Profile for *i
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | *i |
| Member number | 6 |
| Title | The Establishment |
| Postcount | 3726 |
| Homepage | |
| Registered | Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| Question 2: Imbalance of Wealth in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 17:02
Profile
Good dicussion. How about another related one: Why should we solve poverty if we could? -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Question 1: Energy in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 16:56
Profile
Nuclear cleanup: Be careful when quantifying the costs of cleanup to exclude nuclear weapons and military nuclear applications. This legacy is a horrible one and is an example of severe neglect in the name of producing as much as possible to feed the "demand" for weapons. I fully admit, the conduct here was unacceptable. However, in making arguments for civilian reactors, one has to compare apples to apples. It is true the two were conjoined in the early days, but since then (at least in the US) the two have been separated for a long time. One has a legacy of severe mismanagement and the other has a fairly good track record -- the commercial side being the latter because of the higher accountability. Government Regulation: As for the FEMA to NRC comparison, I'm afraid that is a not a valid comparison. FEMA is an agency with a lot of problems, not to say the NRC is perfect. However, the US NRC is a lot more strict and effective than most other regulatory agencies. Also, keep in mind FEMA is a purely reactive agency whereas the NRC is dominantly a proactive one. If you have any specific concerns about the NRC or anything in their jurisdiction, you may easily contact them and they, by law, must address them. FEMA and other agencies have no such accountability requirements. Spent Fuel: As for the waste issue, you did not state the exact concerns you had, you only offered a blanket statement to which I responded with a blanket statement -- a conclusion that many respectable scientists share after doing a lot of the analysis themselves. Please give more specific examples and we can discuss those. Yes, there are concerns, I agree. However, I do feel from the analysis I see that many of the concerns that have been voiced have either been addressed or are being addressed. In other words, I see no major technical barriers (not that there aren't problems to solve) that would prevent safe spent fuel disposal. Now you don't have to take the experts' words for it. However, remember your doctor is an expert too with vested interests. :P Radiation Dose: You missed the perhaps too subtle point I was trying to make: the radiation from man made sources is no different than natural ones. There are areas in the world with significantly elevated natural background that are not "forbidden or contaminated zones". The fact is the two get treated differently, even through from a health perspective they are identical. Also, I never said that contamination from Chernobyl was a "political problem" as you quickly claim out of context. I said controlled waste disposal -- there is a huge difference. The uncontrolled, abrupt, and massive radioactive release from Chernobyl is a real environmental and ecological problem. As I stated, there were so many things we could have done to prevent it. As far as the argument that any dose is harmful, that one stems from very conservative assumptions of how radiation dose and and biological harm interplay. There is much debate to the assertion that any dose is harmful, so honestly, I don't know your statement is true on that -- no one does for sure. It's a simple and convenient way to assess consequences conservatively. The point of agreement is that the effect from slightly elevated doses is that they are very small. Solar Power As for the solar power, I read the article curious to see what it was about. Unfortunately, they gave no estimates of the cost of electricity despite claims that it will be "beneficial". Traditionally, solar thermal technologies have been quite expensive in the US therefore I am very skeptical; they don't have a proven track record and nor do they give any figures that could be independently checked or verified. Not to say that it cannot work, I just would like some hard numbers. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of solar and wind, but virtually every expert I talk to (of whom I see virtually every day) says the same thing: solar and wind are not going to be able to provide large quantities of baseload power anytime soon barring some major breakthrough. [ Monday, May 01, 2006 17:01: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Question 2: Imbalance of Wealth in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, April 30 2006 20:34
Profile
quote:VCH -- I feel I have addressed the matter that there is a requirement for the individual to help the collective, it's a requirement of the society we developed. My point was that individualistic thinking is unsustainable. The duty of the individual is not merely to survive, but ensure the survival of society. I intentionally left the question open as to whether or not this would extend the entire planet. [ Sunday, April 30, 2006 20:39: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Question 2: Imbalance of Wealth in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, April 30 2006 19:09
Profile
