mac jones
Mar 12, 03:58 AM
Hey, I've been hanging out on the forum for the iPad. But frankly i'm a little confused right now about what i just saw. From appearances (I mean appearances), the nuke plant in Japan BLEW UP, and they are lying about it if they say it's a minor issue. I don't want to believe this . You can see it with your own eyes, but i'm not sure exactly what i'm seeing. Certainly it isn't a small explosion.
Until I know what's really happening I'm officially, totally, freaked out......Any takers? :D
Until I know what's really happening I'm officially, totally, freaked out......Any takers? :D
more...
Peterkro
Mar 12, 08:07 AM
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
Er,China leads the world in Nuclear generation design (not that I'm saying this is a good thing).
Er,China leads the world in Nuclear generation design (not that I'm saying this is a good thing).
more...
peharri
Sep 24, 05:08 PM
The iTV most definitely requires a computer.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
dernhelm
Sep 20, 04:39 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
Maybe they'll call it the Revolution. :D
Maybe they'll call it the Revolution. :D
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 05:09 PM
That was a bit harsh, wasn't it? Not even I would go as far as saying that anybody's religion is evil. But it's definitely proves to be incompatible with modern Western values, which we began to see already in 1994 (Salman Rushdie). My only comfort is that those who have contributed to accelerate the conflicts by providing a lousy integration policy, will likely be the first ones to get stoned to death. I'm a male who doesn't drink alcohol nor commit adultery (and pork meat I can live without), so an islamic state wouldn't really be that bad for me to live in... I think...
Islam is more ideology/politcal movement than a simple religion.
You're right, if more had been done to integrate immigrants rather than endorse multi-kulti then perhaps we'd see the new generation being less radical than their parents, however (in belgium at least) the children of immigrants, who were born in europe, are MORE radical and devout than their parents. madness...
Anything that goes against Western Values is evil to me... or at least anathema. I don't like the term evil, it's too christian... as is anathema for that matter.
Islam is more ideology/politcal movement than a simple religion.
You're right, if more had been done to integrate immigrants rather than endorse multi-kulti then perhaps we'd see the new generation being less radical than their parents, however (in belgium at least) the children of immigrants, who were born in europe, are MORE radical and devout than their parents. madness...
Anything that goes against Western Values is evil to me... or at least anathema. I don't like the term evil, it's too christian... as is anathema for that matter.
Senbei
Jul 13, 09:54 AM
I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it.
Some of us don't live in a bubble and do understand that we pay a premium for the entire Mac experience (combination of hardware and software design as opposed to flat raw speed). That experience isn't 100% perfect but what else in life is?
As far as the clearly delineated and simplified product stratification, many are still bound by muscle memory :D ever since Jobs collapsed Apple's once dizzying hardware line into that simple 4-grid matrix of consumer and professional (with the exception of the Cube in the past, Xserve, and the "entry level" mini).
For me, I hope Apple breaks out of this annoying (and limiting) matrix once all of the Core 2 family are out on the table and offers maybe just a few more form factor choices (taking advantage of each processors TDP envelope in the design) as opposed to the current stratification based primarily around the prevention of product cannibilization via an imaginary consumer versus professional distinction. The good thing is we'll know Apple's plans real soon.
Some of us don't live in a bubble and do understand that we pay a premium for the entire Mac experience (combination of hardware and software design as opposed to flat raw speed). That experience isn't 100% perfect but what else in life is?
As far as the clearly delineated and simplified product stratification, many are still bound by muscle memory :D ever since Jobs collapsed Apple's once dizzying hardware line into that simple 4-grid matrix of consumer and professional (with the exception of the Cube in the past, Xserve, and the "entry level" mini).
