Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re: Not an error. A lie. (Score 1) 356

I'm going to "Trump" your fucking bullshit.

When the gross negligence of a Democrat causes the death of a young girl who he made NO attempt to save, then he gets to serve in the Senate for Fourty fucking years and when he dies gets lauded as a noble statesman.

Cry me a river about Republican scandals for which they ALWAYS lose their positions.

Comment Re:How Virtuous (Score 1) 685

Oh, come on. The oil pipeline in North Dakota is running through territory with population densities in the 10's' of people per mile or less. There is a considerable difference in running a pipeline there vs. rich neighborhoods in suburbs or big cities where you would have to work very carefully not to run into other infrastructure.

Besides, all of your examples are engineering and execution of science principles and not real research anyway.

Water treatment science is well established. The water in Flint is a function of having horrid political leadership and execution for decades, and really should have no part in a science debate.

Comment Re:Goalpost shift to absurdity (Score 1) 383

The barriers to entry for new reactors are absurd to the point of ridiculousness. The regulations are insane.

That's why new reactor designs, which are really necessary never seem to go anywhere.

However, the proposal to shut down plants at the end of their planned service life, ignores the fact that that is only the planned life of the reactor. Many plants, both nuclear and otherwise have a "planned" life that is much shorter than could actually be achieved. Same is true for renewables like wind, which could have service lives well beyond the plan.

My basic point is that its silly to take any zero emissions power generation capability offline while there still exists ANY generation capacity coming from non-zero emissions sources.

The impression I get from global warming alarmists is that this is a crisis. Well, if that is so than ANY zero emissions power source should be good enough.

i.e. the risk of nuclear disaster is infinitesimally small in the face of the disaster that global warming alarmists claim is coming. Ergo, its stupid to get rid of any zero emissions power sources while the planet is on the line.

Honest risk assessment against the stated potential outcomes (if the global warming alarmists are taken at face value) says we must do this.

Comment If climate change were as dire as claimed (Score 3, Insightful) 383

The there would never be a valid excuse for turning off a working nuclear plant.

The incredibly small risk of running the plant would be nothing in the face of the dire risk being claimed for climate change.

Climate change alarmists call out the precautionary principle all the time. What if, what if, what if. To be true to the precautionary principle, the only course of action that should be supported is keeping zero emission plants running.

Comment Re:Biased (Score 4, Interesting) 171

Nothing Robert Moses thought of was a good idea.

I understand the people screaming about BIAS for this article.

Its a concrete description of how bad an idea these socialist building projects and housing concepts were... and still are.

Hindsight is 20/20 and hindsight says Robert Moses di an insane amount of damage to cities he had influence over...

Comment Re:Not bad (Score 1) 404

Its not totally working.

They got 85% in April but only 40% in March.

That energy storage thing your talking about has to get solved.

Only then can a stable load of renewable energy power a country without the need for very large backup capacity.

Totally agree though that it is THE problem to solve.

And then it will be working every month.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Working...