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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:And why not? (Score 1) 201

by MrKaos (#49377205) Attached to: Nation's Biggest Nuclear Firm Makes a Play For Carbon Credit Cash
I think they're as bad as each other for different reasons.

So you're actually suggesting that the two nuclear accidents that involve the release of radioactivity outside of containment

I think that remains to be seen, however you only see 2 accidents and I see about 2000 accidents, the nuclear industry is littered with them. The difference is the coal industries PR machine is 'we don't give a fuck you'll buy it anyway" and the Nuclear Industries PR machine is "this is so complex you won't understand why it's bad" relying on the complexity and amount of time that it takes for accidents to unfold.

It is moronic trying to portray one as better than the other and your play for an emotional reaction doesn't sway my opinion in the slightest

Are you serious?

Dead fucking serious. Don't try to corner me as a supporter of coal either, it's a shit industry and both of them have a serious environmental impact.

Comment: Re:Carbon Neutral? (Score 1) 201

by MrKaos (#49370317) Attached to: Nation's Biggest Nuclear Firm Makes a Play For Carbon Credit Cash

Having been though an ore processing plan (iron not uranium) I don't think the ball mills and other machines in the plant really care where the electricity comes from.

Sure, we can use geothermal to make steel for wind plants and crush ore for nuclear so I see the question there is about which give a better return for your investment in the technology.

Comment: Re:And why not? (Score 1) 201

by MrKaos (#49370173) Attached to: Nation's Biggest Nuclear Firm Makes a Play For Carbon Credit Cash

Bzzzzz..... Wrong answer. It is not and Studies by NASA and the UN both support a large increase in nuclear power to reduce pollution in general as well as carbon emissions as does one of the founders of Greenpeace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Most radio isotopes from power production are extremely toxic, so your response doesn't really make sense in that regard - it is clear to see that it is a major threat to the environment, just not well understood how...

Of course Greenpeace says he is a paid toady of the nuclear industry.... Vilification of those that disagree with you is the first rule of propaganda.

Sure, that's why the IAEA has publishing interdiction orders over the WHO in all matters nuclear.

Besides I'm not certain what NASA/UN studies you refer to? I do know that some rely on a document sponsored by the nuclear industry player Vattenfal, as does the IPCC, which gives them an overly optimistic picture of what is achievable with Nuclear.

Can you send me a link of what your referring to, mine is in the last two IPCC reports if you want to check.

And speaking of vilification, that is what happened to the peer reviewed science regarding the energetic return of the nuclear industry. From actual nuclear industry scientists, you'll understand the Nuclear Industry from an "energetic return" perspective on investment in the nuclear industry. I hope you find it interesting.

As of the biological harm, there is no question, it is a toxic threat to the environment via radiological and transgenic disease. I don't know if that is GP's objections but they are pretty good reasons to think radio isotopes are a threat to the environment and ultimately, humanity.

Comment: Re:And why not? (Score 1) 201

by MrKaos (#49369787) Attached to: Nation's Biggest Nuclear Firm Makes a Play For Carbon Credit Cash

Nuclear power but government owned and controlled and publicly audited, definitely not in the hands of deregulate everything now, profits this quarter only and golden parachutes for the top executives for inevitable failures their psychopathic attitudes create.

Absolutely. The actually implementation of a serious nuclear driven state would exclude corporations from being involved as the industry created would span generations. Unfortunatley I think it will take something pretty bad to get us out of this 'next quarter' short term mentality before we can really develop any vision for the future that is truly sustainable - no matter what technology we use.

Comment: Re:And why not? (Score 1) 201

by MrKaos (#49369705) Attached to: Nation's Biggest Nuclear Firm Makes a Play For Carbon Credit Cash

The correct answer - no matter who is in charge - is first and foremost proper, safety conscious engineering, and then followed up with a culture of accountability and transparency *to everyone*. That means that there aren't reports that are "secret" because of some security theater. Everybody sees it, everybody knows what's going on.

Add to that that a nuclear plant should probably have a fixed lifespan. After 50 years, they shut it down, dismantle it, and haul it all away.
It's too easy for an aging infrustructure to be neglected and shortcuts to be taken. It would be better to create a new one than to let an
aging one hobble along until something breaks.

If they actually built it *underground* many of these issues would go away, but it would be better if the reactor was engineered to last for 500 or 1000 years.

Breaking it up and hauling it away safely is approximately one third of the energetic output of the reactor over its lifetime. You have to wait for some time before the reactor is cool enough to disassemble anyway, so why not just design the reactor to be disposed of, in place?

The answer of course is money. It is not impossible to design a reactor that way. In fact Westinghouse, GE and so on have already responded to NRC proposals for a design that does just that with 30 odd safety improvements over current standardized designs.

