Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Side effect of the Fake news in MSM (Score 1) 265

Government is way too incompetent to pull any of these crazy scenarios off....

Especially while keeping it quiet.

Look at the big government scandals of the last few decades, how many people were involved and how they were outed. Then line them up against common conspiracy theories and look at how many people would have to have been involved in them and how perfectly they would have to be executed and how many people would have to be kept quiet. Any rational analysis will quickly conclude that a government that couldn't keep a blow job in the oval office secret, or a hotel room wiretap, or low-key, small-scale sale of arms to Iraq, or prisoner abuse in a prison on the other side of the world, could never manage what the conspiracy theorists claim.

And, actually, this isn't even evidence of incompetence. Keeping secrets is really hard, and it's darned near impossible when the secrets carry moral baggage that encourages disclosure. Someone eventually outs it. Attempts to bully or eliminate possible leakers to keep them quiet just generates even more secrets with even more moral baggage. In North Korea, Kim Jong Il can probably suppress information he wants suppressed. Most of the time. In the US? No way.

Comment Re:It was bound to happen (Score 1) 212

Ah, now the moving goalposts.

Logical fallacies, how do they work?!!? Not like you imagine. My standard has long been that if a reactor can't scram without external power, it is garbage. If you can't handle that different members of the Slashdot community may have differing standards, perhaps Slashdot is not for you.

And who the fuck are YOU to declare such a reactor is "unsafe"?

Someone who is paying attention. Why don't you pull your head out of the warm, dark place you've been hiding it, and take a look around?

Comment The problem is that it's so very plausible (Score 1) 265

Our beloved government joins the ranks of... well, most of them really, in having engaged in false flag operations. Given that the government is run by a bunch of unscrupulous fucks to whom things like responsibility and honesty are merely aspects of mythology, how do you expect this kind of bullshit not to go around?

Comment Re:"Green" technologies aren't sufficient. (Score 1) 212

The nuclear field's safety record is stellar, at least in the USA, so honestly that's a non-issue, but clean and safe nuclear power has never been cost effective. The controls required to meet current American safety standards are prohibitively expensive

And it was stellar before the regulations were ratcheted up, causing the cost to quadruple.

The reason that nuclear is prohibitively expensive is that we've pushed the safety standards far, far beyond what any rational analysis would require. We could reduce them dramatically and still have the safest power generation technology mankind has ever produced.

In a nutshell, I gave up on nuclear power after investing a decade of my life in it because it's a solution in search of a problem.

Nonsense. There's a very clear problem: clean, safe, cheap, large-scale power generation. Regulations have killed the "cheap" part, in order to add a few more nines to an already-outstanding safety record. Worse, they've so badly damaged the industry that newer designs that are inherently cheaper and safer can't even get off the ground because everyone is afraid to invest in them because of what the NRC might think of to hamstring those as well.

Luckily, it looks like renewables are progressing and might someday be able to replace fossil fuels with clean energy. It'll take a lot longer and be a lot more expensive than nuclear, though. Our insane nuclear power regulations are going to make global warming significantly worse and the economic impact of managing it much greater.

Comment Re:It's just too expensive (Score 1) 212

Also... the exclusion zone is better for wildlife than "normal" forest preserves where humans can still enter.

Citation needed. Compare it to, say, Yellowstone. Nobody is trying to reintroduce endangered or threatened species to the exclusion zone. Places where humans enter and even tamper can be superior to the results of nature, if that is our goal. Typically people are there to loot and pillage, but sometimes we attempt to curate with varying degrees of success.

Comment Re:It's just too expensive (Score 2) 212

I put solar high on the "good" list, probably followed by wind, but they will both start to lose their appeal as they scale up - I don't think to a point as bad as coal was in the 1960s, but they will not look as attractive as they do now while they're new and cool.

You have it backwards. They become more attractive as you install more. But again, you need more storage to smooth out the inevitable dips, and you need a more robust grid so that we can [effectively] ship power across the country, to places which need it most. Our lack of commitment to infrastructure should be immediately worrying to anyone with any experience maintaining any. That should include, for example, all IT professionals, which are (or at least were) a significant percentage of the Slashdot readership.

