No it wasn't. Its a lot more complicated and more difficult that plain PWR and BWR. Plain and simple. Also solid fuel designs keep the radiation much more localized which makes maintenance much cheaper. Thorium salt reactors are a very long way from ready or even so much as demonstrated. Sure there was a small one, that *didn't* breed, that *didn't* do the in situ processing, that was tiny and only *suggested* materials to fix the corrosion problems. It did not demonstrate any of that. On top of all that is was only 10MW.
Every liquid sodium reactor built to date has suffered periodic sodium fires. Its not as ready as you think. Also you are leaving out the fact that fast reactors are much harder to control and even more so, as in impossible, with too much actinides in the fuel. Sub critical assembly's with ADS was suggested for this reason.
I love how everyone hates abrams, as far as i can tell, for the same reason they hate Michael Bay. Because it is popular to hate them. Yet they line up at the movie theater and just can't pony up the money fast enough to see their movies.
And your criticizing time travel in star trek? Really? Perhaps you had severe concussion while your were watching the old star trek, cus you seem to have forgotten them.
they didn't really follow the footsteps of the cerebral star trek episodes..
Holy crap the only way anything out of the star trek anything could be described as cerebral is if your 5 years old and find "hitting $SOMEONEDIFFERENT in the face for fun is bad" a moral dilemma. They are about as shallow as everything else on TV.
Clearly you have never lived in Switzerland. For 50K you mite get a car park for a year or a cheap watch, they may even let you open a "peasant" bank account, but if you want a BJ you going to have to live with a 60year old that hasn't had a STD test for 20 years. And its probably a dude.
And that includes the backbones and other infrastructure. I use to work for a teleco.. Really suspicious of your claims here. Remember if 100 houses have 1 Gb.. you need 100Gb backbone if you don't want to be oversubscribed.
True. Also like most infrastructure these fixed costs are related to peak usage and not average. Even worse its the absolute peak based on some "never fail more often than once in a blue moon sort of thing". I guess with data networks its not so bad, since it can fail/degrade gracefully.
Reminds me of something that was tried in Australia. The electricity company pointed out that quite a lot of fixed costs/capitol was based on expected peaks for only one or two days a year. So if people went for the deal where they would just put up with a possible 1-2 day power outage per year they would get electricity at a huge discount (50% or more IIRC). However those 1 or 2 days are the hottest days in the year, and with no air con or fridge... Most went off the plan after that deciding that paying 2x more for that "uptime" guarantee was worth it.
I have unlimited 15Mbs here in the EU. I burn through about 500Gbyte a month. About half that is work related stuff. The other half is everything else. We don't watch a lot of streaming services compared to some. So yea 300Gb is not really a lot for a *single* household.
Er what? So if your poor you should super internet access?* By they way, sports cars are too expensive as well. They should make them cheaper so everyone can afford it. Can i have what your smoking. It's better than the stuff i got.
Perhaps you should work on affordable health care for the poor before unlimited fiber internet.
Full network infrastructure to support that bandwidth is not cheap. Just because you can buy a gigabit Ethernet router for peanuts does not mean that is peanuts at a city scale. Also like all infrastructure the base cost of what needs to be installed is not based on average usage but peak usage. So the peak bandwidth you use is a fairly good indicator of what you cost the ISP in terms of capitol and maintenance.
One could make a case that its not a correct way of billing or charging. Since cable costs and maintenance is not fact related to gigabytes sent on that cable. Data doesn't really wear out the cable.
Batteries are the problem. They need replacing after a fairly short life. Are very expensive and heavy. Because of this you have absolute crap range and very long charging times. Also the cars are bloody expensive and its not like your going to get 100 000km out of one set either.
You claim 40% losses from the remote hydro in Canada. James Bay alone makes 16 GW of power. 40% of that would be 8.4 GW. In order to dissipate that much power from those thin wires, the temperature of those wires would have to be hotter than the core of the sun, and it would warm up the transmission corridor to Miami Beach climate. That's nonsense.
Well lets runs some numbers. Lets stick to the surface of the sun as the temperature and be approximate at 6000K. Assume a black body, at these temperatures its pretty much is. Lets also assume that the radius of the wire is 1cm, they are in fact bigger than that. Finally lets assume 1000km to the hydro plant as its balanced 3phase. That is 66GW of radiated heat alone. Radiated! Since most heat lost via convection its a little over your claimed 8.4GW. But the core of the sun is hotter than 6000K, in fact is about 15000000K. So at the core of the sun temp we radiate 890 thousand million TWs. GP may be wrong. But your more wrong.
Owning extra cars to solve the problem, is probably creating more problems that it solves. Is it even a net gain in carbon footprint anymore? A bunch of resources bundled up in cars that are almost never driven is no maximizing utility. Its over capitalization.
Slashdot Mirror
No it wasn't. Its a lot more complicated and more difficult that plain PWR and BWR. Plain and simple. Also solid fuel designs keep the radiation much more localized which makes maintenance much cheaper. Thorium salt reactors are a very long way from ready or even so much as demonstrated. Sure there was a small one, that *didn't* breed, that *didn't* do the in situ processing, that was tiny and only *suggested* materials to fix the corrosion problems. It did not demonstrate any of that. On top of all that is was only 10MW.