quote:Biologically, probably not. Ethically, no. Be that the human is a social species and dependent upon society -- we developed it to our benefit -- one could extrapolate that every individual has a duty to society. This sense of responsibility outside oneself is not necessarily a moral thing, but a necessity for the survival of the species at large. Would everyone only have the only obligation to live and die, society would cease to exist. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Question 2: Imbalance of Wealth in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, April 30 2006 12:23
Profile
Yeah, the game is being rapidly changed. It used to be that there was no way to get through more than twenty turns or so. Right now it's on the other extreme apparently. It's being refined. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| A Few More Advance Words On Geneforge 4 in Geneforge Series | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, April 30 2006 11:57
Profile
Very good news indeed, I must say that I am impressed with what I'm hearing. Having groups of combat (call it event based combat) rather than the traditional hack-fests are really nice. I enjoy it when combat makes me think. Good to see new creations and character classes, keeps the game fresh. I'm enthusiastic with what I see because things were feeling like the same game over and over again. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Question 2: Imbalance of Wealth in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, April 30 2006 09:10
Profile
I found this little distraction that is quasi-related: 3rd World Farmer -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Another 3-D Editor Thread in Blades of Avernum Editor | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, April 30 2006 08:40
Profile
This is the first I've heard of it. Try uninstalling and redownloading and see what happens. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Another 3-D Editor Thread in Blades of Avernum | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, April 30 2006 08:40
Profile
This is the first I've heard of it. Try uninstalling and redownloading and see what happens. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Question 1: Energy in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, April 30 2006 07:48
Profile
quote:In the US with nuclear, actually the government does. This is a major role of the NRC, to calculate these risks and ensure they are below a threshold -- before and during plant operation. In fact, if the risk of an accident goes above a certain threshold, the plant is shut down. Other industries do not have this, nuclear is unique in that respect. quote:I'm sorry you do not see this, but I do every time new reactors are talked about, at least in the US and western Europe. The focus of newer designs is safety above all else. One of the key starting points of the designing a modern reactor is to ensure a high level of safety. First of all, designs have been standardized such that there will be no unique (except where safety necessitates) plants of a series. This repeatability reduces overall risk of the fleet. Building is similar as parts and components are frequently analyzed during construction to reduce risk that something could go wrong. Is it perfect? No, because no human enterprise will be. However, the multiple layers of protection are designed that even in the worst case scenario, no release will be done into the environment. This tries to go toward your point of the small component failing. The standards are so much higher since TMI in the US and western Europe. Chernobyl would not have satisfed even pre-TMI requirements. Not to say the situation is rosy, Davis-Bessie is a bad example, but one that was caught in time and is being fixed. Fortunately, our best analysis says that even had things went wrong, there would have been no unplanned release. quote:The point is that the risk from nuclear reactor is minimal compared to these other things that we inflict upon ourselves or we do not and are more familiar with. In fact, if you asked polled 100 people, I bet they would drastically underestimate their risk from driving and drastically overestimate their risk from a nuclear accident (many studies have shown this). So what about the morbid thrill? If the risk is hardly a blip compared to other things why should it matter? quote:In the US at least, the risks have been relayed, largely by the media as is their job to do. Unfortunately, they have been dramatically overstated such that most people think the risks are a lot higher than they are. Not sure how it is where you are, but the public has been quite informed here. quote:Not related to risk informed basis or this argument. First of all, it's not a US-Iran conflict, but a "the industrial world"-Iran conflict. If Iran severed all ties with terrorist organizations and stopped pushing for Israel to be "wiped off the map", then I think the rest of the world would have no problem with them developing nuclear technology. The problem is that they continue to develop enrichment technology secretly. If they were more transparent, things would be different. Also, Russia has agreed to give them whatever they need in terms of enriched material, but they have refused. Taken in context with everything else and from gathered intelligence, one is left to conclude their motives are for military and not for civilian purposes. quote:Yes, there is radiation everywhere naturally -- always has been and always will be. I could double my exposure if I go up and live in Denver or eat four bananas a week and yet there is no