text:
Home› Topics› Science, Health & Environment› Climate Change, Sustainability & Environmental Issues› Environmental Science: Archive
Nuclear Power is too expensive and slow to build? Opinions?
07-09-2011 5:00pm
Be like Nutella
I've posted similar stuff in couple other threads around Boards but I didn't see this forum before.
I reckon Nuclear Power Stations are too expensive and take too long to build for Nuclear Power to be seriously considered as a way to greatly reduce carbon emissions from Coal fired power stations.
I wouoldn't expect anyone to have geeked over the costs associated with building nuclear the way I have of late so I'll just give you the numbers and you can checkem out yourself if you want. It's a massively complex subject so I'll just throw some general numbers out there...which are approx correct...if simplified.
It costs about 5 Billion dollars to build a nuclear power station that produces 2 Gigawatts of electricity.
It takes anywhere from 5-8 years to plan and build one.
There are 435 reactors today which produce about 13-15% of the electricity we use.
Coal fired plants produce about 41% of what we use.
The cost of building a Nuclear Power Plant has increased more than 20 fold since the 70's. The Av cost of a car in 1970 was about $3,700...so obviosuly now cars would cost $75,000 on average...if inflation is what you're thinking.
Most plants were built between 1965 and 1985.
To replace ALL the electricity gotten from Coal plants with nuclear would require today - another 14/1500 plants....today..
because next year the demand will have increased 5% and the yuear after...for at least the next 10/15 years.
The general opinion is that electricity demand will be double todays by 2050.
so just keeping up with demand will require that we build another 435 stations in the next 40 years which is what... 10 a year say....to keep it the same...13-15% of electricity from Nuclear.
But...lets assume we all believe deeply in Man-caused Global Warming and also lets assumewe all think Nuclear is completely safe...for a second.
In that scenario we would WANT very much to massively up scale nuclear generated electricity right?
How many plants would it take to make a big difference...not a little one...a big FAT difference.
Well to replace HALF of the coal plants produced electricity with nuclear by 2050 and thereby (hypothetically) halving carbon emissions from coal fired plants would require us to build by 2050...
1500 New Plants
(and that's ignoring the more than 150 plants which will close during the period to 2050...100 of which will be closed within 15 years)
So that's the Maths anyway....to replace 50% of coal electricity with Nuclear by 2050... in order to significantly reduce Carbon Emissions.
I only illustrate the numbers because it seems that pro-nuclear global warming concerned people seem to think Nuclear will and should play a central role in electricity production given that renewables will not play a large part over the next 40 years at least realistically speaking. (Renewables will not for instance replace 25% of coal electricity or anything like it...)
and either...I'm saying....will Nuclear.
I think this because....when you look at the costs and time and barriers and constraints and limits and drivers that exist right now....verses SAME back in the nuclear golden age of the 60's/70's/80's...you quickly come to the conclusion that Nuclear CANNOT and therefore WILL NOT scale up fast enough to make a large difference when it comes to the issue of Carbon Emissions and man caused global warming....at least over a reasonable period like 40-50 years....now....over 100 years or more then that is a different conversation and would include things like Nuclear Fusion etc.. but that's not my thesis here... I'm merely saying that I can show you that we CABNNOT AND WILL NOT replace coal electricity with Nuclear in any signiuficant way to 2050....and therefore Nuclear should not enjoy a central role within this debate.... It is in fact...relatively speaking.... a red herring.... as far as carbon emission reduction up to 2050 goes.
We managed to build approx 300 stations between '65 and '90....300 in 25 years say... that was during the Cold War...which served as a major driver for nuclear build....and it was impressive...but since then the cost of building has risen 20 fold...it takes longer...and there's a global backlash against nuclear right now.
There's no way we could build an average of 30-50 stations per year every year to 2050.
I doubt we could build 18 per year every year to 2050.
Russia and America managed about 12 a year between them at the height of the Cold War !!
There aint no Cold War now.
Sure, China is building 25 right now and plans for 100 over thenext 20/30 years but America hasn't delievered a nuclear power station in 30 years...in fact it cancelled or stopped more than 60 projects in the last 30 years!!
Maybe you could meet current nuclear demand....which will require a lot of new stations...and maybe you could increase nuclear supply by 50%-100% current level over the next 20 years.....but not 500%...no chance.
Hurler85
There is no doubting that there are severe delays in the building of nuclear power stations currently, and question marks remain over their costs, but I feel that nuclear will continue to grow over the next 50 years.
There are serious issues with security of supply, particularly in Ireland, so nuclear will have to become an option in the future. There is no chance that 1500 new nuclear will be built by 2050, but several hundred could be, but changes to the industry need to be made.
In order for nuclear power to take-off again, it needs to be cost effective, and public opinion must be satisfied that the technology is safe. In order for this to happen, more regulation of the industry is needed, such as the standardisation of reactor design worldwide. In France, their industry is based on this ethos, which has resulted in an efficient nuclear industry. This needs to happen on a global basis if nuclear plants are to be rolled out efficiently with cost effectivness
France kick ass when it comes to nuclear...the oil shocks in the 70's made up their mind for them and they just went for it in a big way.....and the government backed the loans...and they haven't had to step in even once so far....that's how they funded it..... with AAA guarantees!!!.... and there are French experts who have been traveling around the world advising counries to take this path...but unfortunately the financial landscape has changed as of late and credit markets and sovereign ratings are all over the shop so the issue of funding is and will remain one of THE main barriers..... incidentally France plans on yet more power stations.... looks like they'll virtually get 100% of their electricity from Nuclear within a couple decades....and any electricity they dont use will be exported....to a limit of 10% of the total...by law....and because they use the same reactors and have a good regulation system, geographically safe locations...they are pretty much doing nuclear the best that you can expect to do it....doesn't mean it's 100% safe.
Nuclear is steaming ahead regardless of Fukushima...which will just delay and complicate it's renaissance. I'm sure a few hundred plants will be built in China, South Korea, Russia, France, Britain, Brazil and even America but during the next 40 years Nuclear WILL find it difficult to continue to give us 13-15% of our electricity..... and extremely unlikely to increase its supply to 20%....which could reduce our use of coal plants theoretically by 5% at the very best.... which in terms of the steps required by mainstream Global Warming people is negligible.
The truth is...if you're a GW believer then what you MUST HAVE...is
a maaaaaaasive up scaling of wind....
a maaaaasive up scaling of Nuclear (which I don't want...and which I believe is technically impossible anyway)
...a maaaasive increase in solar panel efficiency and decrease in solar panel cost for homes in hot countries (which will obviously be taking money out of electricity companies pockets) and
a maaaaasive increase in efficency in terms of smart grids and more efficient homes and factories....which can...unbeknownst to most people....reduce electricity use more than all renewables combined.
According to GW people (whic I'm not 100% part of) we need to do big things quickly.....i.e. by 2050
Nuclear is not one of those big things.... we simply WILL NOT BUILD ENOUGH PLANTS FAST ENOUGH TO MAKE A BIGGG DIFFERENCE QUICKLY ENOUGH.
Theoretically:
We actually could if we solved some little things like what to do with Waste and small risks like meltdowns, proliferation risk and stuff like that.... and then if we literally stopped funding all other sources of energy and diverted everything...research, brain power, funding, tax breaks... to nuclear to build 5000 reactors in a factory line system over the next 50 years.... 5-10 trillions dollars minimum.....then we could replace coal plant power.....(which would still leave the issue of carbon emissions from transport.... of course...then we'd have 5000 freakin nuclear reactors spread around the whole world....which statistically increases risk....in a completely imeasureable way...but increases it significanly for certain.
Check out these reactors...Bill Gates is involved...
http://www.terrapower.com/Technology/TravelingWaveReactor.aspx
100 YEARS FROM NOW.... is such a different debate and almost pointless... no body or group or government has planned anything 100 years out or taken action directly for a 100 year point in the future (bar some Chinese emperors back in the day...very patient folks)
But when you look at the real numbers...and especially when you appreciate how much demand is increasing and how many coal plants are rolling out.... it is very difficult nye impossible to say....Nuclear is the answer...or....wind...solar...etc....or all of them combined....developing an energy mix....which is what the world is and will do untill there's a clear winner in this..... will not achieve carbon emission reduction fast enough on a large enough scale in terms of what the GW people numbers are saying.
I'm not striving to be pessimistic...but at present there is no carbon emissions reduction idea worth piss... relative to the numbers being bandied about.... Nuclear WILL NOT solve it...not in the next 50 years.... and renewables globally speaking will have just as small an effect on the total carbon emissions released per year.
I personally feel that market forces are unfortunately the only thing that's going to effect this equation in the end.... and it will take a 100-150 years.....which will bring us through the transition from oil to ?? whatever is going to juice cars in the future..... coal plants are polluting and this is eventually going to lead us away from them...not carbon emission reduction.....nuclear will get better by 10 fold....I genuinely think there will be a solution to the waste issue.....and future reactor designs like the one above will increase safety by magnitudes untill track record alone will solidify nuclear as a staple power source for the world....untill something radically disruptive like Nuclear Fusion happens.
But my main point stands:
Anyone who thinks that Nuclear Power is some sort of answer for carbon emissions in anything like the next 50 years is mistaken. It cannot and will not be scaled up sufficiently....which as I've said suits me fine...as the current set of problems nuclear power creates in my view are still unacceptable...even if there may be a point in the futre where I change my mind.
k.p.h
Will superconductor technology not counter act a lot of the problems you mention.? Firstly reducing our need for electricity buy using it more effectively, and secondly (and possibly more importantly) being used in (nuclear) fusion technology's being currently developed.
I think you problem while valid fails to take into account the current advances being made in the scientific community as we speak. The scenario is not static.
Also I don't think the answer to your problem initially is to figure out a way to increase electricity generation but rather reduce our need for it.
Capt'n Midnight
It is technically possible to make nuclear plants fast enough.
Getting the public support, planning permission, guarantee of future fuel costs, guarantee of disposal costs, guarantee of stable political climate for the life of the station are somewhat harder.
yes it is possible to extract uranium form seawater.
whether it is economically possible or sustainable is a different story as it requires a lot of plastics/hydrocarbons.
This would suggest that the EROEI is too small to justify it's use unless you can use something like bioaccumulation , and even then you have to take into account the harvesting costs.
www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/4/980/pdf - fishing numbers are interesting on their own
To give some idea of the requirements, consider that
a 1 GWe nuclear plant needs about 170 tons of natural uranium per year, or 6 grams per second.
However, we can develop an approximate evaluation of the EROEI of
uranium extraction from seawater considering that, from Table 2, we would need to process at
least 2 × 10^13 tons of water every year in order to produce enough fuel for the present fleet of nuclear