Every liquid sodium reactor built to date has suffered periodic sodium fires. Its not as ready as you think. Also you are leaving out the fact that fast reactors are much harder to control and even more so, as in impossible, with too much actinides in the fuel. Sub critical assembly's with ADS was suggested for this reason.
Your elevation of the discussion is truly enlightening.
You're exactly the kind of driver driver less cars are going to save us from.
It's quite a bit more distance in practice. Especially since we humans are very slow to react to things.
I love how everyone hates abrams, as far as i can tell, for the same reason they hate Michael Bay. Because it is popular to hate them. Yet they line up at the movie theater and just can't pony up the money fast enough to see their movies.
And your criticizing time travel in star trek? Really? Perhaps you had severe concussion while your were watching the old star trek, cus you seem to have forgotten them.
they didn't really follow the footsteps of the cerebral star trek episodes..
Holy crap the only way anything out of the star trek anything could be described as cerebral is if your 5 years old and find "hitting $SOMEONEDIFFERENT in the face for fun is bad" a moral dilemma. They are about as shallow as everything else on TV.
The problem with what he did was that it made no sense whatsoever. There were huge gaps in logic, huge plot holes,
You just described every star trek movie and episode ever. In fact almost every sci fi story ever.
Clearly you have never lived in Switzerland. For 50K you mite get a car park for a year or a cheap watch, they may even let you open a "peasant" bank account, but if you want a BJ you going to have to live with a 60year old that hasn't had a STD test for 20 years. And its probably a dude.
It will handle it better than any slow to react wet computer with only two rather directional sensors.
And that includes the backbones and other infrastructure. I use to work for a teleco.. Really suspicious of your claims here. Remember if 100 houses have 1 Gb.. you need 100Gb backbone if you don't want to be oversubscribed.
Not if its already there.
Holy crap that is probably the stupidest thing i have ever heard. You think beaming 100kW of microwave energy per car is a good idea?
Hop in a 1kW microwave for 5min and tell me how that works out for you.
True. Also like most infrastructure these fixed costs are related to peak usage and not average. Even worse its the absolute peak based on some "never fail more often than once in a blue moon sort of thing". I guess with data networks its not so bad, since it can fail/degrade gracefully.
Reminds me of something that was tried in Australia. The electricity company pointed out that quite a lot of fixed costs/capitol was based on expected peaks for only one or two days a year. So if people went for the deal where they would just put up with a possible 1-2 day power outage per year they would get electricity at a huge discount (50% or more IIRC). However those 1 or 2 days are the hottest days in the year, and with no air con or fridge... Most went off the plan after that deciding that paying 2x more for that "uptime" guarantee was worth it.
I have unlimited 15Mbs here in the EU. I burn through about 500Gbyte a month. About half that is work related stuff. The other half is everything else. We don't watch a lot of streaming services compared to some. So yea 300Gb is not really a lot for a *single* household.
As far as i know, it's not illegal to charge obscene amounts for services. It is however anti-competitive to charge less than cost.
Er what? So if your poor you should super internet access?* By they way, sports cars are too expensive as well. They should make them cheaper so everyone can afford it. Can i have what your smoking. It's better than the stuff i got.
Perhaps you should work on affordable health care for the poor before unlimited fiber internet.
Full network infrastructure to support that bandwidth is not cheap. Just because you can buy a gigabit Ethernet router for peanuts does not mean that is peanuts at a city scale. Also like all infrastructure the base cost of what needs to be installed is not based on average usage but peak usage. So the peak bandwidth you use is a fairly good indicator of what you cost the ISP in terms of capitol and maintenance.
One could make a case that its not a correct way of billing or charging. Since cable costs and maintenance is not fact related to gigabytes sent on that cable. Data doesn't really wear out the cable.
150miles for something that expensive? That not a case of not perfect, its a joke. The only reason to buy one is for smuggness.
Batteries are the problem. They need replacing after a fairly short life. Are very expensive and heavy. Because of this you have absolute crap range and very long charging times. Also the cars are bloody expensive and its not like your going to get 100 000km out of one set either.
You claim 40% losses from the remote hydro in Canada. James Bay alone makes 16 GW of power. 40% of that would be 8.4 GW. In order to dissipate that much power from those thin wires, the temperature of those wires would have to be hotter than the core of the sun, and it would warm up the transmission corridor to Miami Beach climate. That's nonsense.
Well lets runs some numbers. Lets stick to the surface of the sun as the temperature and be approximate at 6000K. Assume a black body, at these temperatures its pretty much is. Lets also assume that the radius of the wire is 1cm, they are in fact bigger than that. Finally lets assume 1000km to the hydro plant as its balanced 3phase. That is 66GW of radiated heat alone. Radiated! Since most heat lost via convection its a little over your claimed 8.4GW. But the core of the sun is hotter than 6000K, in fact is about 15000000K. So at the core of the sun temp we radiate 890 thousand million TWs. GP may be wrong. But your more wrong.
Owning extra cars to solve the problem, is probably creating more problems that it solves. Is it even a net gain in carbon footprint anymore? A bunch of resources bundled up in cars that are almost never driven is no maximizing utility. Its over capitalization.
In Finland this winter, i drove 3400km in 5 days. I sure as hell don't want to be stopping every 150miles (about 200km?).
Batteries however are only around 70-80% efficient. Both charging and discharging......