increase in adverse health effects. Heck, even if I increased it by 20 times, there would be no increase. quote:Longer time scale, how so? Petrolium products and a lot of other chemicals have an almost infinite life once they contaminate things. At least radioactivity decreases over time. I think you have my point backwards, an oil tanker spill or nuclear accident people see the risk and overestimate it. Chronic exposure to emissions from car exhaust is an accurred risk that is much higher that people do not see it. The chronic exposure from radiation from an operating nuclear reactor is very, very low and an insignifcant risk. The point is people underestimate these risks, but overestimate large events such as a nuclear accident -- the only way a reactor could harm you. quote:US reactors are licensed for 40 years and most will be expanded to 60 years. As for the waste, most likely a few hundred years. This assumes we are smart about it and extract out the actinides (which we burn as fuel) that cause the tens of thousands of years. My response is what about chemical waste you may throw down the drain. How do you plan on sequestering it and how long do you plan on storing it? That kind of stuff is toxic forever. It's just chemical sluge is held to a paradoxical lower standard even though it can be quite toxic. quote:I think an equal standard for all industries would be fair, except that you'd have to shut most of them down if you applied ones as rigorous as nuclear plants. * Risk of proliferation in the US and developed countries is minimal...they already have weapons stockpiles and the capability to make more. * Using low enriched uranium for weapons is impossible -- the effort to enrich to weapons grade is about the same as with natural uranium. * Extracting plutonium for bombs out of spent fuel is a very difficult task and is more difficult than just enriching natural uranium. * Dirty bombs are less of a health threat than a means of inflicting fear. * Waste disposal is more a political problem than a technical one. We have the technology to do it, it's getting past the political hurdles that makes things difficult. * Nuclear plants are some of the most difficult targets to strike. Modern ones would be even more difficult. Many studies have shown this to be a minimal risk compared to other far more vulnerable and deadly targets. You have not shown why a decentralized energy grid would be superior. We need baseload power in large quantities, period. Solar and wind, although very good and should be expanded where feasible, cannot do this with current technologies, at least not economically so. It comes down to a choice: coal, natural gas, or nuclear. quote:It should be, and largely is in terms of exposure of effluents to the public in normal and severe accident conditions. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Strength and wheels that controll gates. in Avernum 4 | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, April 30 2006 06:44
Profile
For instance, the ones in Almaria cannot be opened no matter how strong you are. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Question 2: Imbalance of Wealth in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Saturday, April 29 2006 19:27
Profile
Fortunately, the latest data shows the rate of change of the growth rate is decreasing. This means population appears to be stabilizing. Hopefully, these trends continue or else we will be in for massive problems. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Question 2: Imbalance of Wealth in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Saturday, April 29 2006 18:51
Profile
Cairo Jim -- No need to be snotty, it's past 5 pm by my clock. :P At any rate, calm down or action may need to be taken regarding your membership privledges. On topic: Unfortunately, corruption is rampant and oversight is very difficult. The tsnumani repair efforts are significantly by unscrupulous contractors overcharging and pocketing excesses. The Iraq situation has been less than honest. Heck, the US government is even ripped off in the New Orleans area reconstruction project. Corruption is a massive problem, more so than one might think. The problems we're trying to solve are so massive that it's difficult to keep track of every single dollar. If a contractor chronically over charges for fuel by skimming small amounts off the top, it's very difficult to track because it could even be insiders in the programs themselves. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| April Chat Times in Blades of Avernum | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Saturday, April 29 2006 10:55
Profile
Everyone just suddenly left. :( -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Question 2: Imbalance of Wealth in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Friday, April 28 2006 20:06
Profile
Thuryl -- Perhaps, but I think you are being too absolutist. I could reach this about any issue and say, "if you don't spend every waking hour combating [insert social problem here] then you have no right to complain about what others should do". Why is poverty different from any other major issue such as crime, drugs, environment, war, etc? Are we part of the problem? Probably, although the issue is more complicated than just individuals. However, does that revoke our right to ponder solutions, of course not! Ideas have to start somewhere, and the unrealistic solution of everyone giving away all their things lest they dare not ponder the problem does not really help. [ Friday, April 28, 2006 20:07: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Question 2: Imbalance of Wealth in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Friday, April 28 2006 19:23
