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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Primary goal was disposal, not energy (Score 1) 148

The issue is not the average energy price across the country. The problem is local, where natural gas is produced in such abundance but cannot be stored or transported, they practically give it away, which nuclear (nor coal or any other generation method aside from hydro) can compete with.

Comment Re:Primary goal was disposal, not energy (Score 4, Informative) 148

Our proven uranium reserves would last us over 200 years at current consumption;

If we built fast reactors, we would have enough fuel, in the form of depleted uranium sitting around idle in barrels at enrichment plants, to supply the entire planet's energy for about 1000 years.

Comment Re:Primary goal was disposal, not energy (Score 3, Interesting) 148

Our proven uranium reserves would last us over 200 years at current consumption; Well beyond the life expectancy of any of our reactors. The only reason for this program was to provide a failing country with a cheap way of disposing of highly hazardous materials without losing face. It is the proverbial "turning a negative into a positive". It will have zero effect on our energy costs or programs.

Zero effect, eh?

An oil sheik farts in the wrong direction and gas prices go up by 10 cents a gallon, creating hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue instantly.

What in the FUCK makes you think the powers-that-be won't take this non-story and turn it into the next US energy crisis to justify a 20% increase in costs?

Sorry for being so harsh, but your last statement there pegged my bullshit meter.

The small increase in nuclear fuel price due to the ending of this program is insignificant. Fuel price is only a small cost of nuclear power, and enrichment cost only a fraction of that. The real problem for nuclear power is the bottoming out of energy prices due to the huge oversupply of natural gas from fracking. The latter being responsible for the closing of two power plants this year.

Comment Re:Good (Score 2) 414

Your precious gun bans 'dont stop those from being in the hands of criminals... So why do you think more of them will help?

Gun ban and gun regulation isn't the same thing.

In northern Europe guns are heavily regulated and they don't have nearly as much violent gun crime as the U.S.

This might not necessarily be because of gun regulation, not having gun nuts around is probably the big thing but I don't think killing them off is an acceptable solution.

The vast majority of gun crime in the US is related to drugs or gang related. 50% of the gun crime in the US is perpetrated by 4% of the population in the 7 largest major cities (several of which have total gun bans already - New York, Chicago, etc). The gun crime in these areas is similar to that of other countries which have total gun bans, such as Mexico, Russia, Brazil, etc. These countries (and parts of the US) have high gun crime not because of lax gun laws, but because of a degradation of the rule of law and civil society. Most parts of the US, especially rural areas, have far less crime than anywhere in Europe.

Comment Re:Good (Score 5, Insightful) 414

Your precious gun bans 'dont stop those from being in the hands of criminals... So why do you think more of them will help?

And your precious guns don't stop those criminals from shooting people... So why do you think more of them will help?

Why do police carry guns then?

Comment Re:I get what he's saying here (Score 1) 438

Spoilerish. Two astronauts tied together falling past a structure, once one of them grabs on and withstands the shock of the other astronaut snapping the tether taut, he should rebound back towards the secured astronaut, not dangle as if still being pulled by gravity. This would not be the case if, say, they were on a rotating structure or on a rocket making a significant burn but neither is the case.

My impression of that scene was that the cords tangling Bullocks' character were barely taught enough to stop her momentum and rebound, and if Clooney did not let go the cords would have broken at the other end leaving them both floating away. Like two people bungee jumping, while decelerating under tension, they notice the cord start to break due to excessive weight, so one guy detaches himself and falls to his death while the remaining elasticity of the cord is enough to save the other.

Comment Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score 1) 358

For the amount of money we spent on one year of so-called stimulus, we could have built ~300 new gen 4 nuclear reactors, converting the country to 80% nuclear power (the remaining being hydro in areas where it already exists). We have enough depleted uranium sitting around refined and unused in barrels at enrichment plants to supply fast reactors for about 10,000-50,000 years, without having to mine a single lump of ore. With all the leftover coal and natural gas, we could convert to fuel for transportation use. 100% energy independence for a 1000 years and tens of millions of new jobs. What did we get instead? Bailouts for unsustainable government union pensions and crony kickbacks. And guess who's going to be running our healthcare from now on? Lol.

Comment Re:Speaking as a non-American... (Score 1) 1144

Actually no, this isn't just a loophole, it is by design. Cutting budgets for programs is the principle way the house of representatives has to exercise their power. For example, if the President decided to unilaterally declare war, the only way congress would have to stop him is to defund the military.

Comment Re:How I see it... (Score 1) 1144

What are you talking about? The republicans offered up a bill to simply delay the implementation of Obamacare for 1 year and the democrats soundly rejected it. Obama and Harry Reid can be heard on the news vowing "WE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE", comparing the republicans to Islamic terrorists! And you blame the republicans for not negotiating? You sir, have the situation ass backwards.

Comment Re:Well of course (Score 1) 165

You simplify to much.

Meanwhile a nice placed solar plant would be cost effective even without the granted feed in tariffs.

This is due to the fact that you can sell your energy at the spot market and the price for energy peaks there regularly far above the feed in tariffs.

Only because government regulations mandate renewable power always be purchased, often times leading to negative electricity prices (i.e. power company pays you to waste electricity - nice perverse incentive!). This is basically the same as a tariff - a law meant to protect a particular industry even though its consequences on the whole are a net loss.

Capacity factors ... an invention by wikipedia ... and some guys who gives talks in TV shows ;D

No one in the energy business uses that term, it is completely useless.

I hope that was sarcasm, otherwise you're an idiot.

Slashdot Top Deals

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...