reactors. This amount is more than one thousand times the amount of water desalinated today and that
gives an idea of the size of the task. Another way of appreciating the size of this mass of water is to
consider that it is about the same as that of the whole North Sea.
Therefore, the "energy density" of seawater in terms of energy that can be
produced by the present nuclear technology is about 0.1 kWh/ton.
From data about the energy expenditure of the fishing industry [22] we can estimate that the
industry uses fuel for about 7 kWh for each kilogram of fish recovered. Another estimate derives from
knowing that the total world fish catch in 2003 was of 90 million tons (9 × 1010 kg) per year [23],
while the total amount of fuel used by the world's fishing fleet in 2005 was of some 14 million tons of
diesel fuel [24] (2 × 10^11 kWh, considering that the energy content of diesel fuel is 43 GJ/ton). The
result is about 2 kWh of energy per kilogram of fish landed. These are rough estimates that only take
into account the fuel cost. Yet, it is known that fuel is the main energy expenditure involved in ocean
fishing. So, a mid-range value of 5 kWh/kg cannot be too far off in terms of the energy cost of
extracting something from the open sea and bringing it back to land
We need also to consider that these membranes are synthetic chemicals that would be obtained
starting from crude oil or natural gas, and that the crude oil used as feedstock is lost as an energy
source. We can make a rough evaluation of this energy considering that, as an educated guess, we may
consider a yield of 30% in the synthesis process and conclude that we need about one ton of crude oil
as the feedstock for 300 kg of membranes [17] able to produce 1 kg uranium per year. Since crude oil
has an energy content of about 12 kWh/kg, we would be using an equivalent of some 12 MWh that, if
used in a high efficiency combined cycle gas turbine, would produce about 6 MWh of electric power.
One kilogram of uranium in a nuclear fission plant can generate about 40 MWh of electric power, so
the result is an overall gain only if the membranes can last for a few months at least, but the energy
involved in manufacturing the membranes is not negligible, and it would negatively impact the overall
EROEI of the process.
k.p.h wrote: »
Energy storage benefits all forms of electricity generation and would most likely benefit renewables far more than nuclear.
Commercial fusion power won't be happening any time soon unless there is a scientific breakthrough like cold-fusion. The big problems are engineering ones, the physics behind the reactions are well understood. I'd guess the empirical knowledge is more important than theoretical for fusion development.
If you are talking about fission then I have to ask which current advances. As I don't know of any major advances in reactor theroy since the 1950's, excluding the use of new materials or safer working practices as in lessons learned. Pebble bed reactors would be new but no one's got them working reliably yet never mind economically.
riffmongous
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
Wouldn't energy storage make wind energy possibly the most effective form of generation?
Do you know of any current research into storage of wind energy actually? Other than that reservoir proposal a few years ago (I cant remember the details but I'm sure you know the one I am referring to)
Nuclear power dirty little secret is that the fuel rods of depleted Uranium or Plutonuim and other long life nuclear wastes wastes will require storage for thousands often millions of years.
No accountancy numbers are ever built in to cover these huge multi decade long costs.
If these real costs were included Nuclear power would be so expensive no nuclear power would ever be built . So the accountancy trick often done is just to get the governments to agree to cover these costs with double speak about plans to eventually make rockets safe enough to take the waste into deep space .
Also rarely mentioned is the time and cost to decommission a Nuclear plant when it 40 year life span is finished and often they pass that cost onto the government
After Fukasima You would want to be stark raving mad to think nuclear power as we know it is a good idea .
Presently there is nearly ~2000 spent fuel rods in reactor fours cooling pools . A few rods if they spread their nuclear radiation world wide will kill a billion people or about ~50 will definitely exterminate the entire human race from this planet.
Look this high up Japanese official guy who explains the truth of reactor 4 and its very vulnerable ~2000 spent fuel rods and how critically close it is now to going AWOL . Now might be a good time to learn how to put your heads between your legs and ........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwCfAY4iyPQ
Well these ~2000 rods are vulnerable to events that might remove all the water from the cooling pool . If for example a earthquake hit the pool caused the pool to crack and drain out the ~2000 spent rods fuel rods would heat up catch fire and melt down.
This pool is not enclosed in the containment roof so it easily open to the atmosphere
The large fire lasting long periods months year who knows would spread the nuclear stuff world wide.
The predictions are entire northern hemisphere would all be dead in a decade or two max . It is predicted it might take few more decades to kill of the entire southern hemisphere but it would happen .
Now as we such as those in TIR NA SAOR RADIO who study this know the ultra rich such as Bill Gates adhere to very simple plan to solve the planets environmental problem . If they exterminate 90% of the human race they will have so few humans that environmental problems will be stopped .
So the likes of Bill Gates and the other ultra rich have built deep underground bunkers where they plan to live while the rest of the world dies of on the surface when something like the reactor no 4 goes on fire. Alternatively they might release some bio weapon flu that kills everybody who hasn't got the real vaccine the ultra rich will only have .The vaccines they will give us will be fake vaccines.
So that's why the Ultra rich built nuclear power stations in the first place they intended all along to eventually blow up enough of them to exterminate the humans that cause all these environmental problems in the first place
Already in west America California the Nuclear radiation from Fukashima is very much higher and this nuclear material is spreading across the northern hemisphere mostly in the pacific basin like China and Siberia and western parts of North America .
Yes we need nuclear power to solve the CO2 issues that were all fake scare stuff anyway and the grand father of CO2 warming James-Lovelock new book he admits he was WRONG and there is no global warming crisis
http://climatedepot.com/a/15621/Alert-Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-reverses-himself-I-was-alarmist-about-climate-change--so-was-Gore-The-problem-is-we-dont-know-what-the-climate-is-doing-We-thought-we-knew-20-years-ago
However with nuclear power we can thank them that soon the Polar bear in Alaska will glow in the dark and that will kill them faster with cancers than any fake global warming crisis could
The real hidden costs of Nuclear might be its already too late and its exterminating us all as we speak presently ????
El Siglo
Lads, please stick to the science.
If you want to talk non-science, go to the Conspiracy Theories.
the keen edge
Don't want to derail the thread; however this post mightn't warrant starting a new one.
On the matter of nuclear waste has anybody seen the brilliant documentery [url= Into Eternity[/url]?
It's totally unbiased and raises the question of the authorities' responsibility of ensuring compliance with safety criteria legislation and the principles at the core of nuclear waste management.
Aside from the "Nuclear Debate", for me this film does a excellent job of presenting the concept of geological time and mankinds fractional place within it.
I can't say whether I'm for or against development of a global nuclear power strategy with regard to either its viability or safety. I simply don't know enough about it.
Thanks to the posters giving factual empirical information, without a subjective opinion, it is a subject I'm becoming informed of.
I will say this though.
Even without further development of the nuclear power industry, storing here on Earth the derived waste stocks we currently have, is a task with implications that require a globally committed effort that is very very hard to even contemplate let alone implement.
the keen edge wrote: »
Finlands storage times are ten times those of the US , the point being that the best practice lifetime for a waste repository keeps getting longer. To meet today's standards Finland is spending three billion euro for a population similar to ours.
Anyone who proposes nukes should be able to explain where we would get this funding from.
The time period is so mind-bendingly long that it will almost certainly take the world through another ice age; which, if history is a guide, would bury Finland and Sweden under 2-3km of ice.
"The maximum [ice] thickness is 3km, which equates to a pressure of 30 megapascals (MPa)," says the engineer in charge, Kalle Nielsson.
"I would say that it's safe," is Kalle Nielsson's conclusion. "And we have made a probabilistic calculation - 'what is the probability that it would fail at this 45 MPa?' - and it is less than one out of a million canisters that would fail. So I would say as a concept that it's safe."
Three billion euros is a significant sum of money. Is this another example, then, of the state having to pay vast sums to clean up a nuclear industry which has in the past generated profit for private ends?
So are you saying that US waste repositories are design for a lifespan of ~10,000 verses Finish designs for ~100,000?
And this is due to US policy?
Never mind finding funding, for me it just seems an insurmountable task to deliver a programme whose successful completion requires a commitment over a time span that is hard to comprehend, even at the lower US standards.
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1996/09/00_warf_disposal.htm
Total hazardous life for these shorter lived nuclides is considered to be between 600 years and 1000 years depending upon one's point of view.
The longer lived isotopes are plutonium-239 whose t1/2 is 24,110 years, plutonium-240 whose t1/2 is 6,540 years, and curium-245 whose t1/2 is 8,500 years. Plutonium-238 whose t1/2is 88 years will have essentially disappeared after several thousand years, so in storage terms of the longer lived elements this isotope is not of concern as long as it will have been successfully contained for the next several thousand years. As for the life of these longer lived materials, the NRC considers 10,000 years as the storage time required; however, some people consider a lifetime as long as 100,000 years to 500,000 years as more appropriate.
http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article611464.ece
The Indians are building thorium base fast breeder reactors which reduce the waste by 97% and increases the fuel supply to thousands of years. Also the waste from thorium is not really suitable for proliferation.
No need to knick down plants as the op was elluding to, just build as required and replace end of life plants.
With regards the poster who mentioned wind, at best its a hobbyist supply of power. The land mass required to generate the required amount of energy is ridiculous, it also needs a baseload back up. The baseload backup will run at a very low effiency and hence the environment will be worse off as a result of wind.
Coal power kills tens or maybe hundreds of thousand people a year. The sooner its gone the better.
And cars do cost over 20 the price they were. Present day reactors are producing 3.6 times the output of 15 years ago and only using 2..5 times the input.
ted1 wrote: »
wind turbines use next to no land
since you can still farm under them.
the increase in efficiency of nukes is mainly due to attaining a higher steam temperature, simple Carnot efficiency, CCGT gas turbine plants have made similar gains. If you look into the change of density/volume of things like plutonium / uranium with temperature you'll see there are some very hard problems up around the melting point of aluminium (which is also a problem)
Thorium reactors were tested back in the 1960's
until someone puts serious money into them ( how much are the Indians spending ? ) it's a pipe dream.
They have one coming online shortly.
I am somewhat reluctantly supporting the idea of nuclear energy to replace e.g. coal fired power; I would like to mention though another possible long-term problem: Uranium is actually a pretty rare commodity and known deposits even at the current consumption rate and reactor efficiency will only last another ~70 years. It is estimated though that undiscovered deposits may extend that to about 200 years, by which time new technologies should be firmly in place anyway.
How the changing price for U will affect electricity production feasibility is anyone's guess. Long term, fewer people on this planet and far more intelligent use of power might be much better ideas, in which case the current "growth" mantra will have to come to an end.
