Actually yes there is
http://www.scientificamerican....
The US could easily replace coal for the next 100 years with nuclear without reprocessing.
At present we have over 230 years supply of uranium so even if we double our use we have well over 100 years of supply and that it without finding any more and without breeding more fuel..
"http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium.html"
If you go to thorium it is a lot longer well over 1000 years.
And if we we use breeder reactors you are talking several thousand years supply.
Yes some reactors are over budget but other GEN III reactors are already in service in Japan.

It has not proven to be a huge proliferation risk, France and Japan both reprocess fuel. That fear has so far been unfounded.
Even if you still want to use non-proliferation as a reason to not process fuel it is not an issue with Thorium cycle reactors since no plutonium is produced. .

Solar is an opportunistic source of power. You can use it to replace some peaking load when available. It is not effective as a baseload.
Wind is better but still requires peaking style backing plants.
It maybe that large scale thermal solar plants have too high of an ecological impact but those issues are not found in pv solar plants.

People need to stop advocating for technologies and start advocating for solutions.
The fast path to low carbon energy independence for the US is to replace coal baseload plants with nuclear and build solar and wind.
In the short term electricity base load should come from nuclear, hydro, wind, and natural gas.
Peaking from natural gas plus solar when available.
Medium term Baseload Nuclear, hydro, wind. Peaking natural gas, solar. transportation fuel reformulated natural gas.
Long term Baseload unchanged, Peaking synthetic CH4 and H2 plus solar, transportation reformulated synthetic natural gas.

I left out electric from transportation because while it is practical for trains and cars "if the costs keep coming down" it will not be for ships, trains, and long haul trucks. With enough cheap energy it is possible to make CH4 from the air and water and then make that into diesel and jet fuel.
Of course very long term we may get fusion and or super batteries that will make storage more practical but they are not here.

Sigh....
Sorry I ment Gen3. Gen 4 are not illegal they have not been approved for commercial use yet but severel prototypes are under construction.

I saw no proof limited data provided that proves it was radiation. In fact that difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima seems to indicate it is not the radiation.
Even if it is you are comparing the damaged caused by a massive natural disaster vs a normally operating solar plant. Also that failure mod is impossible with a modern 4g reactor.

Sigh... No the fish kills are from all power plants. The riverkeeper post never mentions nuclear at all.

As to the bird population drop... It actually does not make any sense that it is from radiation. It says the number of birds counted is down. Massive flooding of the habitat by salt water could very well be the reason. The paper is behind a paywall so their is no way for me to read it but it seems to just count the number of birds in the area. If radiation was the cause then it would make more sense for Chernobyl to have a lower bird count since it had and has a much higher level of radiation. It does not.
So a human researcher goes to a location with elevated radiation and suffered massive flooding to count birds. The count is lower and the researcher has a hypothesis that radiation would decrease the bird count... Conclusion it is the radiation.

I would love to see Slashdot cover more FOSS end user apps "Besides OO.org, and LibreOffice" releases. It would also be interesting to see some "cool projects just starting" stories to get developers interested in contributing.
I would love to see sections for dev tools, libraries, and frameworks but I am not sure that their is enough interest in those on Slashdot.
 

Ummm couldn't the reduction be caused by the massive habitat destruction caused by the flooding?
Also you are comparing the results of a massive natural disaster with normal operation.
The fish issue can be resolved by using a closed loop cooling system.

Simple build Nuclear plants. No oil spills and no air pollution.

But can you upgrade the ram? Put in a bigger SSD? If so then it could be an interesting device.

"A merchant has to be able to make money to keep the lights on and pay the rent. A merchant is subject to physical constraints. A merchant is PAYING for the things they present to you."

A website has to pay to host, to maintain the system. If you have never been involved with even a medium sized website you would not dismiss those costs.

That is where things go pearshaped.
A website that does not allow you to post x is not stopping your freedom of speech. You can post on other websites or start your own.
Your freedom of speech is not being infringed on.
You are allowed to say whatever you want "within reason aka slander, fraud, and so on" you have no right to say it everywhere.

So any store that only carries Organic foods is censoring?
Yours is a definition with difference.
We do not carry x because our customer base does not want it.
If you do not carry it of course people do not go there to buy it.

By your definition CVS is censoring the tobacco companies by not selling tobacco products in the future.
They sold them for years and we know people want them so CVS is being evil and censoring?

1. Censorship only applies to governments.

A website or a store deciding that they do to carry a product is not.
Whole Foods does not sell Coke.
A tee shirt stop may not want to carry a KKK or Hitler tee shirt.
A website may not want posts that are offensive.
The nice thing is you can always start your own Website or store or go to different store or website.

That being said, why is this offensive speech worthy of protection and not, anti-semitic, anti-christian, anti-islamic, anti-gay, pro-abortion, anti-abortion,.....

" it will be full of people accusing the women involved of attacking them personally and of being whiney bitches."
Well.
1. The first part may be true. I have had men attack me personally on Slashdot and women could do the very same thing.
2. The second part is simple bigotry.

Misogyny is the hate or strong dislike of women. That is simply a lack of respect for or bias of women. Still not okay but actual Misogyny usually is reserved from much more extreme actions.

It is also not even bias to say that a women is personally attacking you if you feel that is what is happening anymore than it is bias to say a male is attacking you personally if you feel that way.
 

Ummm... Not according to Charity Navigator.
http://www.charitynavigator.or...
They get 4 stars.
Or give.org
http://www.give.org/charity-re...
Or the Christian Science monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Busin...