NEJM is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy harping on the dangers of Ebola merely because faux news tells them to?
Not per so, No -- I didn't know about that special, first heard about manifold cooking probably more like 30 years ago. But Yep -- that variety of cooking.
Median energy density in waves is too low in most places.
I don't predict that will be a problem for the locations they're likely to be planning on.
Nope. Most MLC SSDs will lose their data in about a year and the TLC SSDs in about 6 months of being powered off. (Don't confuse older flash media which was probably SLC with newer MLC/TLC media. Or which had larger feature sizes.)
As the size of the feature that stores your bits shrinks, so does the archival lifetime before something bad happens to one or more of the bits. That holds true for everything from tape, to hard drives, to CDs to flash drives.
(I'm going to assume you're either European or referring to Europe by your snark; we'll just set aside definitions of developed as something we might fundamentally disagree on.)
Critically: the US has an overall population density 1/10 that of countries like Germany. If you can't understand the impact of that, you're not paying attention. Further, the US doesn't have draconian commmunity laws that compel people to only build new homes within town limits, as some Euro states do. (Making the effective density of populated Europe much much higher.) If you buy land in the US, you can usually build a house on it, whether you're in a town or not. Ergo, the ability to quickly/cheaply stretch power to remote locations has more value here. It's a tradeoff that people make in their home choices, whether they recognize it or not.
In places like cities, where population density warrants it, yes, the power cables do usually go underground.
If, as the op asserts, it's an ongoing problem regarding the major lines that feed the municipality, then eventually the municipality will address it with their local utility. If the OP has such a problem with it, and is sure everyone else does, I'm sure it will provide a firm point for them to be elected to the city council to fix it. Or wait, was he not actually looking to get off his ass to FIX the problem, just whine about it?
You apparently forget that utilities are state-sponsored and validated monopolies.
I'm not sure blaming capitalist mechanisms here makes a ton of sense.
"Most of it's green. Like most northern areas if you take pictures at the right time you can get very dead looking terrain."
The problem isn't the green, the problem is the growing mass of dead tissue that is decomposing at an incredibly slow rate due to the lack of (or greatly reduced population of) bacteria, fungus, and molds that aid in the decomposing process.
As stated previously, a single incident like Chernobyl can be isolated and mitigated. A 'Chernobyl event every year' on the other hand, can lead to a cascading effect where microbial life is so effected that the standard processes our ecologies depend on shift dramatically.
"I suggest you check your research. They've been testing/developing pebble bed reactors, but they've run into issues such that they're not replacements for rod type reactors yet."
Fair point, I was under the mistaken impression that France have taken a pair of pebble bed reactors live many years ago. That's what I get for trusting my recollection of a 30 year old news story
"My point has always been not that nuclear is harmless, but that it's less harmful than the alternatives while still remaining affordable(minus political stuff)."
Nuclear without incident is less harmful. A single incident is still less harmful. But a sustained practice that leads to a significant incident each year can have a much larger impact by means of cascading ecological change.
And when you get back to the root issue, $/kW, we wind up in an interesting position. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/a... has a nice breakdown of what we can look forward to. And the question then is, if Nuclear is no cheaper than wind/hydro, and comes with dramatically more risk, why aren't we investing in more wind/hydro solutions instead?
With Enterprise SSD drive prices hitting $1/GB (granted some are still $2-3/GB), the days of 15k RPM drives are definitely numbered. You get 50-100x the IOPS out of SSDs compared to the 15k RPM SAS drives. That means for a given level of IOPS that you need, you can use a lot fewer drives by switching to SSDs.
I'd argue that if you are short-stroking your 15k SAS drives to get increased IOPS out of the array, it's past time to switch to enterprise SSDs.
"1. The total death impact from Chernobyl is roughly 4k people"
Again, I'm not comparing the immediate death tool. Taking that approach is penny wise, pound foolish. I'm pointing out that while a single limited nuclear catastrophe can occur with limited repercussions, a continuous series of such incidents creates a feedback loop where the secondary impact is far worse than the initial impact.
"2. The exclusion zone is 1k km, 1 a year would add up to 1M 'off limits', most of it indistinguishable from a natural park"
A "natural park"? Really? Have you seen what the controlled area looks like? I'll give you a hint, all of the dead wood, plant matter, animal life, etc... doesn't biodegrade. It just stays there, dead, dehydrated. No rot. no mold. Because the levels of radiation through out the area, while not immediately harmful to humans, is strong enough to kill off bacteria and fungi. There is nothing natural about Chernobyl.
"3. 1 Chernobyl/year is an absolute worst case scenario."
I whole heartedly disagree. A Chernobyl in Nebraska is a vastly worse case scenario.
"4. Estimates range from 4k to 93k deaths from the accident and resulting radiation"
Again, this is only >Human deaths. If you look at the full ecological impact that number is dramatically higher. As it is for coal and oil as well.
If you put your blinders on and look at only the direct and immediate impact on humans, yeah, nuclear looks really good. Take a step back an look at the nuclear impact on regional ecologies, and it doesn't look quite so rosy.
That said, I'm not opposed to nuclear power. I'm very interested in thorium-salt reactors. They offer much of the benefits of traditional nuclear reactors with a fraction of the risk. Even sticking with traditional uranium reactor, we need to dramatically improve our technology. These 60+ year old reactors have to be taken offline and replaced with modern technology. Hell, we're still using fuel rods in most of the US nuclear plants. Pebble beds have been in operation since the 1980's and we still haven't made the jump. Even better options are available today.
From the foreword by director Brahima Sanou:
Over the past year, the world witnessed continued growth in the uptake of ICT and, by end 2014, almost 3 billion people will be using the Internet, up from 2.7 billion at end 2013.
.... Despite this encouraging progress, there are important digital divides that need to be addressed: 4.3 billion people are still not online, and 90 per cent of them live in the developing world.
As this report finds, ICT performance is better in countries with higher shares of the population living in urban areas, where access to ICT infrastructure, usage and skills is more favourable. Yet it is precisely in poor and rural areas where ICTs can make a particularly significant impact.
Yeah, my stupid. Not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that.
It's almost like this is a very HARD PROBLEM that hundreds if not thousands of very, very bright people have been working on for years without much success.
Huh. Who'd'a thought?
(I think this entire project, while worthy, shows a staggering level of conceit, if not profound disrespect for brilliant scientists and engineers of previous generations. "Well, if we just get some smart people - I mean GOOGLE smart - and let them think about it, I'm sure they'll find the answer!")
Sometimes the historical ignorance displayed by people today is breathtaking.
" If it was really so dangerous, why do we have more deaths because of steam accidents than nuclear ones?"
That statement is only true if you apply it only to human deaths. If you include sea life, I'd expect oil and nuclear to blow steam out of the water (no pun intended).
"We'd save lives going nuclear even if we had a Chernobyl every year."
Penny smart, pound retarded. Sure, we'd have less human deaths as a direct impact, but after enough Chernobyls, we would start have serious issues with ecological balance. Crops, fisheries, radioactive contamination, the whole system would lead to massive collapse after a decade. Sure, hardly anyone would die from the immediate impact of the annual nuclear meltdown, but once we start ticking off the body count of the millions dying to radiation poisoning and starvation, we might want to reconsider that path.
Link to Original Source