way that my children don't wind up back in the stone age.
Powerfull stuff sir,
Somehow you manage to draw you enemies all together under the banner of tree hugging geniuses. Then, you ingeniously lump disparate environmental issues together. Next you demonstrate profound insight into the mind of nature. You follow all this up by advocating what, to the untrained eye, would seem like some random course of action unfettered with the burden of proof. But you're not done! Somehow you still manage to finish this sweeping literary tour de force by utterly decapitating that nebulous group of government worshiping tree-huggers doubtlessly responsible for countless environmental and economical catastrophes going back untold millennia!
Rest easy tonight sir, secure in the knowledge that the world is better place you in it.
Yes, I'm aware that the H3 gets better gas mileage than many other large vehicles. (which is more of an indictment of those other vehicles than saying the H3 gets good mileage.) However, if you read the tone of the parent, it is clear that he doesn't care what mileage his vehicle gets, he is just using the Hummer because it represents conspicuous consumption.
So you're the loser who spoils if for the rest of us. Remember folks, whenever you want to know why there has to be a law, just think of this guy.
I don't have exact numbers but I do know that power loss, sometimes referred to as line loss, can be quite significant. I assume this extra expense in cooling is more than offset by transmission gains. If not, then I'm sure someone will be kind enough to explain the benefits of this system.
I hear what you're saying and I agree with you. My only point would be that any system is only as good as the maintenance the operator puts into it. Sure, old hanging copper may require proportionately less, but if this supercooled system is properly maintained it should be as reliable as the old system, (baring new technology hiccups.)
Efficiency is fine and good but it doesn't solve anything in the long run. The world needs enough clean energy that we can afford to waste it.
I agree and I disagree. Efficiency both solves nothing in the long run, but it solves everything in the long run! (Yes folks, I'll save you the trouble, my parents aren't married and I'm half a retard.)
You are correct, anyway you slice it, more people and activity will require more energy. This energy must be clean because we've passed the limit of what the world can sustain doing what we're doing.
However, we have a fundamental problem that no one really want's to talk about despite that fact that virtually all environmental problems have been stem from this and will continue to stem from this. The problem is that fundamentally, we are wasteful.
The world doesn't care that one Forest gets logged or that one river gets dammed or that one country burns coal or that somebody eats a dolphin. What the world does care about is that everyone wants to do it. Simply arguing that an abundant source of clean energy will make our problems disappear is short sighted. (I realize that this NOT at all what you were trying to imply. You're talking about energy and the economy in particular whereas I'm talking about an overall problem generating proclivity, so don't take this personally because you're point is well made.)
Abundant clean energy will solve our current energy problem in the short to medium term, but ultimately it's just piling one more deck on top of a giant house of cards. As a species, if we don't get our wasteful ways under control we will just run into another problem. Perhaps it will come in the form of running out of water or certain minerals. You see where I'm going with this? Our energy problems are, in some ways, nothing more than a symptom of bad modus operandi.
OK, I'm done now.
What do you mean by "use less energy"? Like take cold showers? Ban hot tubs? Stop driving (or just certain cars like the evil SUV that no one in these discussions ever seems to own, but I see all over the freaking roads)? Or more easily adoptable things like using energy star appliances and them funny lookin' lightbulbs?
I wasn't just talking about consumers, I was actually referring to the macro picture. Overall, it's cheaper to generate efficiencies than to expand capacity. For example, instead of expanding capacity by 1% in anticipation of growing need, you do something like legislate new electrical devices cannot use more than 1 watt when in standby and so on. First hit the low-hanging fruit, like the incandescent bulb and move on to building and city design.
Now the somewhat paradoxical part. What I just said makes sense from an energy perspective, but as we all know we don't live in a world solely populated by energy planners. This kind of thing is unpopular with regular folks who feel that government is already too invasive and with politicians because they don't want to risk angering people who seem to get horny by using little tungsten filaments all over their house. Imagine the outcry if you were to tell architects, seduced by the beauty of a shear wall of south facing windows, that they must put an awning on their building! The other problem is that you're fighting convention. In the days where energy was cheap, there were things you just did. If you building was too hot you installed an air conditioner, too cold a bigger heater. Being more thoughtful by design is difficult if for no other reason than the fact that we didn't do it yesterday.
