Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power

Fusion Power By 2020? Researchers Say Yes and Turn To Crowdfunding. 280

Posted by Unknown Lamer from the will-research-particle-physics-for-food dept.
Luminary Crush (109477) writes "To date, the bulk of fusion research has been channelled towards a plasma containment and stabilization method. This is the approach used by ITER's tokamak reactor, the cost of which could exceed US$13.7 billion before it's online in the year 2027 (barring further delays). Researchers at LPP Fusion, in a project partially financed by NASA-JPL, are working in a different direction: focus fusion, which focuses the plasma in a very small area to produce fusion and an ion beam which could then be harnessed to produce electricity. It is small enough to fit in a shipping container, can double as a rocket engine, and would cost US$50 million to produce the working 5 MW prototype. To reach the next hurdle and demonstrate feasibility, LPP Fusion has started an Indiegogo campaign to raise $200K."
Power

Rising Sea Level Could Put East Coast Nuclear Plants At Risk 323

Posted by Unknown Lamer from the coal-industry-will-stop-at-nothing dept.
mdsolar (1045926) writes with news that global warming may make it more difficult to use modern power sources that rely upon being near large bodies of water for cooling. From the article: "During the 1970s and 1980s, when many nuclear reactors were first built, most operators estimated that seas would rise at a slow, constant rate. ... But the seas are now rising much faster than they did in the past ... Sea levels rose an average of 8 inches between 1880 and 2009, or about 0.06 inches per year. But in the last 20 years, sea levels have risen an average of 0.13 inches per year... NOAA) has laid out four different projections for estimated sea level rise by 2100. Even the agency's best-case scenario assumes that sea levels will rise at least 8.4 inches by the end of this century. NOAA's worst-case scenario, meanwhile, predicts that the oceans will rise nearly 7 feet in the next 86 years. But most nuclear power facilities were built well before scientists understood just how high sea levels might rise in the future. And for power plants, the most serious threat is likely to come from surges during storms. Higher sea levels mean that flooding will travel farther inland, creating potential hazards in areas that may have previously been considered safe." The article has charts comparing the current elevation of various plants with their estimated elevations under the various NOAA sea level rise estimates.
Earth

Studies: Wildfires Worse Due To Global Warming 379

Posted by samzenpus from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to scientists we can look forward to more devastating wildfires like the ones scorching Southern California because of global warming. "The fires in California and here in Arizona are a clear example of what happens as the Earth warms, particularly as the West warms, and the warming caused by humans is making fire season longer and longer with each decade," said University of Arizona geoscientist Jonathan Overpeck. "It's certainly an example of what we'll see more of in the future.""

Comment Re: Wrong concern (Score 1) 409

by soccerisgod (#47015631) Attached to: Don't Be a Server Hugger! (Video)

Then you are an incompetent idiot. I even said HIPAA (properly spelled) in the post you referred to. HIPAA When you can spell it correctly, we might have considered you "familiar" with it. When you can't even spell it correctly in reply to a post that used it spelled correctly, I find it quite hard to believe anything else you say. You obviously rate your skills higher than you can demonstrate.

I have absolutely no knowledge or opinion on this whole matter, but seeing you argue like and presenting a spelling error as your main argument makes me think you are the idiot :)

Comment Re:Hydroelectric killed 280,000 people in 1 accide (Score 1) 281

Consider that the level of security for nuclear warheads you've just described costs money. Tons of money.

Now contrast this:

If security really were the issue with nuclear, it would be easily solved.

with this:

I know you said we don't actually build "modern" reactors, but ANY design of reactor can fail, because people run them, boards that demand profit oversee management, and sometimes people fly airplanes into buildings.

If it cuts into profits, someone will want to cut costs - and corners. That's what frightens me, personally. Not that we can't make things secure, technically. It's human nature at it's worst that will cause a reactor to blow up or be blown up, not problems due to lack of understanding of the science behind it.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close