Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Units were chosen for the conclusion? (Score 1) 409

Oh, as for the 95%, it's an economist's report and tries to calculate price for new sources. IAEA gets average from all the countries (Soviet Union) and all the reactors that exist at the time (1990 meant ancient Magnoxes, not-yet-refurbished RBMKs and other engineering offenses still merrily grinding away). I've seen the 95% for the new plants quoted often, even from relatively respectable sources and can imagine how it got there, but still seems excessive, 93% is actually promoted by vendors (if you operate it right etc. and after the first few years of breaking the new plant in) for AP1000 and several others, real performance evaluation will have to wait after those new types are built and operated for several years.

Some useful stats for the past and current performances.

Comment Arithmetical error? (Score 1) 409

2012 was indeed a bad year for Swedish nuclear with Oskarhamn 1 being out and reaching 0.7 % load factor but the yearly average was 70 %. Check your math, either you misplaced decimal somewhere or you are mixing up the load factor of your turbines with the nuclear's share of Sweden's electricity production for 2012 - 38.5%, understandable brain fart, but still completely different metrics.

Comment Check the numbers, kid (Score 1) 409

Typical modern wind turbines have diameters of 40 to 90 metres (130 to 300 ft) and are rated between 500 kW and 2 MW. As of 2014 the most powerful turbine, the Vestas V-164, is rated at 8 MW and has a rotor diameter of 164m.

That from the wiki and which also has other numbers for that biggest piece, which clearly show that diesel still wins.

Comment Re:Externalization (Score 1) 409

You haven't even bothered to read the abstract, did you? BTW. Amory Lovins' bussiness is consulting for fossil fuel companies, he stopped advertising it, but if you use Google and Wayback Machine, you can still find him saying so. And of course the old, zombie canard of oil wars. Truthers should finally get together and explain why US didn't invade Canada and Nigeria in the first place (and possibly Mexico, it's close), check out the actual oil imports figures from those times, you might be surprised.

Comment So this is news now? (Score 1) 288

Maybe Amazon or some other provider could take a page from some local utilities and let users signal their own preferences with a (surcharged) "clean energy" option.

Meh, I'd like them more, if they started a better trend - ignore Greenpeace altogether. What's next? We're gonna have posts about Westboro Baptist Church's stance on computers, presented as a valid opinion? Fuck you, Jason, your submission is lamer than your hockey mask.

Comment Re:increased cancer risk. See references (Score 1) 230

Sorry, I'm not gonna google von Hippel, Jacobson or other concern trolls/pressure group activists/outright quacks. I've already read enough stupid, flawed shit based on their work and of course, enough about the methodology they used. This methodology is questionable (that's the accepted scientific term for bullshit, right?).


A bit of light reading for those interested in the amount of conservative assumptions, posited improbable scenarios, rounding up and Fermi estimates necessary to claims of actual radiation-induced health consequences to the public.

Comment Not enough! (Score 1) 230

Those homes would have to be made of carefully chosen materials not to emit radiation themselves (no granite countertops, too) and, of course, no sleeping with a spouse or a baby in the same bed - human body is naturally radioactive, which brings us to the last point - we would have to be fed with isotopically purified food to get rid of all the K-40 and in the long run, maybe replace all the carbon in our bodies with a purified carbon than doesn't consist partially of radioactive C-14.

Also, you missed a decimal, it's 2.4 mSv, not that the average means much, it's counted from about half mSv in some places and tens in others.

Comment Re:Perl (Score 1) 536

There are more "hardcore/weird/idiosyncratic/expressive/niche/unintelligible" languages for geniuses than just C, I've just recently ran into this nice 18 byte cunt-generating tidbit:

' *'{~4=+/~ 4<.|i:5

Ha, got "Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.", when trying to post both code and result, Slashdot apparently can't stomach rhombus made of asterisks, thus inadvertently giving unplanned example of expression and power being too limited for something relatively simple, yet unexpected. Unless it's just protection from pasting heaps of ASCII art?
Anyway, result's here, proper Slavic cunt symbol should have vertical line in the center, but the shape is generally recognized as simplified substitute, as in, say, Renault logo ("One cunt on the grill, the other behind the wheel." as somebody mean, probably me, remarked when homeroom teacher passed us in her car).

Another megabytes the dust.