Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment Re:That's not even all (Score 1) 296

Sure, cover the whole Sahara and wreck the ecology there. Turning it from a desert biome into a pure waste by covering it over with solar panels.

Then there's the problem of building the infrastructure to actually export all that power (oh, did we mention concerns like national borders, etc, etc, etc)?

Pretend it's a simple equation all you like. It isn't. And never will be.

Comment Re:mdsolar (Score 1) 296

Do you know how much energy is needed to produce "nuclear diamonds?"

No. Please provide exact numbers rather than vague statements like "more than was generated during the creation of the waste".

Because then you're talking about power production in the gigawatt-to-terawatt range, since the C14 is culled from the graphite control rods.
And most control rods have a usable lifespan between 8 and 20 years, with a median age of 12.

That's an absolute FUCKTON of power. And I seriously doubt that the vapor recovery and deposition of C14 takes THAT much power on a per-diamond or even a per-batch basis.

Comment Re:That's not even all (Score 1) 296

Power density.

The largest solar PV station in the world is in China, covers almost 18 square miles and puts out 850MW.
We can build single reactors that output 1GW
The largest nuclear power plant in the world rings in at just under 8GW and covers about 1.7 square miles.
The largest operational power plant in the world rings in just north of 6GW and covers 3.5 square miles.

Comment Re:Nope (Score 1) 296

Thorium reactors will be available >> breeders with sodium ? Yeah, no danger sir. We can wipe a continent if a bigger fire brakes out. We cannot put out this fire with water, or else booom :)

OMG! You're right! Because it's not like, in case of a fire the fuel can be dumped into a dump tank away from the reaction catalyst. Because fires really love to huff and puff and go after a double-walled dump tank inside a double walled containment vessel buried in concrete!

EUREKA! How could we have been so foolish!

ZOUNDS!

Rather than simply spouting a bunch of gobbeldygook in an attempt to sound educated, do some real research.

Comment Re: solar/wind more of a risk (Score 1) 296

You mean like a wildfire at a massive solar farm. Sure, the fire may not kill anyone. But if the power that's being generated is being COUNTED on in the base load, you're going to run short, you're going to have situations where power-critical events are disrupted and people are going to die.

Also, you're still conveniently ignoring that nuclear power has still killed fewer people than ANY other form of power extant.

So, as soon as you can point out these "multitudes" you're citing, we can move forward.

Comment Re:mdsolar (Score 1) 296

"We already have safe, reliable nuclear power plants. We have them all over the world. "

Exactly, and we will have to store and guard their ashes from terrorists for 184000 years, which won't come cheap.

Which is why it's nice that there are newer reactor designs that produce less long-lived waste.
Plus, there are new techniques coming out that allow us to further use certain types of waste in ways not imagined earlier.

Google "nuclear diamonds".

Comment Re:A pity, but not a surprise (Score 4, Insightful) 95

TBH, I would much prefer that *only* verified buyers review an item.

Yeah, I admit that the joke reviews are often seriously great comedy, but honestly - verified buyers only means that potential buyers will know one way or the other if the thing is worthwhile. This is especially true when it comes to anything political, or anything sold by Twitter's Target Of The Week - hordes of frothing people with a keyboard and a bad case of butthurt (or worse, SJW fever) flood the item with bad reviews, even though they've never paid money for the thing.

Comment Re:Mobile websites & apps suck (Score 1) 102

It's not just pinch and zoom...

Tell you what - go to Newegg's mobile site sometime. It's one of the better mobile sites for buying stuff, but I still hate using it, so I don't. Besides the mobile site (most typical ones, anyway) often being very slow to load fully (even on 4G with full bars), having to scroll like crazy just to narrow the filtering options down is a raging PITA sometimes. It's a much, much faster and smoother experience on the laptop (even over Satellite Internet, FFS).

Many mobile sites are like this if the products they sell are even halfway as complex.

Sure, buying a T-shirt (choosing color, size, maybe long/short sleeve options) on the phone is drop-simple, but buying something with a lot of different options (like a laptop for instance) gets to be a bit of a rough experience, enough that I don't even bother unless I have a lot of time/battery to waste on it.

I don't blame Newegg (or similar) per se, because getting the UX right on a tiny screen is hard work as it is - it gets exponentially harder when the complexity of the purchase goes up. I do however blame the fact that a lot of this can be alleviated with a bit of cooperation by the carriers (seriously, Verizon - upgrade your shiz once in awhile and stop oversubscribing), and a bit of skull sweat on the part of the site designers.

Some ideas (aimed at no one in particular)?
* stop using so many fucking scripts/cookies/trackers/etc on the site - each one takes time to load, and mobile bandwidth often sucks. The longer it takes for the thing to load, the greater the chance your user will tell you to piss off and not make the purchase.
* clean up the interface (...more!)
* spend more than five minutes accounting for smaller screens. Not everyone has a tablet - sized phone, FFS.
 

Slashdot Top Deals

To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison

Working...