Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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 The problem is that it's so very plausible (Score 1) 132

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:It's just too expensive (Score 1) 183

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 1) 183

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) 183

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 1) 183

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) 183

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) 183

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 1) 183

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Philosophy: A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing. -- Ambrose Bierce