PS: The US, Canada and Japan should perhaps go to 220V, to minimise wiring losses, but I don't know how big a difference that would make (any ideas?) - The US use 50% more energy pp than the EU for all sorts of reasons.
the fine print wrote: »
Thorium nuclear reactors are currently at an advanced stage of development which could solve the long term problem of uranium shortages. Further advancements such as the the Travelling Wave Reactor (although not commercially viable for at least 15years) will result in nuclear fuel being re-used in the nuclear reaction rather than being discarded at nuclear
waste.
I think we would be clutching at straws if we were to expect the US to adopt an intelligent use of power, it just doesn't seem likely in the medium term at least.
fewer people = less problems.. yes this is true but the pop is likely to increase by a couple billion at least in the next 30-40 years by any measurement.
The fact is, if we try and do nuclear the way we've been doing nuclear up to now it is an irrelevant power source as far as having a global impact on carbon release. It takes too long and is too difficult and expensive - at least in the format we've been applying so far. There are better ideas out there as Gates and his friends have been harping on about but as 'they' say this is a huge problem which requires a huge 'fix'. They want a super dooper ridiculously stupendously massive investment into nuclear at what is really the worst time to attempt such a thing so it's unlikely to get traction any time soon therefore IMO nuclear, as it stands, is simply a business for people in that area to make money and certainly will have no global impact in any relevant way going forward UNLESS A MASSIVE TURNAROUND AND CRAAAAZY INVESTMENT AND INNOVATION HAPPENS IN THIS SPACE... in which case I'm all for it but it really can be proven with out doubt that nuclear, in its current format ( i.e. cost and time from planning to grid and limit of production and political and economic constraints as they exist in reality right now) is not a feasible answer to the global electricity problem and will it seems play a small part of a complex mix of approaches to solve this problem. There is no silver bullet as much as we would like there to be unless fusion is solved 'soon' which is a million to one.
Nuclear means huge capital cost and having to dig a big hole to put the waste in later on
Geothermal energy here would mean going down 4,000 - 5,000 meters
I don't think it's economic, but the costs per MW aren't too dissimilar to nuclear, also those costs may drop as new technologies come on board. I can't see any advantages to nuclear. Especially since geothermal is much quicker to come on line
other thread - with links to maps n' stuff
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056697026
Here's Bill Gates explaining TerraPower in 6 mins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieX88nBFVS4&feature=related
http://bcove.me/3ee648wn
I posted this before but the math is approx right and I personally think it's important to understand the reality in this area.. as it stands now. Things can and do change but in this case it would require a radical, massive and abrupt change.
I wouldn't expect anyone to have geeked over the costs associated with building nuclear the way I have of late so I'll just give you the numbers and you can checkem out yourself if you want. It's a massively complex subject so I'll just throw some good numbers out there which are approx correct...if possibly over simplified.
The cost of building a Nuclear Power Plant has increased more than 20 fold since the 70's. The Av cost of a car in 1970 was about $3,700 so obviously now cars would cost $75,000 on average if inflation is what you're thinking.
To replace ALL the electricity gotten from Coal plants with nuclear would require today - another 1500 nuclear plants....and that's today, right now.
BUT next year the demand will have increased 5% !! and the year after...for at least the next 10/15 years.
So just keeping up with demand, will require, that we build another 435 stations in the next 40 years which is what? 10 a year say, to keep it the same 13-15% of electricity from Nuclear.
lets assume we all believe deeply in Man-caused Global Warming and also lets assume we all think Nuclear is completely safe, just for a second.
In that scenario we would WANT very much to massively upscale nuclear generated electricity right?
So how many plants would it take to make a big difference, not a little one, a big FAT difference?
Well to replace HALF of the coal plant electricity with nuclear, by 2050, and thereby (hypothetically) halving carbon emissions from coal fired plants would require us to build by 2050 approx
(and that's ignoring the more than 150 plants which will close during the period to 2050...100 of which will be closed within the next 15 years)
I only illustrate the numbers because it seems that pro-nuclear global warming concerned people seem to think Nuclear will and should play a central role in electricity production given that renewables will not play a large enough part over the next 40 years at least realistically speaking. (Renewables will not for instance replace even close to 25% of coal electricity or anything like it in that period)... and either, I'm saying, will Nuclear and not because I'm an irrational nuclear pessimist!
I think this because when you look at the costs, time, barriers, constraints, limits and drivers that exist right now....verses... THE SAME back in the nuclear golden age of the 60's/70's/80's , you quickly come to the conclusion that Nuclear CANNOT and therefore WILL NOT scale up FAST ENOUGH to make a large difference when it comes to the issue of Carbon Emissions and man caused global warming, at least over a reasonable period like 40-50 years. Now, over 100 years or more? then that is a different conversation and would include things like Nuclear Fusion etc etc but that's not my thesis here. I'm merely saying that it can be clearly shown that we CANNOT AND WILL NOT replace coal electricity with Nuclear in any significant way in the period to 2050 even 2060, and therefore Nuclear should not enjoy a central role within this debate.
It is in fact, relatively speaking, a red herring as far as carbon emission reduction up to 2050 goes.
We managed to build approx 300 stations between '65 and '90, 300 in 25 years say, and that was during the Cold War which served as a major driver for nuclear build and it was impressive, but since then the cost of building has risen 20 fold !!! and it takes much much longer now AND there's a global backlash against nuclear right now.
There's no way we could build an average of 30-50 stations per year every year to 2050. In fact I'd like to hear a solid argument for 25 per year to 2075 because from what I've learned it currently seems so unlikely as to be almost impossible.
There aint no Cold War now although there is a global warming war, alas mostly a war of words.
Sure, China is building 25 right now and plans for 100 over then ext 20/30 years but America hasn't delievered a nuclear power station in 30 years... it actually cancelled or stopped more than 60 projects in the last 30 years!!
you could increase nuclear supply by 50%-100% of current level over the next 20 years, but CERTAINLY not 500% .. no chance in hell. That's the reality and that's why I regard the whole nuclear debate as marginal in terms of the big problem and a relevant time frame of solution. If you think I'm wrong you better bring the facts because I put a lot of work into understanding this area and I don't think I'm far off base. The stats and figures are there to be found and the math is simple and speaks for itself.
Hurler85 wrote: »
Thorium nuclear reactors are currently at an advanced stage of development...
It's been said already, but thorium reactors have been at an advanced stage of development for decades but they're still nowhere near commercially viable.
Be like Nutella wrote: »
The Russians have the gun to the heads of all Western European states with regard to gas supplies, hence leaving us in a position that leaves us in an unstable position in terms of security of supply and price. The sooner we embrace nuclear power the better, because IMHO, sooner or later we are going to rely on it due to circumstances of other fuel sources.
The Russians have the gun to the heads of all Western European states with regard to gas supplies...
The reliance of the EU on Russian gas is grossly over-stated - Russia needs EU revenue far more than the EU needs Russian gas.
Also don't we have a trillion cubic feet of gas being connected up in Mayo ?
That be on line before a nuclear power station could be built.
It will supply 10 million cubic meters per day
we average ~ 15.5 million cubic meters per day
And chances are that there could be other finds on our continental shelf.
as new technologies are developed costs of gas extraction are going down and efficiency of CCGT has gone up.
Max temperature in a Nuclear plant is determined by the properties of the fuel, things like non-linear expansion and volume changes at temperature mean rod crack, also may have two heat exchanges to keep the turbines from getting radioactive, these inefficiencies all add up. cba looking it up but the early UK reactors used something like 10% of the power output to power the fans.
I don't expect CCGT to go much over 60% because it's a Carnot engine and there isn't a lot you can do with the ambient temperature short of locating the plant in Siberia. Perhaps if they used MHD with CCGT they might get a little more. Alternatively if the waste heat could be used productively - my favorite is using it in green houses / algae farms so the CO2 gets used too , but probably not economical.
QuantumP
the_syco
Nuclear power is probably more expensive now than it was, as more safety measures are put into place.
QuantumP wrote: »
we had working molten salt reactors 58 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Reactor_Experiment
The US Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE) was a 2.5 MW thermal nuclear reactor experiment designed to attain a high power density for use as an engine in a nuclear powered bomber. It used the molten fluoride salt NaF-ZrF4-UF4 (53-41-6 mol%) as fuel, was moderated by beryllium oxide (BeO), used liquid sodium as a secondary coolant and had a peak temperature of 860 °C. It operated for a 1000-hour cycle in 1954.
Don't get me wrong an actinide burning thorium reactor could be vastly cleaner than any nuclear power we have at present.
But like fusion the technology isn't likely to happen in the short term, economic or not.
As for the economics the hidden costs mean it's got to compete with geothermal power which is quicker to setup , more reliable , cleaner and fewer worries about Nimbys or fuel costs.
Bottom line - nuclear is competing with geothermal. Nuclear is a mature technology and few real improvements are expected apart from the use of higher temperatures because of better materials. Better materials mean fossil fuel plants are ~50% more efficient since the start of the Nuclear age btw. Improvements can be expected in geothermal as it's early days yet.
Curly Judge
Nuclear power has one great long term prospect.
When the lights start going out - as they inevitably will if the Tweety Pie solutions of the Greens continue to be followed - citizens will be damn glad to turn to it for both grid and transport energy.
A few years of rolling power cuts and cold dinners - that's if they have a dinner - will concentrate the collective mind wonderfully.
Curly Judge wrote: »
In a word Enron. They arranged rolling power cuts and blackouts to pump up the price of electricity.
If we had a nuke it would supply about half our base demand.
we would also need the same capacity backup in case it went offline
US outages - http://www.roadtechs.com/nukeout.htm
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL2E8E19QL20120302
March 1 (Reuters) - U.S. nuclear power plant outages on Friday were more than twice as high as this time last year and more than 60 percent over the five-year average, according to Reuters data.
Despite the continued low gas prices, natural gas traders said the high number of nuclear outages, among other things, was preventing gas from challenging the 10-year low of about $2.23 hit in late January.
Again there is the problem of fuel supply, at current usage there is ~70 years proven resources left. Nukes supply 13.5% of the worlds electricity. Electricity demand is increasing by about 2.4% year on year. Nuclear power stations are capital intensive and generation III reactors have a design life of 60 years.
Putting all that together means that if you were to replace the worlds reactors with new ones then there is just enough known uranium deposits to keep them running.
To build new reactors instead of replacing existing ones means finding more uranium or using less economic sources.
In 30 years global electricity demand is likely to double. If nuclear power is still providing just 13.5% of it by then the problem will be finding enough uranium to keep the reactors going for just a few more years, also those reactors may not have broke even by then.


