Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:From TFA (Score 1) 415

Battery tech has barely moved, in 100years due to the realities of chemistry.

Really, how incredibly interesting that that is about how long the oil industry has been going. I'd imagine them saying 'yes, it's only fair that we allow this new invention to threaten our market share rather than license the patent off the inventor and keep it off the market even though it is perfectly legal to do so'.

please put your fucking tin foil hat back on, your talking utter shite without it!

I imagine the extensive research of the patent archives you went to, to validate such an insiteful "opinion".

Comment Re:100% BULLSHIT (Score 1) 415

Reactors are planned when to shut down to refuel.

DUUUUUH - captain fucking obvious. So do they plan LERs and ASPs? Fucking moron AC.

The wind just fucking stops, unless you have found a way to control the wind (your brain farts don't count!)

The wind is always blowing somewhere, even in your empty skull. Go back - re-read my post and figure out why what you have said is just stupid.

Comment Re:100% BULLSHIT (Score 1) 415

Wind is not a positively dispatchable power source.

Are you're telling me a 21st Century energy grid can't manage the availability of a source of energy and deliver capacity to where it is required? Is that what you mean?

A wind turbine is not a functional substitute for a nuclear, hydroelectric, gas or coal station, all of which can produce power *when asked to do so*.

Thousands of wind turbines are though. Base load is a function of the grid, not of any one source. A higher installed base of wind increases capacity AND availability.

No one is expecting wind to do that today because it doesn't have enough volume to maintain availability and capacity because the industry is in its infancy.

I expect that from established technologies though.

Photovoltaic ("solar") power may have a role to play, but the laws of our universe completely preclude the possibility of wind power ever being a useful, practical, economic contributor to large national grids; EVER. It's not even a remote possibility.

Why? Are you telling me we can't solve problems and adapt.

Excluding CANDU, which are the only reactors I know of in operation that can operate and be refueled, however the more popular BWR and PWR can't produce power when they are being re-fueled or maintained. So how is that different from wind as a source? How is asking wind to produce power when the wind is not blowing, not like asking another power source to produce power during it's characteristic outage like being refueled or maintained?

Why is distributing the wind as a source of energy too difficult problem for us to manage? It's an emotive claim? What is the problem that you see?

Comment Re:From TFA (Score 1) 415

And nuclear is a lot safer and more environmentally friendly than hydro.

I think you are conflating environmental harm with environmental impact. A land slide can block a river and have a large environmental impact. Hydro has a large environmental impact, however it eventually pays its carbon input from the concrete and the environment settles down around it - much the same way it would with a land slide.

A Nuclear Power however, does a lot of environmental harm. Like Hydro a Nuclear plant will eventually pay it's carbon input from the concrete, however continues to pay it as an energetic input cost from mining, processing and enrichment. The fuel enrichment process it is still the largest industrial emitter CFC114 which destroy the phytoplanktons that create the bulk of the atmosphere's oxygen from CO2.

The list goes on, the toxicity of 239 pu, U 238 and other radio-isotopes that, as often claimed are 'not released during normal operation', occur along with other authorized and unauthorized venting of radioactive materials during normal operation. Many of which are highly mutagenic and cancerous. We have seen from the Zombie forests Chernobyl that plutonium in the environment destroys the very basis of life at the level of microbes.

Far from 'Environmentally Friendly', Nuclear power utilizes the most toxic compounds humans have known that when released into the environment kills just about everything. I think 'Environmentally Destructive' would be a more accurate description of it's characteristics. A very slow, destructive and persistent set of consequences that occur over time and will continue to occur long after we are all dead.

I'm sure the fish are the first to protest whenever a hydro dam goes up, and all those waterbirds probably hate having all that extra habitat to live in.

Comment Re:From TFA (Score 1) 415

In the U.S., coal-fired power plants operate at around 60% capacity factor, and nuclear plants at nearly 90% (Source.)