For me, I hope Apple breaks out of this annoying (and limiting) matrix once all of the Core 2 family are out on the table and offers maybe just a few more form factor choices (taking advantage of each processors TDP envelope in the design) as opposed to the current stratification based primarily around the prevention of product cannibilization via an imaginary consumer versus professional distinction. The good thing is we'll know Apple's plans real soon.
more...
joeboy_45101
Mar 19, 01:27 AM
It's this kind of crap that's going to scare the record companies into demanding a higher price for songs sold online. They are at this time still sceptical about the whole online business as is. DVD Jon has proved his points, yes he is a good hacker and DRM is not bulletproof. But, I wish he would get it into his head that MOST people don't mind DRM on digital music if it is designed to be flexible enough so that it doesn't stand in the way of enjoyment.
If there is one upside to this it is that this gives Apple a chance to prove it's skills in plugging up these holes. And maybe, that could give some comfort to the record companies in the security of online music stores. This whole situation would not be so big if the record companies did not exist, but they do and for now everybody has to deal with them like it or not. Sort of like Republicans, but that's something else altogether.
If there is one upside to this it is that this gives Apple a chance to prove it's skills in plugging up these holes. And maybe, that could give some comfort to the record companies in the security of online music stores. This whole situation would not be so big if the record companies did not exist, but they do and for now everybody has to deal with them like it or not. Sort of like Republicans, but that's something else altogether.
more...
bassfingers
Apr 27, 12:27 AM
So what? So someone had to decide which books belonged in there and which did not. The choice was most certainly partly arbitrary and partly political. I mean, even if you could reasonably claim divine inspiration for the authorship, can you also claim divine guidance for the compilation? Especially considering that various Christian sects cannot agree on even that.
The books were selected nearly unanimously with the exception of a select few books of the bible.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), why would they not be divinely compiled together? It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
The books were selected nearly unanimously with the exception of a select few books of the bible.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), why would they not be divinely compiled together? It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
dobbin
Sep 20, 03:45 AM
I don't want to have to put yet another box on the shelf under my TV and have yet another remote control kicking around my living room.
I already have a DVD, a VCR, and a Sky+ box (DVR). I know that in theory I should choose just one or two of these, but that doesn't work in practice. What happens when my mum records something on a video for me - I still need a VCR, and until Sky bring out a Sky+ box with a *much* larger hard disk then I'll need a DVD for keeping things long term.
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Its probably a moot point anyway as I doubt iTV will be launched in the UK for a long while anyway.
I already have a DVD, a VCR, and a Sky+ box (DVR). I know that in theory I should choose just one or two of these, but that doesn't work in practice. What happens when my mum records something on a video for me - I still need a VCR, and until Sky bring out a Sky+ box with a *much* larger hard disk then I'll need a DVD for keeping things long term.
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Its probably a moot point anyway as I doubt iTV will be launched in the UK for a long while anyway.
matticus008
Mar 19, 05:43 PM
I could really care less about breaking some DRM law or "international copyright law". I would love to see them try to enforce it.
Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
more...
citizenzen
Apr 26, 07:36 PM
Munchies aside, miracle cures of old are likely misdiagnosis.
It's quite possible they are "miraculous" recoveries. "Miraculous' as in exceedingly rare. Gabrielle Giffords survived a point-blank gunshot to the head. Is that the work of divine intervention? Or is it simply a matter that if you shot a number of people in the head, a very small fraction would survive? Likewise, among the millions of people with cancer, it shouldn't come as a surprise to find a small fraction that beat the odds to make a remarkable recovery. If Purell kills 99.99% of bacteria, does that make the .01% of survivors "miracles"?
It's quite possible they are "miraculous" recoveries. "Miraculous' as in exceedingly rare. Gabrielle Giffords survived a point-blank gunshot to the head. Is that the work of divine intervention? Or is it simply a matter that if you shot a number of people in the head, a very small fraction would survive? Likewise, among the millions of people with cancer, it shouldn't come as a surprise to find a small fraction that beat the odds to make a remarkable recovery. If Purell kills 99.99% of bacteria, does that make the .01% of survivors "miracles"?
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 06:04 PM
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
I think technology has to advance first and we got no choice but to be patient.
- Clean coal and coal capture tech needs to advance so we know what to do with the extracted carbon. Right now it just sits underground, like nuclear waste and we hope it doesn't leak.