text:
What is the doctrine of Consubstantiation?
Topic: Church
Consubstantiation
Historical background to Consubstantiation
What does the Bible teach?
Consubstantiation is a philosophical theory that attempts to describe the nature of the Christian Eucharist in concrete metaphysical terms. It holds that during the sacrament the basic substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. Consubstantiation is held by some Eastern Orthodox churches and liturgical Christian denominations.
The doctrine of Consubstantiation is often held in contrast to the doctrine of Transubstantiation which suggests that, through consecration by the priest, one set of substances (bread and wine) is exchanged for another (the actual Body and Blood of Christ) or that, according to some, the reality of the bread and wine become the reality of the body and blood of Christ. The substance of the bread and wine do not remain, but their accidents (superficial properties like appearance and taste) remain.
In England in the late 14th century, there was a political and religious movement known as Lollardy. The Lollards asserted a form of Consubstantiation and their belief survived up until the time of the English Reformation. Consubstantiation was considered a heresy by the Roman Catholic Church. It was later championed by Edward Pusey of the Oxford Movement, and is therefore held by many high church Anglicans.
The doctrine of Consubstantiation, promoted by the medieval scholastic theologian Duns Scotus, is incorrectly identified as the Eucharistic doctrine of Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon. Lutheran teachings oppose any attempt to explain philosophically the means by which Christ is present in the Eucharist. Luther did teach that the body and blood of Christ are present "in, with, and under the forms" of bread and wine, and present-day Lutherans believe in this statement while disputing about its precise meaning.
Luther illustrated his belief about the Eucharist "by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged" a belief which he called sacramental union.
In the Bible, Jesus asked the believers to partake of the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Him (1 Corinthians 11:23-25; Luke 22:18-20 and Matthew 26:26-28). The bread and the wine remain bread and wine they don't change to the actual body of Christ as the Catholic Church teaches (Catechism of the Catholic, paragraph 1366, 1367). Thus, the practice of the Eucharist is not Biblical because it is impossible for man (the priest) to create His Creator. Further, the Bible affirms that "Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many" (Hebrews 9:28; Hebrew 10:10,12; Hebrew 7:27) and not every time during mass.
This post is also available in: हिन्दी (Hindi)
Categories Church
What does the Bible say about alcohol?
When will Christ recreate this earth anew?
How can the end be near when not everyone has been evangelized?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Anton Bias (* 23. September 1876 in Groß Schimnitz, Kreis Oppeln; † 21. Mai 1945 im Konzentrationslager Dachau) war ein deutscher Politiker der SPD.

