Dunno about modern MREs, but I've had some of the old canned variety from ca. 1951... opened and eaten ca. 1970. Most of the contents were still edible. The crackers and chocolate were quite good.
Use a P-51 can opener for authenticity.
MRE's are different from the old K and C rations used back in those days. Modern MREs came in during the...early 80s iirc?
The better news is that now MRE's are apparently 'edible'.
I never thought they were that bad to be honest. At least they didn't have the 'joys' of the "rocks and custard" (''Fruit' dumplings' in something that is supposed to be butterscotch sauce) desert* we Brits sometimes had in our ration packs.
That said, I didn't have many MRE's, but the ones I did get were okay. That may have been down to luck, the advice of the US troops I worked with, or it may have been that I could stomach just about anything.
But not the rocks and custard. That one was just fucking minging.
*As in, "likely to cause desertion".
Link showing what a typical British ration pack looked like a few years ago; http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/24...
False, citation is not needed. Just open your eyes.
Citation needed. Does he have eyes to open?
And 5 quatloos, oh damn I dated myself.
I bet 10 quatloos on people being too young to get that joke.
Diamonds are a conductive metal?
Not that I know of, but they are extremely hard and useful for use on cutting/drilling bits.
Or you can just turn in all Audi drivers for the new $10,000 reward!
You'll have to beat Jeremy Clarkson to that, he thinks all Audi drivers/owners are cocks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Sorry EPA, but the studies sponsored by the [insert industry] industry couldn't reproduce the findings.
You cannot regulate them.
This will be one GIANT loophole for industry.
My thoughts exactly. This could well enable companies/the government to cripple the EPA, for good or ill.
Wind and solar have variable output, so they need to be partnered with flexible power generation. Nuclear is fundamentally inflexible because you can't quickly ramp up or down electricity output from a nuclear power plant. See this short video for a nice explanation of the incompatibility: http://www.ilsr.org/coal-nucle...
It's plenty flexible for use aboard a ship or a submarine. So if it's good enough for a submarine, then why isn't it good enough for the land?
Not when you take the radioactive waste into account. Power for a year, dangerous waste for hundreds. The power company will be long dead before their waste is eliminated. You need to look at the long term picture.
I disagree. The "waste" could well be a valuable commodity in the not so distant future. In fact, it could have been had certain reactor projects not been cancelled just as they were about to pay off. Rather good timing from those who cancelled it, no?
But while the waste is dangerous if not stored or used properly, it is far less dangerous than the waste produced by the alternative; fossil fuels. Nuclear power has a huge advantage on it's competitor there, it's waste is in one nice neat little package and it gets less dangerous as time goes by. Even better, there is far less of it. Can't say the same about gas/coal/oil, no matter which way you cut it.
In fact, we could just leave all the "waste" in the current "spent fuel pools". They're certainly doing no harm from where they are.
Nukes need scale to make sense. Iceland is among other things likely too small so that powering it with a nuclear plant would create a single point of failure in its power supply.
Nukes need scale to make sense? Citation?
If you're going to shoot down an argument for nuclear energy on the basis that it brings in a "single point of failure", how can you suggest that a geothermal plant would be better? A geothermal plant would need to produce a certain amount of power to remain economical. A large number of small plants which would bring the redundancy you desire, but would not be economical.
Then there's the fact that geothermal is very cheap and readily available in Iceland, while requiring little foreign expertise and fuel. Nuclear would require both.
Cheap & plentiful in Iceland =! Cheap & plentiful everywhere else that needs electricity. Also, I have not seen any numbers to suggest that geothermal is in any way cheap. To be honest, I haven't seen any numbers on it at all. I can see your point when it comes to fuel, though a reactor still wouldn't need all that much (certainly far less than any fossil fuel plant). However, I imagine that expertise would also be required for a geothermal plant. I suspect that rather more would be required than a nuclear plant given the (I assume) experimental nature of a geothermal plant. I have heard of a lot of nuclear reactors running, but I don't know of any geothermal plants. This leads me to my suspicion that rather more experts would be needed for a geothermal plant.
I'm all for green power, but let's not forget that right now solar panels are not terribly efficient and very resource-intensive during the manufacturing process,
Moden solar panels reach energy payback in three years and even the old PC PV panels did it in seven... In the seventies. There is no, repeat NO good reason not to increase solar generation.
How long does a panel last? 10 years? 15? Compare that to Nuclear plants in the US, which have been coming near to their 40th birthday. Sure, some have been closed, but all of those shut downs (with one exception) have been for political reasons dressed up as "economic" reasons.
It's not a small amount - it's a long process and it's not just the depleted fuel that's a waste storage problem. Anything that gets bombarded with a lot of neutrons becomes nuclear waste itself, so. That's what the "nuclear is magic beans appearing in the reactor core" crowd don't get. That's why real solutions like Synrok were ignored for decades. The health problems start with water runoff in the mines (eg. acid mine drainage), just like a lot of other things. Nuclear is not magic just because it's nuclear. It's an industrial process that has impacts and benefits and has to be looked at that way instead of the stupid "clean" dream. We got over "duck and cover" and "too cheap to meter" - it's time to get over the "clean" propaganda as well.
You forget, that the so called "waste" from nuclear reactors is (by design) contained in one tiny little rod that is relatively easy to handle. This is the opposite of any fossil fuel based energy source, which just dumps all its waste (i.e. green house gases) into the atmosphere and in much MUCH greater quantities.
It's time to get over the "NOOCLEAUR IZ EVIL!!" propaganda.
could you name even one present day technology that could do a better job of generating electricity with little waste, than a nuclear reactor?
not really people have gotten 900HP out of 2.0L EVO engines so 400 out of a 1.5L is within the realm of attainability whats really impressive is the weight
I do recall reading about several individuals who have gotten 1k+ HP out of 2.0L Ford Cosworth engines.