They're just too expensive to implement compared to current Nuclear Reactors designs like AP1000 that doesn't incorporate those design features.

Comment: Re:Full benefits & Full responsibility (Score 1) 201

by MrKaos (#49369601) Attached to: Nation's Biggest Nuclear Firm Makes a Play For Carbon Credit Cash

Sure, just as soon as the federal government pays them back for the fees it charged while promising to take care of the waste...

Do you mean in terms of nuclear waste or some other toxic externality? Would you please clarify what you mean here?

Oh, and enjoy how things end up priced as we force this standard on other companies... Many of the pollutants that other companies are releasing don't break down, period.

We should be handling them as well. It's the by-product of our era's technology so it is our responsibility to handle it. It doesn't matter if the next generations are super-human or cave men, it's still the responsibility of human's of this era to deal with its mess.

10M years is a bit long as well -

Not for pu-239, about 50 times more time is right. Remember it is still highly toxic even when you exclude its radioactive emmissions and that's what it will take to do that.

allow reprocessing and such, and you can get rid of 90% of the 'waste' by reusing it, and of the 10% remaining, you only need to keep it 'safe' for about 1-10k years, not the over 100k.

C'mon Firethorn, didn't we find common ground on this years ago? You already know that to do this with burners you would already need to have the spent fuel containment, fuel management and reactor units already set up with the reactor disposal in place to even come close to achieving it. Anything those reactors produced will be hot and as toxic to life as anything can be. No structure will last 10k years and siting them in a porus mountain is the same amount of effort to do it in a mountain which actually would last.

If we focused on preparing the infrastructure and technology to burn up the radioisotopes we would have about 30 years work and another 50-70 years research into materials technology to make it worthwhile wrt the energy yeild and burn-up rate of the reactor units. And also for humanity to mature enough to operate them, which reactor accidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl show, we aren't.

It's not impossible, but it does start with a granite mountain site that uses the DOE's original science based defense in depth strategies large enough to house the facilities and the railway (or other) infrastructure to move it from around the country. That is the only rational way to deal with radio isotopes that are radioactive for geological timeframes, treat it geologically, dispose of the reactors in place and avoid the energetic costs of decommissioning while it cools in the belly of a mountain.

Even getting started would mean getting pro- and anti- nuclear folk to agree that a geological spent fuel containment facility where you would site the facilities, is the starting point. Which is the truely fucked-up irony of this fully polarized debate.

Ok, so maybe it is impossible.

Comment: Re:And why not? (Score 1) 201

by MrKaos (#49369249) Attached to: Nation's Biggest Nuclear Firm Makes a Play For Carbon Credit Cash

Greenpeace constantly works against the building of nuclear power plants When one of the founders of Greenpeace spoke out about the advantages of nuclear power not creating CO2, they removed him from the organization

That is because Nuclear power is as much of a threat to the environment as coal is. Has it occured to you that GP is fighting a battle on two fronts?

Comment: Re:Carbon Neutral? (Score 1) 201

by MrKaos (#49368979) Attached to: Nation's Biggest Nuclear Firm Makes a Play For Carbon Credit Cash

Actually they do, but then an anti-nuke troll like yourself would never admit to that would you.

Name one with a link so I can read it. Name *one*.

I especially like the anti-nuke types who say that mining is mining and therefore a uranium mine kills just as many people as a coal mine, completely ignoring

I like the way you completely ignore the point of how much carbon based energy is required to extract uranium and how you try to change the subject to coal mine deaths.

the inconvenient fact that

blah blah babble babble blah blah

Transportation

At the Track With Formula E, the First e-Racing Series 165

Posted by samzenpus
from the fast-and-quiet dept.
An anonymous reader writes Ars is running a story about the new all-electric racing car series and its first visit to the U.S.. "The pit lane we're standing in is unusual, and not only because it's a temporary setup placed in the shadow of American Airlines Arena (home of the NBA's Miami Heat). Garages are set up on both sides rather than being limited to one. A few things also appear to be missing. To start, a familiar smell from the usual mix of burning hydrocarbons is absent. And it's remarkably quiet. The occasional impact wrench bursts out in a mechanical staccato, generators drone here and there, but there are no V8s burbling, no V6s screaming....Welcome to Formula E, the world's first fully electric racing series. Miami is playing host to the first of two US rounds—the next being held in Long Beach, CA, on April 4—and it's the fifth race in this ePrix's inaugural season. Given we've got a bit of a thing about racing at Cars Technica, as well as an obvious interest in electric vehicles, we had to be on the ground in Miami to experience this for ourselves."

Committees have become so important nowadays that subcommittees have to be appointed to do the work.

Working...