Leben und Beruf
Nach dem Besuch der Volksschule in Groß Schimnitz und Dombrowka an der Oder absolvierte Bias, der ursprünglich der römisch-katholischen Kirche angehörte, diese jedoch später verließ, eine Lehre zum Maurer in Oppeln. Anschließend arbeitete er bis 1914, unterbrochen nur durch den Wehrdienst 1896 bis 1898 beim 159. preußischen Regiment, in seinem Beruf. In dieser Zeit war er ab 1905 Vertrauensmann im Deutschen Bauarbeiterverband. Im Ersten Weltkrieg diente er als Gefreiter beim Landsturm. Am 9. November 1918 leitete er die Aufstände der Novemberrevolution in Beuthen und war bis zum 24. November Vorsitzender des örtlichen Soldatenrates. Am 30. November schied er aus der Armee aus. Anfang der 1920er Jahre wurde er Verwalter der Land- und Baugesellschaft Beuthen.

Nach der Machtübernahme der Nationalsozialisten wurde Bias 1933 entlassen. Am 14. August des Jahres wurde er erstmals verhaftet und in das Stadtgefängnis von Beuthen eingeliefert. Im Rahmen der Aktion Gitter wurde er am 22. August 1944 erneut verhaftet. Über das Gefängnis Beuthen, das KZ Groß-Rosen und das KZ Flossenbürg wurde er schließlich in das Konzentrationslager Dachau verbracht, wo er am 21. Mai 1945, nur wenige Wochen nach der Befreiung, an den Folgen der KZ-Haft verstarb.