Anyway, that's the angle I was taking with the original quote.
Overall I agree, but a couple other points to toss in the mix. First demand globally is really growing. The US consumer could conceivably cut way back on oil consumption and still see demand outstrip supply and watch as the prices still spike. Just think 2 billion Chinese and Indians suddenly start driving Nano's. Individually they may only spend a dollar or two on fuel per day, but collectively this demand puts a strain on already tight supplies. Which brings me to my second point, which is that despite billions in exploration we haven't been able to push supply higher than 2005 levels. Since it is unlikely that we will be able to find a source (in the ground) that will both offset declining current production and dramatically push global supplies up, we should expect to see oil prices follow a slow jagged line skyward.
You forgot the most economical viable but somewhat paradoxically unpopular course of action: Get serious about efficiency and simply use less energy.
I suppose you figure out how to mine and transport it with zero impact. Then you strip all the pollutants out of the smoke. Then you take the CO2 and pump it down an old oil well in the belief that it will stay there and that the tremendous pressure won't force pollutants along underground fissures into the surrounding groundwater like it now seems to be doing in the Weyburn oilfield. On the other hand, the pressure might increase old well production, especially in the old wells which had all that 'useless' natural gas flared off in the '50s and '60s. Oh and this is very cost effective, especially if you're in the coal business.
A little probably, but a large amount on a planetary scale: no.
I agree with you, although, I wouldn't want to be so alarmist. With a few notable exceptions, most nuclear plants globally have a reasonable track record of safety, so far at least. Be wary though, as the old saying goes: if you build a foolproof technology, they'll just breed a better fool...
/.'ers strongly believe that this is not a problem. I disagree. You're dealing with once in a million years events, geological, astronomical and political. Hell, a nuclear waste dump would be the ultimate dirty bomb. Now, beyond the ethical question of downloading this responsibility of maintaining our waste safely onto successive generations (another discussion in itself), who's ultimately holding the bag financially for this long term storage?
Joking aside, my problems with nuclear are many. First, it's not a green as proponents seem to think. Before you can generate steam, you must mine, transport and refine the uranium.
Next you have the issue of the waste. Eventually it must be transported and stored. Say what you will about our ability to store this stuff for a million years, frankly, it's an unknown. I'm aware that many
Another problem is that eventually someone has to decommission all the nuclear plants that have been built. How do you do this and has this cost been factored into the price? How many plants globally have been successfully decommissioned and who gets to pay for it? Is Yucca mountain designed to have old reactors tossed into it?
Finally, here in Canada, the nuclear industry has been plagued by major cost and time overruns and even once built, reactors are not achieving the up times that were promised. It's an industry that could not survive financially without government assistance. I suspect that the same is true for many other installations world-wide.
In the end, the most persuasive argument against nuclear for me is that we (especially in North America) simply don't need nuclear. As a society we would be farther ahead to put the effort and money associated with nuclear into a combination of Geo-thermal, Solar-thermal, Wind and one day even fusion.
As others point out, most large scale solar installations look to be the solar-thermal type as they are capable of providing base-load power without the use of electrical batteries. (So yes, they work at night). Wikipedia has a nice little overview of the different types out there (and some cool pics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy
Having said that, it is important to study what effect, if any, solar installations would have on the local environment. Only by understanding what effects may be caused can we mitigate or eliminate them.
I'm sorry but what species of plant and animal are you referring to? A solar installation does not turn the ground black, even under the collectors as they are mounted several feet off the ground, and as the sun moves, so to will the shadow they cast. Now, I grant you that if you go into a forest and cut down all the trees to install your collectors, you will change the ecosystem, but logically, the best locations for solar installations are going to be the desert locations that receive the highest levels of sun which, in turn, eliminates all but the hardiest plants and animals anyway.