The CF for nuclear is much more complex when compared to other sources. The article he refers to only talks about the Capacity Factor whilst it is operating which is dependent on its 'Availability' and 'Utilization' of the power source over it's life time. If it has a capacity factor of 90% and an availability of 50% over its lifetime, as people like to point out in solar's case, then Nuclear's Total Capacity Factor is only 45%. They mention refueling, but for maintenance I've heard of some terrible availability numbers for Nuclear of around 38%.

I'm not sure if that is what you are referring to, however I do know it is typical of the kind of intellectual dis-honesty we see from the nuclear industry's PR machine to 'not mention that bit'. I did a search on nuclear reactor availability and 'utilization' which produced nothing. I'm not saying it isn't there, but it is not as easy to find as 'Capacity Factor'.

The whole 'Capacity Factor' measure used there not only bypasses that the maintenance on some reactor plants can take them offline for years but also fails to point out that the plant becomes a net consumer of electricity to maintain cooling of spent fuel and other things, effectively a negative CF when it is offline.

From my understanding though it goes beyond the refueling cycle, maintenance and, a reactor's availability. It's CF cannot be assessed as simply as other sources because it's it is impacted by its energetic inputs. You have to include and measure energetic inputs such as mining, processing and enriching the ore however you will not have a complete idea of how much energy you have spent on it until after the reactor has been decommissioned, it cools, it is disassembled and, stowed so that the active and activated radio-isotopes don't end up bio-accumulating in the environment.

I think the true measure is Net energy return because it's measuring all of the inputs and outputs. That would be a comparison worth seeing. I think some people can't seem to accept that these losses are a tangible part of the 'Total Lifetime Capacity Factor' of Nuclear energy because they get so fixated on the reactor and none of the supporting technology it requires.

It's great news for Wind power which Investors prefer over Nuclear because wind is a lower risk, more scale-able than nuclear and can have frequent technology improvements over it's life time.

Comment What a load of bullshit this is (Score 1) 174

*anyone* who has played a field sport of any kind will tell tell you it's about what the team can do, not what a team of egos can do. All to often you can take a bunch of top athletes and put them in a team and the team dynamic is created by the interactions between them. It's completely different from the environment that makes them the player they are.

The only people who would bet on this crap have never played sport in their life or want to make a killing on knowing the results and gambling on a sure thing. Essentially - what we are seeing.

Comment Re:Fukushima factoid - reprocessing (Score 1) 139

Above ground caskets are working well. I figure that we'd be digging up anything we bury within a century to reprocess it anyways. Heck, let it sit in a cask for 40 years and so much of the 'hot' stuff has decayed that it should make reprocessing significantly cheaper.

I think I see where you are going with this. If you are going to take a longer term veiw of the Nuclear Industry based on reprocessing and start implementing reactors that implement this technology then you have to accomodate reprocessing facilities, the reactor and the spent fuel products anyway. You have to move it from around the country from the reactor sites to reprocess it.

IFR did this in an integrated way and it is a proven and tested design so I think it realistic to implement provided you have contained adequate facilities. You yeild a significant energetic advantage (from my loose calculation 1.3Tw hours - don't hold me to that though - I haven't checked my math) over the initial 40 year lifespan of the reactor if you can dispose of the reactor core, in situ, i.e you build the reactor in a granite mountain and leave it in place when it is no longer viable. Then double that advantage again because you don't need to mine and enrich for fuel to operate it. Triple the energetic return, if you build it with material technology improvements that allows it to go beyond it's initial lifespan, every 40 years. So it's a real winner for that potential.

That's why I think it makes sense to look ahead and actually start by accommodating the spent fuel facilities, then you can site reprocessing facilities and reactors. The state that hosts it would get a bonanza of industry looking for cheap electricity, because it's easier to move electricity as opposed to moving highly radioactive fuel. So when evaluating the two if you are going to consider Thorium reactors over something like IFR you have to also factor the energetic inputs of processing the ore ready for the reactor.

So far IFR is the only threat to the coal and oil industry and it's not hard to see the hard lobbying they did of Clinton when he killed it and Bush when he funded it's demolition to well and truely bury it. The American people would never have been beholden to the oil industry for at least 5000 years - based on fuel availability.

"One Architecture, One OS" also translates as "One Egg, One Basket".