Ehrungen

Seit 1992 erinnert in Berlin in der Nähe des Reichstags eine der 96 Gedenktafeln für von den Nationalsozialisten ermordete Reichstagsabgeordnete an Bias.

Partei
Bias gehörte der SPD an und war seit Januar 1914 Parteisekretär in Beuthen.

Abgeordneter
Von Reichstagswahl 1919 bis 1920 gehörte Bias der Weimarer Nationalversammlung an. Anschließend war er bis zur Neuwahl der Abgeordneten im Wahlkreis Oppeln am 19. November 1922 Reichstagsabgeordneter.

Literatur

Weblinks

Mitglied der Weimarer Nationalversammlung
Reichstagsabgeordneter (Weimarer Republik)
Todesopfer im KZ Dachau
Häftling im KZ Flossenbürg
Häftling im KZ Groß-Rosen
SPD-Mitglied
Opfer der Aktion Gitter (1944)
Deutscher
Geboren 1876
Gestorben 1945
Mann

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Located within the scenic countryside of Mpoukaris, the Hotel Penelope offers tasteful accommodation and a full range of facilities, including massage services, an express check-in and check-out feature and a poolside snack bar. Just a short walk from the shore, this art deco hotel is perfectly located for those searching for a beach-side retreat.
The hotel has 16 rooms and has been recently refurbished. The hotel also provides bicycle rental, a 24 hour reception and a currency exchange. For guests' convenience, the hotel also offers room service, which is available between certain hours.
Equipped to ensure a comfortable stay, rooms offer a refrigerator, a private bathroom and a mini bar. Also included in the rooms are tea and coffee making facilities and a TV. Prospective guests have the option of choosing a non-smoking room.
Guests of the Hotel Penelope can enjoy a continental breakfast, which is served each morning. The hotel also provides guests with the added convenience of on-site dining.
With Corfu International Airport under a 40-minute drive away, the Hotel Penelope also offers a shuttle service. Kavos and Agios Gordios are both within easy driving distance of the hotel.


text:
Google's Book-Scanning Deemed Fair Use By Second Circuit
Google has won a major victory in its ten-year legal fight with authors over its Google Library Project, which digitizes and indexes millions of copyrighted books for an online library without consent from the copyright owner. Since 2004, as part of the Google Library Project, Google has scanned, rendered machine-readable, and indexed more than 20 million books, which includes both public domain and copyrighted works, for its Google Books search engine. The search engine allows users to search words or terms that yields a list of all books in the database in which those words or terms appear, as well as the number of times the word or term appears in each book. The search also provides a brief description of each book which gives some basic additional information, such as a list of the words and terms that appear with most frequency in the book. Users are also allowed a limited viewing of the text of the book to see "snippets" of text containing the searched-for terms. The search sometimes provides links to buy the book online and identifies libraries where the book can be located.
Published in Copyright
Patent is the Most Searched Word for the United States
In a world where people use copious amount of time searching for things online via search engines, curiosity begs to know what are people really searching for when it comes to particular nations. Fixr.com took this curiosity by the horns and investigated deeper. Unsurprisingly, their results revealed that every nation yielded unique results, some as expected and some rather perplexing. For the United States, in particular, the object word "patent" was the most google searched word in 2015 so far.
Published in Patent
Google Wins on Fair Use Defense in Google Books Library Project
Earlier this month, the District Court for the Southern District of New York, on remand from the 2nd Circuit, sided with Google in the copyright infringement proceedings that began in 2005 over the Google Books Library Project. Judge Chin, presiding over the case, agreed that Google Books provided "significant public benefit", and accepted Google's fair use defense for the scanning of more than 20 million books for an electronic database, and making snippets of the text available for online searches.
Patent (169)
Trademark (78)
aia	biotech	computer	Copyright	Copyright infringement	ctm	damages	design patent	DMCA	fair use	florida	google	human genes	innovation act	Litigation	NFL	patent	patentability	patent eligibility	patent infringement	patent litigation	Patents	patent troll	policy	SCOTUS	software	Supreme Court	trade dress	trademark	uspto