Profile
2) How can we address the imbalance of wealth throughout the world? Should we? Good work on the last question. This one is a bit more difficult and controversial, but let's see if we can provide some ideas. Go! :P -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Behold the Power of Doors in Avernum 4 | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Friday, April 28 2006 15:59
Profile
Monsters have gotten dumber since the good old days of Exile. At any rate, you could always not take advantage of doors for more of a challenge. :P -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Question 1: Energy in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Friday, April 28 2006 07:51
Profile
quote:Your logic does not make any sense: 1) First of all, it's spelled Chernobyl in English, not Tschernobyl. Secondly, no Chernobyl like plants are built today. The design flaws with Chernobyl were well documented before the incident. In order to make your point valid, you need to link it to modern reactors that would be built today. 2) I argue just the opposite for the risk perceived from nuclear power after Chernobyl. Anything with nuclear in it is typically held to a much higher standard than things equally far more deadly: car crashes, smoking, chemical plants, fossil fuel emissions, etc. It's just that radiation is something we are not as familiar with. Also, the human perception of risk is more dramatic event based than on accurred risk over time. I find it ironic that an industrial accident in India killed tens of thousands of people and devastated the area, yet no one remembers or really knows about it despite the fact that many more people died than in Chernobyl and that the chance of a repeat incident is far higher. 3) Your point about ethics makes no sense. You point to a highly unethical incident to something totally unrelated and somehow try to say it is inherent in nuclear reactors. This is probably one of the most non-sequitor arguments I've seen in a while. Care to establish that link better? 4) Your closing statement is meaningless rhetoric. I agree there are risks and benefits, but this is true with everything. I could have said this about driving as well and been just as accurate. How is it any different? -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Question 1: Energy in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Friday, April 28 2006 04:34
Profile
The origins of the idea can be traced back to the 1960s and 1970s. Unfortunately, sheer economics limit the practicality of the idea. Launch costs would need to come down by at least a factor of 10 for this to be feasible. Perhaps if we get a space elevator, but not a current solution to our current problems. Also, as far as the diaphram idea, I suggest you do an actual energy analysis for said idea. In order to drive a piston you need to set up a pressure differential, how do you propose to do this? quote:Unfortunately, the best I can do for you is say that likely we don't know. The energy balance depends highly on the method we use to extract it. If we can develop a method that largely uses evaporation from sunlight, then yeah, chances are it would be positive. The only people who have really looked into it is Japan, and their efforts have been minimal. The reasons are understandable as the problem is one that would have to be solved far into the future (in many centuries or millennia), or possibly never (if fusion could be economical). [ Friday, April 28, 2006 04:49: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Question 1: Energy in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Thursday, April 27 2006 14:19
Profile
Well, he has a valid argument about the energy utilization once he drew the distinction from cost versus energy benefit. However, I do think he still only factors in the "proven" reserves which are things we have directly measured. For instance, Tantalum had about a ten year reserve according to a 1990 graph I saw. We have not run out of Tantalum and the price has not increased due of scarcity. The point is we found more. There's plenty of Tantalum, it's just that we have to continually find it because we care to look. I suspect uranium will be similar. As for the energy required to process, that's a legitimate concern. However, from what I can tell we are far from reaching that limit in the foreseeable future (> 100 years) even with an agressive expansion program. Of course we will need to adopt breeder reactor technology eventually if we wish to continue with fission, but that will significantly allow us to recycle the uranium already processed. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Question 1: Energy in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Thursday, April 27 2006 12:41
Profile
