magicbastarder wrote: » i'm not going to try to look for it now, but i read an article a few years ago about an alternative to the standard reactor design, which is far safer, cannot melt down, and produces far less waste. the reason the standard reactor design (according to the article) became standardised is that reactors were originally designed to create material for nukes, rather than to generate power. but it's the design that is known, and no-one has poured much money into standardising the alternative.
ThisRegard wrote: » Oh man, I'm disgusted, I never knew about the Haleakala downhill bike ride when I was there.
From their perspective, the best news is anything that supports a narrative of danger and decline. Success stories – unless Trump can claim direct personal credit for them – are bad news and, in this inverted logic, best buried. Consider, for example, the greatest current success story of job creation in the US. There is an indigenous industry that is growing at a phenomenal pace, making American jobs for American workers. This industry increased its workforce by an amazing 25 per cent in 2016 alone. It is called solar power, and its growth is part of an even bigger good news story. Recent official figures show 374,000 people working for solar firms, a 32 per cent rise in jobs in wind power in 2016 alone, and 2.2 million people now employed in manufacturing or installing energy-efficient products, an increase of 133,000 last year. These jobs are being created, of course, in response to the climate change that Trump calls a hoax. So they are bad news.
Sarz91 wrote: » Thorium reactors?
magicbastarder wrote: » that does sound like what i read about.
Sarz91 wrote: » Thorium isn't some new thing held back by conspiracy.
magicbastarder wrote: » as mentioned, the article i read didn't suggest conspiracy, more a 'no-one wants to be the first to build a production one because it's relatively untested' sort of reasoning given.
CramCycle wrote: » We have solar panels, the difference in price to when my uncle got them a few years ago is shocking. The cost saving is incredible, pays for itself in 5 years for a typical family I imagine. I do wonder do I use more electricity though because of it.
Sarz91 wrote: » You can get some pretty decent 285 watt panels lately for next to nothing. 4 panels for about €1k. You'll see more and more used over the next few years on new builds as we try and implement the proposed NZEB (Near zero energy buildings) regulations for 2020.
Weepsie wrote: » I'd also be thinking water butts should be standard to collect water for waste purposes but alas it shan't be
magicbastarder wrote: » i vaguely remember hearing that the average amount of water which falls on the roof of your house is 20 times your consumption (with the obvious caveat that you can't use it for actual human consumption).
Lumen wrote: » You could probably use the water to wash the humans before consumption.
Sarz91 wrote: » Anyone have any idea when the rider rankings will be available to view again on the CI website?
buffalo wrote: » Have you asked CI? Or reported the error? I haven't heard back from them yet.
Sarz91 wrote: » No I thought I'd ask here in case someone knew something about it. Thought it might be a case of updating the system but it's been down for a while now. Between that and the calendar only coming up a few weeks back it seems pretty disorganised.
tomasrojo wrote: » When I can afford it, I'll get solar panels. Nice south-facing roof waiting for them. No idea when I'll have the money though.
Lumen wrote: » I'm thinking of replacing my roof and using solar tiles. They look amazing.
buffalo wrote: » I like your house. Where is it?