Islamabad: Pakistan's Minister for Science and Technology Azam Swati resigned on Thursday amid allegations that he played a role in the transfer of former Islamabad police chief.
Swati, a member of the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), is currently facing a case in the Supreme Court (SC) over accusations that he had influenced the transfer of former Islamabad Inspector General of Police Jan Mohammad who refused to take action on a complaint filed by Swati's son. The minister's son registered a case against a family of slum dwellers for allegedly trespassing on his family's land. The family was later released after a day's detention following police claim that a settlement was reached between the two parties.
The argument and the subsequent transfer of police chief caught the attention of the media as well as the top court.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar took suo motu notice of the police official transferred on October 27 after he allegedly refused to take action on a complaint filed by the minister.
On November 19, the court-formed joint investigation team (JIT) had held Swati and his employees responsible for the argument that purportedly led to the police chief's transfer and deduced that Swati, by virtue of his post, "wielded his influence and prevailed upon the authorities by misusing his office and profile." While the report highlighted some negligence on the part of police officials as well but said that Swati "was given special treatment by the relevant authorities".
The minister tendered his unconditional apology, which was rejected by the chief justice who observed that minister Swati could be tried under Article 62 (1) (f) — that sets the precondition for a member of parliament to be "sadiq and ameen" (honest and righteous). This is the same article that led to the disqualification of Nawaz Sharif last year.
According to sources, Khan has accepted the resignation and told Swati to present himself before the court in the current misconduct case.


Learning to type has never been more fun. Gone are the days when children were typing pangrams like 'the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog' to practice their keyboard skills. Today there are a whole variety of free typing games for kids online. They are fun, easy to use, and addictive enough to keep you coming back for more. So, the next time you are looking for some typing practice for your kids, take a look at the options below. Some are easy, some are more challenging, but all of them are great for improving typing speeds and can be used by all the family.
At onlinetypinggames.org you will find a large variety of entertaining and engaging games to help your kids practice their typing skills. Clockwords: Act I, for instance, has a great storyline and allows you to make up your own words in order to pass each level. Bonus points are given for using any of the letters you are provided. The Jumping Caterpillar is great for all ages, while Fast Typer 2 is all about speed and concentration. All in all, there is a lot to like here and there are certainly enough games here to keep your kids going for some time.
With 30 games on offer here, The Typing Playground is a great place to find typing games for kids online. It includes some games that are found on other sites here, but many are still new and worth your time. Typing Defense was one of my favorites here. You type words to defend the earth from oncoming asteroids, and you earn upgrades as you level up. Other games on this site are designed to test your skills on the number keypad, and even on the arrow keys, so there is a wide variety of games here, even if some of them are a little on the hard side. You can also try the words per minute typing tests when you are done with the games to see what kind of improvement they have made to your skills.
This site has another great collection of online typing games that are sure to appeal to kids. Some of the better games on this site include Air Typer, a flight-based typing game, Trash Typer, a cute underwater typing adventure, and Arachnid Falls, a game involving spiders that tests both your letter, word, and number pad speeds. Fowl Words looks very similar to the popular iPod Touch game Chicktionary, while Wizard Typing is a good game for all ages. There is lots of fun to be had at the Only Typing Games site.
Boasting the most games of any site on this top 5 list, Free Typing Games is a great resource for parents looking for online typing games for their kids. Try Assault Typing for an engaging plane game that offers useful upgrades after each level, or save the city by typing sentences and numbers to repel a giant lizard in Typing Monster. Words trap is a Tetris-esque typing game that will make you think about strategies as well as typing, and kids that love sports will surely enjoy the English Football World Cup Typing game. So, if you are looking for the best variety of typing games on one site, Free Typing Games is probably the one for you. The games that are listed here are generally very good and you find games here that you don't find on many other typing websites.
This is more of a typing tutor than a typing game, but it is done in such a fun way that kids cannot fail to enjoy learning to type. Created by the BBC, Dance Mat Typing is an all-inclusive typing course that will introduce your kids to all the keys on the keyboard through a variety of animated animal tutors. It is used by schools all over the world because of its solid methodology, but also because it is great fun to use and maddeningly addictive! After each stage is completed, you are rewarded with an amusing skit or a song and dance music video based on the letters you just learned to type. A few of the words are UK spelling derivatives, and the accents may take a little getting used to if you live in the US, but otherwise, Dance Mat Typing is an awesome way to learn to type.
With sites like these, you will have plenty of options when you are looking for some typing games for kids online. They are an ideal way to have fun and learn a lifelong skill at the same time. Best of all, your kids will come back to them again and again, and before you know it, they will be typing like the experts you always wanted them to be!
This series of articles rounds up some of the best online games that will educate everyone in your family. These games are fun, free, and packed with innovative ways to teach new skills.


How do you take your tea? I like regular black tea...nothing fancy...a little lemon...and only when I'm sick. Otherwise I'm all unsweet tea all year long! Maybe you know someone who loves their tea? Today's list is for them! Don't forget that Amazon pricing changes all the time so the prices you see here may not be the same price that things are now!
Tea Forte Tea Chest Tasting Assortment with 40 Handcrafted Pyramid Tea Infusers for $55.
These Teapot Trivet - Black Cast Iron - for Kitchen & Dining Table - More than One Makes a Set for Counter, Wall Art or Decoration Accessory and all for $11.97.
Try this Primula 40-Oz. Daisy Glass Tea Pot for $25.60.
Have the perfect cup of tea with Tea Forte CAFE CUP, Porcelain Tea Cup with Custom Cover for Steeping for $20.
Tea Infuser Gift Set for Loose Leaf with these cute Manatee Silicone Tea Strainer Couple in a Set of 2, Grey and Pink for $16.99.
Tea Beyond Tea Gift English Breakfast Flowering Tea 12 Cts Black Tea Blooming Tea Variety Pack for $24.99.
Keep your tea hot with these Tea Cup / Coffee Cup - Set of 2 Double Wall *Borosilicate Glass* 8.45oz (250ml) by Artisan Glassworks with a Complimentary Wooden Spoon. for $28.00.
Try Primula Gift Set of 12 Assorted Green Tea With Fresh Jasmine Flowers for $14.75.
Thank you to Mumblebees Inc for sharing these deals!


