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


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:I agree in general (Score 1) 242

It's 40 years later and we can make reactors that are safer by orders of magnitude than the 100s we've been using for decades that have been working perfectly.

The only thing we have to do is build them. Being able to do something is one thing, doing is another. And I don't think we will accomplish that. It will be called "too expensive" or such.

Comment Re:Idiot (Score 2) 242

Precisely. If you want to run at 100% all the time, you will need reliable power. Otherwise you have to build oversized capacities. It is possible to build plants that tolerate varying energy input, but it comes at a cost. It is cheaper to build up overcapacities and use the energy when its available cheaply, than to only use energy when it is available and otherwise stop production, but it is even cheaper to just use traditional energy sources. So the fact that this company has adapted to the changed situation in germany doesn't mean that germany is now more competitive on the international market. Businesses will think twice before building a plant in germany.

Comment Re:Idiot (Score 1) 242

And both are reliable as hell. Some parts of the world don't have those resources though, and if we don't do anything to prevent, the oil owning states will sell their stuff precisely to those countries, and they will create the carbon you just spared with your nice little carbon prevention policy.

Comment Re:Yes (Score 1) 242

How do you internalize the cost of a rare catastrophe (which would probably bankrupt any insurance company)?

There is a report by russia today that fukushima has cost $105 bn. Greenpeace (which hates nuclear power) claims a damage of $205 bn. So, the range of nuclear meltdown damages is in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, the insurance company munich re reports that they had to pay $31bn in 2014. I really think that it is doable to scale their business. So basically, there is one nuclear incident every 20 years world-wide. Lets be generous and say it costs around $400 bn. Now, the nuclear industry would have to pay $20 bn every year for such an insurance, world-wide. With a number of 438 reactors, that's $44 million per year. Energy companies make much much more with nuclear power on reactors in average than this amount, don't you think?

Why don't we start by internalizing the external costs of fossil fuels? That will drive us to alternatives REALLY quick.

Full agree. This is improperly internalized.

Comment Re:Idiot (Score 1) 242

Weather is something far larger scale, it affects whole countries. And there is also seasonal change which always affects one hemisphere, so you needed to brige the double of the distance to the equator here, to equalize with an energy grid.

Comment Re:Yes (Score 1) 242

What is the difference between a taxpayer and a customer?

If the company has to pay the bill, they will probably chose another technology if the risk is too high for them to lose their capital due to an atomic incident. From the regulatory side one only has to ensure the company can actually pay the bill, either through their own capital, or through an insurance.

It is enough to keep the current breed of scientists busy the next 30 years.

I'm not sure how science funding works, but I guess you would get far more scientists work on the problems if you invested more money into the field. I know, it would probably lead to the "every medicine research paper is cancer research" situation where scientists find convoluted ways to declare their work is in fact for fusion, but I guess there will be real additional effort spent as well.

Comment Re:Yes (Score 2) 242

Just require that every atomic plant owner makes an insurance, for which you require that they have proper securities. This then levels the cost for an incident over the whole nuclear industry. The insurance company will then take care of the security of the plant, because it will be inside their economic interest to avoid nuclear incidents. Right now its in the economic interest of the energy industry to spare on security, so that they have less costs. Munich re can cope with tens of billions of dollars, without any discussion about their solvency.

Comment Re:Idiot (Score 1) 242

Yeah, I really think the US can make it. You have this (dimensionally) great country, you just put some hydro storage plants, and it is done. Other regions of the world which are more densely populated will have greater problems, but the US can actually do it. The only question is to get the actual political descision to do it. Right now the US energy politics looks like: "we want cheap oil, and if we don't get it, we invade (or start a revolution or whatever) a countrythat has oil and install a conformant government", and I guess its cheaper than just building the hydro plants, but the actual cost for the planet is higher.

Comment Re:Idiot (Score 1) 242

I don't doubt that there will be a technical way to solve all these problems, whether with batteries, or with creating methane on periods with high energy, and burning it on periods with low energy, or with just simply.

But there is one very high problem:

Traditional energy resources will always be cheaper. Simple as that.

Your fanciest battery technology won't make the actual price you pay for energy from renewable resources cheaper than the extraction costs for fossile energy sources. And if that isn't provided, the owners of the gas and oil fields will just simply provide energy at a lower price than yours, and will still get customers. And you can be the greenest guy ever, if your neighbour country burns all the fuel now, because you aren't interested in buying it anymore, you haven't won a thing for the planet.

There is no other way to limit global carbon production than by creating a global cap for carbon output, and by enforcing that cap.

Comment Re:Will Lumias become usable? (Score 1) 54

Most of the malicious apps just use the privileges the user gives them, without any exploitation of zero days or so. Combined with the shitty update situation of android, you get the mess currently present. But if you have a phone that's supported by a reliable ROM vendor like CyanogenMod, you can keep your phone updated and malware-free.

Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.