Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Who said what? (Score 1) 356

Who the fuck is the ADL? Why the fuck do I give a shit?

-- Internet

And this is the correct response.

Every time that you give these people the wind of your fart, it validates them and their method. Ignore and move on.

Seriously though, I find the Anti-ADL to be a bigger bunch of butthurt whiners, who also need to be ignored. Same kind of attention whores, slightly different whine.

Comment Re:Too much money... (Score 1) 134

I'm glad they're employing smart people on pie in the sky stuff instead of making a profit. They'd eventually fail anyway, might as well do something interesting first.

Like most Ponzi schemes, this is about diverting as many liquid assets as they can into the places where they can only be touched by the owners rather than trying to turn a profit.

Uber was never meant to be a success, it was meant to make its owners rich from other people's money.

Comment Re:Wouldn't need subsidies (Score 1) 246

The "nuclear is expensive" claim is only true because the anti-nuclear lobby has made it that way.

This is unequivocally false. Nuclear power has been the most expensive way to generate energy since its inception. The only possibilty and the only way nuclear power in practice has been economically feasable is more or less due to the quote in the summary:

"does better in a socialist economy than in a capitalist one, because nuclear energy prefers to have the public do the cleanup, do the insurance, cover all of the losses and it only wants the profits."

Breeder reactors are a great idea, but do nothing to mitigate the insane and massive cost already incurred, and will continue to cost, indefinitely. Clean up nuclear power's current problems first, pay off the massive subsidy-debt to governments (to the people that payed for it), solve the waste problem (the current one, as it is, without invoking the largely non-existent messiah breeder reactors), and then you can once again receive massive government subsidies for energy companies to build their breeder reactors, take all the profits, with none of the respinsibility.

Or, you know, spend that money on alternative energies and actaully get what you pay for without incurring insane massive debt and the possibility of any sort of nasty waste that lingers as a dnager for a millenia.

Comment Re:Wouldn't need subsidies (Score 1) 246

It would seem that it's a bad decision by the Chinese to fund/build this design since the first projects using this design are many years late and many billions of dollars over budget (and still not operating)... but, of course, it doesn't seem to be possible to build a nuclear reactor anywhere near on time or budget. The problems with the EDF reactors cover the gamut from structure (concrete and steel) to mechanical (valves, etc.). Of course, they are developing a new, enhanced, better, EPR design which promises to fix all of these problems... want to bet?
As for pebble bed... good luck with that. It's a new unproven design. Only one prototype has been built (Germany) and it closed due to many problems:
No possibility to place standard measurement equipment in the pebble-bed core, i.e. pebble bed = black box
Contamination of the cooling circuit with metallic fission products (Sr-90, Cs-137) due to the insufficient retention capabilities of fuel pebbles for metallic fission products. Even modern fuel elements do not sufficiently retain strontium and cesium.
improper temperatures in the core (more than 200 C above calculated values)
necessity of a pressure retaining containment
unresolved problems with dust formation by pebble friction (dust acts as a mobile fission product carrier, if fission products escape the fuel particles)

Comment Re:Wouldn't need subsidies (Score 1, Troll) 246

Ah yes, the powerful anti-nuclear lobby which has resources of thousands of dollars has somehow managed to push aside the nuclear industry which has resources of billions of dollars.
"If only we didn't have all those pesky regulations and have to worry out nuclear waste for thousands of years and could have more subsidies and free insurance then we would be much cheaper."
Nuclear power has gone from too cheap to meter to too expensive to matter and it has nobody to blame but itself.

Comment Re:Wouldn't need subsidies (Score 2) 246

For some reason, China and France are building this reactor in the UK using a new, French EPR design:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Chinese are also building this type of reactor in China so pebble bed may not be working out as well as hoped.
Of course, the EPR design has its problems. It has been built twice (France and China) and both of these have safety problems that may prevent them from getting approval to operate.

Comment Re:Wouldn't need subsidies (Score 5, Interesting) 246

It's failing on its own merits. Even with subsidies, it's too expensive and can't compete.
The UK just approved a new nuclear plant (Hinckley Point 3) which requires consumers to buy power at a price much higher than wind, solar, coal, or anything else.
It was approved in the best traditions of corrupt government... advisers to government had a financial stake in it's approval.
Also, the plant gives the Chinese access to French and UK nuclear technology and control over the plant... a win for everyone except the UK.

Slashdot Top Deals

: is not an identifier

Working...