Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re:Cheap? (Score 1) 291

Government policy. Seriously, that's the reason. In fact, we've built one (EBR-II in Idaho) and it worked great for 30 years. Then we shut it down.

France reprocesses its high-level waste without any issue. As a result, they have vastly less waste to store and what's left to store is mostly low-energy garbage that doesn't present a significant threat.

Comment Re: Budget and Timelines (Score 1) 291

Any reactor with a negative void coefficient is safe, barring a major compromise from the outside (such as an earthquake and tsunami). And Fukushima's problem wasn't that the reactor was old or unsafe, it's that a known design flaw published by the manufacturer decades ago wasn't corrected at that particular plant per manufacturer guidelines. They simply decided it wasn't worth the cost and their regulatory agency allowed them to run with it.

And even with all that - a decades old design with a decades old known flaw left uncorrected, an earthquake, a tsunami, incompetence bordering on negligence on the part of the operator and the regulator - how many deaths as a result? There's a reason why nuclear ranks far better in safety for human life than all other types of electrical power generation (yes, including wind and solar).

Comment Re:6.8 Billion (Score 5, Informative) 291

Someone on Reddit already ran these numbers. For the money spent on this nuclear plant after it was stopped/restarted/held up by red tape/hit by NIMBY BS/etc, you could build enough solar to power 274,000 homes; a fraction of what the nuclear option provided. You also have to consider how much area that much solar or wind would cover and the impacts to the local environment and wildlife. Finally, there's the death toll. Both solar and wind power - per kWH generated - cause more human deaths than nuclear power. And I don't believe any of this considers actual power generation vs nameplate generation. That solar plant is going to generate roughly 30% of what it's slated peak output suggests due to weather, night time, etc. In the US, we run our nuclear power plants at about ~93% with the remaining time lost to maintenance, refueling, etc.

In other words, your "renewables" cost several times as much even with all the red tape thrown in nuclear's path, they generate far less power, they kill more humans, have a much greater environmental impact, and basically just fucking suck in every comparison. When we're talking about solar, the panel construction requires all kinds of horrifically toxic stuff to be put together. Both wind and solar require huge amounts of batteries; also a toxic mess. Reprocessing nuclear fuel cuts the waste down to almost nothing. A family of four that has their entire lives powered from birth to death by nuclear will be responsible for nuclear waste that fits in a Coke can. And once you're reusing the high-energy waste products, almost everything that's left is so low-energy it poses no significant risk.

Comment Re:6.8 Billion (Score 1) 291

Solar thermal, and offshore wind cost more that nuclear, while PV solar and onshore wind power cost a little less. You can pay about half the cost of nuclear for onshore wind, but I think you're going to need way more real estate (yes, even considering the nuclear exclusion zone) to meet the same KW generation. And you still won't have base load; you're going to need to use batteries, flywheels, water pumps, or some other method of storage if you don't want to waste excess generation.

Comment Re:"Sweeping Outage"??? (Score 2) 222

Congratulations for earning the "Eurotrash idiot of the thread" award. I didn't think a technical story like this could get the award, but you nailed it. Maybe you need to stop reading US websites. Read European technology websites, like, uh, I'm not really sure, but I'm sure they're there and a thousand times better than Slashdot.

Comment Re:Ignores the issue (Score 0) 108

I was surprised by Hillary getting full questions from CNN and topics from Fox before debates. I mean, I should know it's all just a sham. The media, the government, and the DNC are just a puppet show. Lies, brainwashing and propaganda. And democrats are totally fine with this because go blue team go.

Comment Re:Good! (Score 1) 291

Populism? What does this have to do with Donald Trump? The Fukushima disaster permanently ruined the name of nuclear power. I see we are unfamiliar with left-wing and environmentalist causes. The entire issue is dead as a doornail. Nuclear = bye-bye. You don't believe me, go ask them yourselves (and bring a flameproof coat, these people get REALLY angry about the issue).

Comment Re:Minefield (Score 2) 538

It's weird. I remember when a sitting president was sued for sexual assault, and at the time Democrats didn't seem to find the allegations credible. Nor the rape allegations. Well, I'm sure they had their reasons beyond just, you know, rank hypocrisy.

If Democrats didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all. :-P

Comment Re:Minefield (Score 1) 538

Has it now gotten to the point where I am more likely to be lynched for being like Hugh Hefner than Bruce Jenner?

The way they're going, you're more likely to be lynched for continuing to refer to Bruce Jenner by the name his parents gave him at birth.

Of course, the bastards will then come after me for this post because IDGAF about Bruce's delusions...or theirs.

Comment Re:Minefield (Score 1) 538

But with all that Trump has said or promoted, I've not seen yet where he came out to promote the agenda that is against equality in matters of gender and race.

You haven't seen him say it because he hasn't said it. The extreme-left noise machine has thrown out all of these...um...trumped-up charges, and their stenographers in the "mainstream" media have reliably parroted it far and wide.

Slashdot Top Deals

Yes, we will be going to OSI, Mars, and Pluto, but not necessarily in that order. -- Jeffrey Honig