iandoh - Slashdot User

Comment Re:Nuclear is the best option. (Score 3, Informative) 584

by iandoh on Friday December 12, 2008 @07:24PM (#26097661) Attached to: Wind and Sun Beat Other Energy Alternatives

Take a closer look at this table in the paper, since it reveals a more nuanced approach toward quantifying the potential impact from terrorism. It seems that from the paper, the main reason why nuclear is pooh-poohed is because of the opportunity cost due to time-to-implementation (59â"106 lifecycle CO2e emission per kWh of electricity generated). Relatively speaking, the impact from a potential terrorism activity is quite low (0 to 4.1 lifecycle CO2e emission per kWh of electricity generated). The 0-4.1 is based on a probability of 0% to 100% of a single terrorist attack within the next 30 years. Later in the paper, they estimate that "the overall time between planning and operation of a nuclear power plant ranges from 10â"19 yr". Based on how long the government takes to do relatively simple things (highway expansions, etc.), I wouldn't be surprised if it took a looong time to get more nuclear power online.

Submission + - Wind and sun beat other energy alternatives (stanford.edu) 1

Submitted by iandoh on Wednesday December 10, 2008 @09:47PM

iandoh writes: Researchers at Stanford University have completed the first quantitative, scientific comparison of alternative energy solutions by assessing not only their potential for delivering energy for electricity and vehicles, but also their impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, water supply, space requirements, wildlife, water pollution, reliability and sustainability. Based on their model, they found that the best sources of alternative energy are wind, concentrated solar, and geothermal energy. The worst are nuclear, clean coal, and ethanol-based fuels.

Submission + - Voters swayed by candidates who share their looks (stanford.edu)

Submitted by iandoh on Wednesday October 22, 2008 @01:39PM

iandoh writes: Stanford researchers have found that voters are subconsciously swayed by candidates who share their facial features. In three experiments, researchers at the Virtual Human Interaction Lab worked with cheap, easy-to-use computer software to morph pictures of about 600 test subjects with photos of politicians. And they kept coming up with the same results: For the would-be voters who weren't very familiar with the candidates or in perfect lockstep with their positions or political parties, the facial similarity was enough to clinch their votes.

Submission + - Carbon nanotubes can treat cancer, are safe to eat (stanford.edu)

Submitted by iandoh on Wednesday January 30, 2008 @09:34PM

iandoh writes: A team of scientists at Stanford University has tracked the movement of carbon nanotubes through the digestive system of mice. They've determined that the nanotubes are expelled and do not exhibit any toxicity in the mice. As a result, the study paves the way toward future applications of nanotubes in the treatment of cancer and tumor. Previous research by the same team demonstrated that nanotubes can be used in cancer treatments. Nanotubes can be used to destroy cancer cells in two ways. One method involves shining light on the nanotubes, which activates the nanotubes and generates heat to destroy cancer cells. Another method involves attaching medicine to the nanotubes, which are able to accurately "find" cancerous cells without impacting healthy cells.

Submission + - 2.5 mile borehole drilled into San Andreas Fault (stanford.edu)

Submitted by

iandoh

on Thursday October 04, 2007 @05:46PM

iandoh writes: "Cool research: Geologists at Stanford University and the US Geological Survey have drilled a 2.5 mile deep borehole into the San Andreas fault. They've extracted over one ton of rock from 2 miles down, and they'll be installing sensors down the length of the borehole. Via Stanford University News Service"

Slashdot Top Deals