tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post4372463830889236527..comments2024-03-27T18:46:34.971-05:00Comments on nanoscale views: Physics for EveryoneDouglas Natelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-22230711760688710012011-03-23T06:27:18.426-05:002011-03-23T06:27:18.426-05:00Yehh. That’s called Physics for everyone. I hope t...Yehh. That’s called Physics for everyone. I hope that they let the students get involved in some sort of research or internship. This is the field of work that I want to pursue upon graduating from the Cockrell School of Engineering, so I would love any opportunities to get involved!vintage braceletshttp://www.ettika.com/Bracelets/Vintage/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-2433177531572927322010-03-20T05:53:34.632-05:002010-03-20T05:53:34.632-05:00Well, that's what I get for shooting my mouth ...Well, that's what I get for shooting my mouth off without checking my facts first. I guess you get to win this one.Zachnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-54370870856039740252010-03-20T02:49:13.253-05:002010-03-20T02:49:13.253-05:00For me, and a lot of others, nuclear always seems ...For me, and a lot of others, nuclear always seems beg the question: why bother? <br /><br />Given the enormous subsidies, safety regulation, and waste planning nuclear power needs to make it competitive with fossil fuels, why not go with a pure renewable source? Wind, solar thermal and OTEC are all expected to be very cost competitive in the next few decades. If there was enough political will, the US could be off fossil fuels for the grid in a decade.<br /><br />The Sun is the ultimate fusion power sourceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-36863963266699085532010-03-19T07:16:32.404-05:002010-03-19T07:16:32.404-05:00Zach, I hate to break it to you, but the US alread...Zach, I hate to break it to you, but the US already produces considerably more nuclear power than France. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country>here</a>. The US, back in the Carter administration, made the decision that fuel reprocessing was not economically worthwhile. The problem is, their analysis did not accurately reflect the real total costs (incl. environmental) of storing the unprocessed spent fuel. This is despite the fact that the US invented much of the relevant technology. France and Japan, for example, decided to have the government subsidize reprocessing. The result is that they get much much more energy out of their fuel, and they have much less total waste which is generally much less radioactive. <br /><br />Proliferation is a concern, but nuclear power is a proven technology, can be done safely (relative to fossil fuels), and does not produce greenhouse emissions.Douglas Natelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-91692474806418329862010-03-19T05:46:40.969-05:002010-03-19T05:46:40.969-05:00we should try to lessened the nulear spread. its h...we should try to lessened the nulear spread. its harmful for all of us.Converterhttp://www.converter.pknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-87634342746669698302010-03-18T23:58:50.913-05:002010-03-18T23:58:50.913-05:00It's my understanding that there is not enough...It's my understanding that there is not enough spent nuclear fuel in the US to make reprocessing worthwhile. We'd have to have nuclear facilities on the French scale, and with all the NIMBYism and uninformed hysteria surrounding nuclear power, that's not likely to happen any time soon.Zachnoreply@blogger.com