Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Jaszko (Score 1) 59

by mdsolar (#47771663) Attached to: New NRC Rule Supports Indefinite Storage of Nuclear Waste
Did the right thing to pull the plug on Yucca. Fabrication of data pretty much made proceeding impossible. He was handing out license extensions like candy and won't be missed on that account, but I think he would not have pulled this bozo move. Indefinite above ground storage in flood plains? What can they be thinking?

+ - New NRC rule supports indefinite storage of nuclear waste->

Submitted by mdsolar
mdsolar (1045926) writes "The five-member board that oversees the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Tuesday voted to end a two-year moratorium on issuing new power plant licenses.

The moratorium was in response to a June 2012 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that ordered the NRC to consider the possibility that the federal government may never take possession of the nearly 70,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel stored at power plant sites scattered around the country.

In addition to lifting the moratorium, the five-member board also approved guidance replacing the Waste Confidence Rule.

"The previous Waste Confidence Rule determined that spent fuel could be safely stored on site for at least 60 years after a plant permanently ceased operations," said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the NRC.

In the new standard, Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Rule, NRC staff members reassessed three timeframes for the storage of spent fuel — 60 years, 100 years and indefinitely."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:math err? Re:Beyond what humans can do (Score 1) 413

by FireFury03 (#47770049) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

Oh yeah, I'll also point out that the original poster's numbers stuck out like a sore thumb before I even looked up the figures: Petrol is lighter than water, so its immediately obvious that 4.75 tons is going to be over 4750 litres (at current forecourt prices, about £6000) and I know I don't buy anywhere close to that amount of petrol each year. Doncha just love the metric system for making such things so obvious. :)

Comment: Re:math err? Re:Beyond what humans can do (Score 1) 413

by FireFury03 (#47769999) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

The numerator above seems off: what is 6445 ?

4.75 tons of petrol is 6445 litres. Since petrol is 85% carbon, we can divide the 6445 litres by 0.85 and we get 7582 litres of petrol containing 4.75 tons of carbon.

For the weight of a big tub of petroleum containing 4.75t carbon, I think you'd have:
4.75 tons of carbon / .85 = 5.938 tons of petroleum.

Your answer is wrong: 4750 Kg of carbon / 0.85 = 5588 Kg of petrol. It looks like you divided by 0.80 instead of 0.85?

5588 Kg of petrol / 0.737 = 7582 litres of petrol.

Comment: Re:The death of leniency (Score 1) 499

by jxander (#47769309) Attached to: U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

Doubtful

The vast majority of the footage would never actually be seen. Just cataloged and stored for however long the statue of limitations is. The stuff that gets watched will be in the event of an incident or complaint.

I highly doubt many citizens will start complaining: "He let me off with a warning!! HOW DARE HE! Check the tapes, you'll see!"

Comment: Re:Oh look, Protesters.. (Score 1) 202

by i kan reed (#47769049) Attached to: DoT Proposes Mandating Vehicle-To-Vehicle Communications

And we get another 1 dimensional anarcho-whatever-bullshit-volounteerist-fantasy-suits-them who concludes that because someone sees the utility of applying technology to law enforcement, they're in favor of the "police state".

It's almost childlike naivete, but even children can recognize taking an idea to an irrational extreme.

Gee, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.

Working...