Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Not "Baseline" generating capacity. (Score 1) 453

I've read elsewhere that on AVERAGE wind farms only output 35% of 'installed capacity' per year. So do you think it's intellectually dishonest to say 2.5-megawatt X 240 = 600 Megawatts? I mean, how often and how long will this farm actually put out 600 Megawatts? If you built a nuclear facility rated for 600 MW, i'm pretty sure it can put out 600 MW. However if a wind farm is only expected to put out 210 Megawatts on average over a year, why is it advertised as a 600 Megawatt farm?

Now, for a single HOME, I could see the benefit of having a wind turbine to provide supplemental power to help lower your energy cost/consumption, but on a large scale I don't think wind is reliable enough. It seems to me your house can have a battery bank to store wind power for off peak usage, but that doesn't seem to be the case with a wind farm.

Correct me if i'm wrong, I love the idea of cheap clean power, but it seems that wind might not be practical on a large scale and is better suited to a individual home scale?

Comment Obviously hydro-electric is too dangerous! (Score 1) 336

I don't want to appear off topic, but will Sayano-Shushenskaya be invoked as a reason not to build hydro-electric power anywhere in the world regardless of differences in design, technology, safety, regulations, or construction methods?

Because I seem to recall a rather famous Russian power plant disaster that gets dragged into every debate on another power source; regardless of it's relevance to the proposed power plants being debated...

Comment Re:Safer way into orbit. (Score 1) 424

I had figured that, but I thought my point was pretty clear. But I can clarify.

At the POINT of launch both systems are vulnerable to failure.

In Flight both systems are vulnerable to hitting another object.

However the biggest benefit to the ballistic method is after launch, if you have a launch device, the rocket may go kaboom (see many famous examples of boosters detonating after launch) where as the launch device for the 'bullet' is still on the ground and not carrying nuclear fuel.

So given that (and possible cost savings of a gun vs rockets) I think it could be a viable solution.

Now, if Uranium hit my hypothetical children, I'd have to give uranium a time out and have it sit in the corner.

Comment Safer way into orbit. (Score 2, Interesting) 424

Okay, can someone tell me if I'm full of it or if this is a good idea?

The big 'excuse' of why we don't want a reactor in space is because the rocket might blow up and it'll cause cancer..

Why not use a large 'gun' (rail/coil/whatever) to launch the fuel into orbit instead of rockets?! Unlike a rocket which may fail anytime during it's ascent, a ballistic projectile is pretty much fool proof as long as the initial launch works properly and it doesn't hit anything.

But the best part is, I'm pretty sure nuclear fuel can't be damaged by the high G forces of launch so unlike astronauts or complex instruments we don't have to worry about excessive acceleration damaging the payload.

And if you want to get really crazy, if the launcher was electrically powered by a nuclear breeder reactor, you could manufacture the fuel on site instead of having to transport it.

And for the final thought, what if you build a gun like this for EVERY reactor? But instead of putting it into orbit make it powerful enough to launch it into the sun or out of the solar system, or into Jupiter. No more worrying about how to bury used nuclear fuel....

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've got some amyls. We could either party later or, like, start his heart." -- "Cheech and Chong's Next Movie"