- Nuclear waste treatment tech needs to advance so the decay rate of waste can be accelerated, and the amount of waste reduced
- Grid energy storage tech needs to advance so renewables can be integrated into base load and we can phase out fossil fuels and nuclear.
- Smartgrid tech needs to get integrated. For everyone worried about electricity consumption, Smartgrid is an answer.
And the things that are going on in Japan are a result of stupid engineering. The engineers did not design the plant to adequately protect the backup generator switchgear. If they did, there'd be no danger of a meltdown right now. And if what Goto said is correct, there's also an engineering ethics issue involved with the containment vessel not being designed to an appropriate standard. This is an example of why engineering is so damn important. Even with an earthquake or tsunami, this was totally preventable.
The fact remains that most of America's energy problems are caused by conspicuous consumption.
If you're talking about energy consumption, yeah, and that's primarily because of oil. If you're talking about electricity consumption, we're actually not that bad.
And the solution is to shift reliance on oil to reliance on electricity. Which is why electric vehicles are gonna be big in the future.
I think technology has to advance first and we got no choice but to be patient.
- Clean coal and coal capture tech needs to advance so we know what to do with the extracted carbon. Right now it just sits underground, like nuclear waste and we hope it doesn't leak.
- Nuclear waste treatment tech needs to advance so the decay rate of waste can be accelerated, and the amount of waste reduced
- Grid energy storage tech needs to advance so renewables can be integrated into base load and we can phase out fossil fuels and nuclear.
- Smartgrid tech needs to get integrated. For everyone worried about electricity consumption, Smartgrid is an answer.
And the things that are going on in Japan are a result of stupid engineering. The engineers did not design the plant to adequately protect the backup generator switchgear. If they did, there'd be no danger of a meltdown right now. And if what Goto said is correct, there's also an engineering ethics issue involved with the containment vessel not being designed to an appropriate standard. This is an example of why engineering is so damn important. Even with an earthquake or tsunami, this was totally preventable.
The fact remains that most of America's energy problems are caused by conspicuous consumption.
If you're talking about energy consumption, yeah, and that's primarily because of oil. If you're talking about electricity consumption, we're actually not that bad.
And the solution is to shift reliance on oil to reliance on electricity. Which is why electric vehicles are gonna be big in the future.
more...
R.Perez
Mar 13, 06:52 PM
Did you even read the article you posted? The stored solar energy is drained after 8 hours. Which means if you have a day where the sun is obstructed, your city will black out.
did you actually read my post? Centralized solar would just be one part.
did you actually read my post? Centralized solar would just be one part.
more...
takao
Mar 14, 12:31 PM
His worry seems to center around the possibility of a hydrogen explosion inside of the containment vessel causing a wall breech. He also believes that the previous hydrogen explosion was due to gas escaping in an unplanned manner.
AFAIK the problem with reactor 2 is now that the pressure inside the containment is very,very high because of damaged valves preventing steam from escaping in a controlled manner. thus they cant simply pump in more and more water to cool the currently not covered fuel rods because it would dramatically increase the pressure and thus risk containment damages
so they are currently walking the fine line between risking the containment by pumping in water and a meltdown if they don't.. hardly a situation anybody wants to be
AFAIK the problem with reactor 2 is now that the pressure inside the containment is very,very high because of damaged valves preventing steam from escaping in a controlled manner. thus they cant simply pump in more and more water to cool the currently not covered fuel rods because it would dramatically increase the pressure and thus risk containment damages
so they are currently walking the fine line between risking the containment by pumping in water and a meltdown if they don't.. hardly a situation anybody wants to be
more...
bradl
Mar 18, 01:52 AM
Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all. However, this is one more reason to stick at 4.1.0.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
more...