Your source drastically underestimates the amount that fast reactor technologies could extract. Currently about 2-3% of the energy available is used. A closed fuel cycle would, from estimates I have seen, increase it by several factors of 10. Of course, we must expend additional energy resources to reprocess, but the amount is not all that much comparatively. You will come out ahead if you do that otherwise there would be no point. As for ore grades, energy for extraction depends on the technology. New methods are being developed all the time for extracting and enriching uranium more efficiently. The 1975 cutoff likely assumed once-through fuel cycles, gaseous diffusion methods of enrichment, crude fabrication, and speculative disposal costs. I'd be curious to see this analysis done with today's technologies. The far more efficient centrifuges alone changes the net energy picture drastically. Better efficiency in even mundane processes can increase the lower grade of ore. The other big thing that is not addressed is the thorium breeding technology. Thorium is even more abundant than uranium and can be converted to a nuclear fuel under thermal neutron conditions. If all else fails, we have this resource. The study also assumes we replace a large fraction of the fossil fuels with today's nuclear fission technology. No one has suggested we do that, in fact we shouldn't for a variety of reasons. Nonetheless, fission is likely secure for the next few centuries even with wide growth. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Question 1: Energy in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Thursday, April 27 2006 08:04
Profile
I agree. The reason for the shortage in the short term is because there is a sharp increase in demand that outpaces supply. In other words, we cannot bring enough mines online fast enough to fill the demand increases. This is a short term issue, and I agree it is important, but as far as the long term availability, there is no issue. Eventually the mining capability catches up, and things will be fine. You had, however, put up an argument that there is only about a half-century left of uranium that we can extract. This is totally incorrect. There is plenty and as demand increases, the supply can continue to increase almost indefinitely. It's just that sharp increases in demand can cause temporary shortages. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Question 1: Energy in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Thursday, April 27 2006 07:28
Profile
quote:No you didn't. Economics is the primary factor in the case of uranium as it is for many materials. We have the technology to extract lower grade ores, we just don't because it does not make sense to do so today. The point is that the reserve is artificially low because of many factors. We have lots of high grade ore in Canada. Because of this, other veins of uranium that we used to mine are no longer part of the reserve because there is no economic reason to go there. Compound this with warhead decomissioning which offers essentially a "free" supply of abundant nuclear fuel. This especially makes mining of lower grade ores (again, we used to mine them just fine) even less attractive to mine. I'll use a simple analogy of clamshells. Let's suppose that clamshells are a valuable resource and there are 500 million clamshells in the ocean and we use 1 million clamshells per year meaning a 500 year supply of the resource. Getting clamshells from the ocean is a fairly expensive task. We could under current economics recover 100 million of them. This sets our reserve at 100 years. Now suppose a tsunami occurs that washes up 30 million clamshells onto the shore. Suddenly, we have a free 30 year supply of clamshells that we did not have access to before. There is no economic reason to go to the oceans anymore, so our reserves have decreased to 30 years even though we have not suddenly consumed 70 million clamshells. 25 years later, going to the ocean suddenly looks more attractive as the free supply is running out. Suddenly, the reserves increase from 5 years to much higher because the supply in the oceans is now economic. This oversimplified example is pretty much true for uranium. As current reserves run dry, we explore to expand the reserves. As exploration efforts have been minimal to date, geologists believe this can be expanded quite readily. At the same time, lower grade ores become attractive again (the slight penalty in cost is still competitive) so the reserve would increase from 50 years to let's say 200 years. Lower and lower grade ores (which are exponentially bigger) will continue to be extracted until we run into economic or technological limits. It's going to be the former that stops us, not the latter. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| The Afterlife in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Wednesday, April 26 2006 17:09
Profile
You are probably right, Imban, but our understanding of physics tends to break down near singularities. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
| Question 1: Energy in General | |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Wednesday, April 26 2006 17:06
Profile
quote:We could, but there is no reason why we should. One is that I would have safety concerns. Granted, we've launched nuclear material into space before (primarily Pu238), fission products tend to be a different story. The other issue is that it would be a waste of a valuable resource. Spent fuel retains about 97% of its energy content. Although not economical to recover now -- uranium is so cheap -- it is a potent energy source for future generations that would be a pity to waste. The truth about Yucca Mountain is that the spent fuel is not going to be in there for 10,000+ years. It's too valuable to not be mined. We will still need a repository to store the fission products, but those are only a threat for a few 100 years, something we can manage. The long lived plutonium and actinides are rich in energy. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |