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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:It takes 20+ years to build a nuclear plant (Score 1) 599

The 80% figure I cited was for pumped water. Sorry, I should have been more specific.

Looking at this interview about molten salt from the company Gemasola it looks like the technolgy has come quite a ways.

"....This winter we have already achieved 404MWh in 24 hrs.... In summertime then we reached 428MWh in a single day...."

There doesn't seem to significant degradation due to Winter conditions

Comment Re:It takes 20+ years to build a nuclear plant (Score 2) 599

Solar you can store some of the excess heat but liquid salt is awful short term. Solar panels + batteries help smooth it out but they have the exact same issues as coal extraction.

Could you expand a bit on these two things? Why are molten salt pits "short term"? And why do you see solar + batteries as having the same issues as coal?

Water you have to deal with the eco/economic problem of sucking up millions of gallons of water and putting it somewhere else.

Aren't you just going to put this water in a storage facility? What's so hard about that? Pumped water for energy storage has about an 80% efficiency. This doesn't seem like a problem.

Comment Re:It takes 20+ years to build a nuclear plant (Score 1) 599

Great to hear about what those other countries are trying to do. I wish them the best. But solar most definitely can supply all of our energy needs. Every form of energy we have goes back to solar. The amount of sunlight that hits the earth is many times over what we'd need. It's just a matter of bringing down the cost some more.
Electronic Frontier Foundation

DOJ Often Used Cell Tower Impersonating Devices Without Explicit Warrants 146

Via the EFF comes news that, during a case involving the use of a Stingray device, the DOJ revealed that it was standard practice to use the devices without explicitly requesting permission in warrants. "When Rigmaiden filed a motion to suppress the Stingray evidence as a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the government responded that this order was a search warrant that authorized the government to use the Stingray. Together with the ACLU of Northern California and the ACLU, we filed an amicus brief in support of Rigmaiden, noting that this 'order' wasn't a search warrant because it was directed towards Verizon, made no mention of an IMSI catcher or Stingray and didn't authorize the government — rather than Verizon — to do anything. Plus to the extent it captured loads of information from other people not suspected of criminal activity it was a 'general warrant,' the precise evil the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent. ... The emails make clear that U.S. Attorneys in the Northern California were using Stingrays but not informing magistrates of what exactly they were doing. And once the judges got wind of what was actually going on, they were none too pleased:"

Slashdot Top Deals

A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first.