neko girl
Apr 26, 10:14 PM
Thread topic reminds me of:
http://gurugilbert.com/wp-content/jerry_seinfeld.jpg
http://gurugilbert.com/wp-content/jerry_seinfeld.jpg
Sydde
Mar 15, 06:40 PM
Somewhere I think I read that Fukushima Dai-ichi was just a few months away from final retirement of the entire facility after twice its designed lifetime. But there almost certainly must be spent fuel rods in all the basins, since fuel changes are done at least as often as 18 months and spent fuel takes two to four years to cool enough to be safely moved offsite. The fuel still contains enough U-235 to produce considerable heat from just decay, but internal pollutants reduce its ability to contribute in a reactive core. Presumably, spent fuel is not considered to be able/likely to generate a critical event (neutron flux is too compromised by pollutants) so it would not require such sturdy containment as would a reactor.
To me, this operation looks slightly slipshod, almost like brinkmanship. Pushing nuclear systems even half way to their limits seems like too risky.
To me, this operation looks slightly slipshod, almost like brinkmanship. Pushing nuclear systems even half way to their limits seems like too risky.
more...
bluap84
Mar 11, 08:51 AM
This is just crazy. They quoted a girl on cnn from their facebook comments saying the failnami was a big letdown. What a gigantic "tw*t".
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
more...
eawmp1
Mar 13, 10:08 AM
More people have died in hydroelectric or coal generated power production. Nuclear is relatively safe and clean.
more...
Rodimus Prime
Mar 15, 11:13 PM
my guess is it is going to come down to them fillings the chamber with concrete
more...
NathanMuir
Mar 13, 01:19 PM
Japan doesn't really have a choice BUT to build plants on the Pacific Rim, since that's where the country is located.
That, the lack of domestic oil and gas (90% of oil used in electric power is from the Middle East), plus a small highly populated country (rules out big hydropower) and they haven't got many options left. Linky (http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/en/data/pdf/433.pdf).
I didn't say that they didn't have the need (though I'm betting that they'll turn to green energy, in larger part, when they begin the rebuilding process; solar, wind, etc...).
I just questioned how well thought out the idea was to build these plants in an area that is highly susceptible to volcanic activity.
That, the lack of domestic oil and gas (90% of oil used in electric power is from the Middle East), plus a small highly populated country (rules out big hydropower) and they haven't got many options left. Linky (http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/en/data/pdf/433.pdf).
I didn't say that they didn't have the need (though I'm betting that they'll turn to green energy, in larger part, when they begin the rebuilding process; solar, wind, etc...).
I just questioned how well thought out the idea was to build these plants in an area that is highly susceptible to volcanic activity.
more...
joepunk
Mar 12, 09:12 AM
I appreciate a little humor now and again during horrible tragedies. As long as that humor doesn't go overboard. It can break ones panicked state of fear.
And iirc Chernobyl had graphite core reactor without a containment building. Japan reactors have containment buildings.
And iirc Chernobyl had graphite core reactor without a containment building. Japan reactors have containment buildings.
more...
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 07:07 AM
it depends whether you are looking at it from software-perspective or hardware-perspective.
Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.
Yonah, Conroe and Merom have full hardware SMP support on the package (or on the chip itself).
The cache coherency and inter-processor (in this case meaning inter-core) communications features are present, and must be present in order to avoid corrupting memory data and to support an SMP operating system.
The difference with Woodcrest is that Yonah/Conroe/Merom do not support SMP features *between* sockets - the cache coherency and IPC mechanisms are not brought out to the pins on the package.
Woodcrest brings those signals out to the pins, and the Woodcrest's 5000x chipset connects those signals between sockets.
Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.
Yonah, Conroe and Merom have full hardware SMP support on the package (or on the chip itself).
The cache coherency and inter-processor (in this case meaning inter-core) communications features are present, and must be present in order to avoid corrupting memory data and to support an SMP operating system.
The difference with Woodcrest is that Yonah/Conroe/Merom do not support SMP features *between* sockets - the cache coherency and IPC mechanisms are not brought out to the pins on the package.
Woodcrest brings those signals out to the pins, and the Woodcrest's 5000x chipset connects those signals between sockets.
more...
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
more...