Comment Re:Shoudl be a warning to people working on fusion (Score 1) 212

Its difficult to imagine a fusion plant being less expensive to build or operate than a fission plant. Even if we can figure out how to get net energy gain from fusion it may never make economic sense.

When you take into account the difference in decommissioning costs, you win. Unless your plan is to continue to push those costs off onto The People.

Comment Re:It was bound to happen (Score 2) 212

And, had TEPCO (not Westinghouse) followed their site engineers' directions and built a better sea wall, NOTHING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

Yes, or if they had placed the backup generators on pylons. Or if they had observed the ages-old stone marker that said "don't build anything below this point because it can flood", that would also have done the trick.

However, any reactor design which requires external power to scram is inherently unsafe and should be decommissioned immediately, because unforeseen events occur, and develop into unforeseen consequences.

Comment Re:It's just too expensive (Score 2, Insightful) 212

Natural gas is abnormally low at the moment as it appears to me.

Natural gas' low, low price is the result of fracking. It's abominably low.

The real trouble is the price of nuclear is entirely up front, one massive lump sum and more than a decade to build (largely due to litigation). After that, the fuel is just this side of free considering the power you can produce from it,

That is only because the industry is allowed to push thousands of years of externalities (from mine tailings) off onto everyone else on the planet.

even factoring in decommissioning fund set asides.

The decommissioning always costs more than it is supposed to. And you also don't get to crow about the total cost until the waste is either reprocessed or safely interred.

Renewable are hitting nuclear pretty hard too. Not because they make sense based on cost,

If you account for externalities, which anyone who likes breathing should care about, they make a hell of a lot more sense based on cost.

Basically the government is funding renewable build-out on the backs of the utility companies,

The ones that have been willfully poisoning us? You shouldn't have skipped Erin Brockovich. It wasn't a great movie, but it does ram the point home.

Solar isn't doing much good that time of year, and wind turbines don't turn in a vortex calm.

The answer is more storage and a more robust grid that actually permits shipping power around the country as needed. Our infrastructure is pathetic.

Comment Re:It's just too expensive (Score 1) 212

Kill birds, dam rivers, gobble up real-estate and cover it with semi-toxic panels for solar, spew sulfur and mercury into the air, all forms of electricity production have their prices.

But only coal and nuclear are based on strip mining, and leave toxic tailings behind in every case even though the industry claims it has learned to take care of all that. Coal and oil each kill more birds than solar, and we now make bigger, slower wind turbines that kill less birds. Solar panels are now required not to leach their contents when landfilled and even you have had to drop your rhetoric from saying "toxic" to "semi-toxic". Maybe you should try actually dropping your rhetoric from toxic to semi-toxic, if you care so much about pollution. You're spreading a lot of it around.

Comment Re:It's just too expensive (Score 2) 212

On the plus side, everyone learned a lot from Chernobyl. Including that the "radioactive wasteland" that a meltdown was supposed to produce was an imaginary problem...

Yeah, instead it produces a radioactive exclusion zone, where even on its fringes only old people can live without substantially increasing their cancer risk. And cancer rates already doubled during the industrial revolution, without the lifespan increasing sufficiently to account for the difference. And we learned fuck-all.

Comment Re:This is why I'll never use Verizon or Sprint (Score 1) 110

I predict that within two years unlocked bootloaders will be a thing of the past, simply because providers will check on bootloader status and deny access to any phone that hasn't drunk their Kool-Aid.

I predict that is a lot of bollocks. We're ostensibly getting the right to repair cellphones for three years. It's going to be at least three. :)

Seriously though, some manufacturers will keep selling phones with unlocked bootloaders as long as we nerds keep telling people not to buy phones with locked bootloaders. So GET THE WORD OUT.

Slashdot Top Deals

You have a massage (from the Swedish prime minister).