text:
Visa crackdown backed by Theresa May
Theresa May is backing a plan that would require foreign students to leave the country after they graduate. May believes that the current rules are being abused since many students stay in the country illegally after their studies. May's proposal is being considered for the next Conservative Party manifesto. Labour opposes that plan as foreign students bring "billions of investments" into Britain.
Theresa May admits that the government is unlikely to meet its immigration target. Photo: The Guardian
21-12-2014 by BBC News
Theresa May, the home secretary, is backing a plan that would require foreign students to leave the country after graduating.
According to the BBC political correspondent, Carole Walker, the home secretary believes that the current rules are being abused by many students who stay on in the UK illegally after their studies.
"The proposal is being considered for the next Conservative Party manifesto."
Labour opposes the plan saying that foreign students brought "billions of investment" into Britain.
"Under the current rules, students from outside the EU are allowed to stay in Britain for four months at the end of their courses and if they get graduate jobs they can switch from student visas to work visas."
"The plan put forward by the Conservatives would require anyone whose student visa expires to leave the country and re-apply if they want to continue their studies or take up graduate jobs."
A senior Home Office source said that the "brightest and best" would still be able to come back to the UK, adding that abuse of the system was fuelling net immigration.
Theresa May has admitted that the government is unlikely to meet a target set by Prime Minister David Cameron to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands by the next election.
"In April it was revealed that the number of overseas students taking up places at England's universities had decreased by 4,595 in one year - the first fall in 29 years."
'Overseas students are economically valuable'
Vince Cable, Lib Dem Business Secretary, has repeatedly clashed with Theresa May over foreign students. He says that she has been caught in a "public panic" over migrant numbers.
"Cable has warned that the public debate about immigration is in danger of damaging the "economically valuable" recruitment of overseas students to the UK."
Yvette Cooper, Shadow home secretary, said Mrs May's immigration policy was "in chaos".
Cooper said: "More does need to be done to stop people overstaying illegally when their visas run out - whether they arrived on student visas, work visas or tourist visas.
"But the answer to that isn't to prevent highly skilled overseas graduates getting legal work visas to fill shortages in fields like science or medicine here."
Robert Gordon University revokes Donald Trump's honorary degree 12-12-2015
The UK leading on student satisfaction 09-12-2015
Free Online University for Refugees 21-10-2015
Migration 'double game' can't last 04-09-2015
The Government's New Rules for International Students: A Guide 29-07-2015
Cambridge VC warns that UK universities at risk from 'ill-informed' immigration debate 02-07-2015
Survey finds that Overseas Students work hardest 25-06-2015
Overseas Student Numbers Hit by Visa Crackdown 04-06-2015
Transnational programmes found 'lacking' in employability training 04-06-2015
Border Checks Introduced at all UK Borders 23-04-2015
Tweets by @isnuk_org
ISNUK


This presentation requires the Macromedia Flash Player.
CCDAutoPilot Version 4.0 provides astrophotographers the tools and capabilities needed to optimize the imaging system and fully automate the image acquisition over the course of the evening. With the tools and utilities provided, CCDAutoPilot 4.0 moves from an automation program to an imaging platform, providing you with everything you need for successful imaging.
See the introduction tutorial below for more detail.
CCDAutoPilot is easy to install and setup so you can get up and running quickly. The intuitive interface works the way you do, logically stepping you through the process to create an evening's imaging session with no scripting required.
CCDAutoPilot 4.0 includes automated tools to measure your camera's gain and read noise, your sky glow and color combine ratio (G2V ratio), all at the click of a button. With the Professional edition, your extinction-corrected combine ratio is calculated for you automatically. You can characterize your camera system's performance to determine your minimum sub-exposure, number of darks and operating temperature.
Selecting, framing and managing your targets are done interactively with tight integration with TheSky6 giving you real-time feedback to plan complex imaging sequences either connected to your imaging system or working off-line during the day.
CCDAutoPilot 4.0 Professional adds new multi-target and mosaic capabilities perfect for unlimited targets for astrophotography and survey work. With its powerful importers, you can easily create target lists from a wide variety of applications. Complex Mosaics are achieved with one click, providing anyone the ability to take wonderful wide field images with very narrow field equipment.
Click on the demonstration above to learn more about the ease of use and power of CCDAutoPilot 4.0.
CCDAutoPilot4's new features and enhancements have made my imaging time more efficient and enjoyable. From easier setup, to auto guide star exposures, to new tools, to better flat efficiency, to more data at your fingertips, CCDAutoPilot4 lets me get the most out of my system. Thanks John, for an outstanding job improving your software for the capabilities we need!!!
CCDAutoPilot4 is a significant step forward in the amazing CCDAutoPilot imaging platform evolution. Not only does this set of imaging tools make a complex process simple, it provides creative freedom. From target planning and framing to the final acquisition of data, this software provides all of the solutions needed, while allowing sleep as a bonus!


Manny's Auto Repair Inc. provides Manual Transmission Repair services to Attleboro, MA, Rehoboth, MA, Seekonk, MA, and other surrounding areas.
The Basics Behind Manual Transmission Repair Services at Manny's Auto Repair Inc.
Why Should You Have Manual Transmission Repair Services Performed at Manny's Auto Repair Inc.?
We proudly service the Manual Transmission Repair needs of customers in Attleboro, MA, Rehoboth, MA, Seekonk, MA, and surrounding areas.


This Moroccan dirham to Indian Rupee (code: INR) converter is a fast and easy to use currency calculator. Convert Moroccan dirham to Rupees (INR to MAD / MAD to INR currency convertion). The Moroccan dirham is the currency of Morocco. The ISO currency code of the Moroccan dirham is "MAD".


President, The Cheesecake Factory Bakery, Inc.
The stock options were granted at an exercise price of $21.42 per share which was the closing price for the Company's common stock on January 7, 2010, the date of grant. The options vest as to 20% of the shares on each of January 7, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. The restricted shares vest as to 60% of the shares on January 7, 2013 and as to 20% of the shares on each of January 7, 2014 and 2015. These grants were made pursuant to the terms and conditions of a form of award agreement(s) for Named Executive Officers previously approved by the Compensation Committee and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


text:
package org.apache.hadoop.mapred.gridmix;

import java.io.FileNotFoundException;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.InputStream;
import java.util.Random;
import java.net.URI;

import org.apache.hadoop.fs.FSDataInputStream;
import org.apache.hadoop.fs.FSDataOutputStream;
import org.apache.hadoop.fs.FileStatus;
import org.apache.hadoop.fs.FileSystem;
import org.apache.hadoop.fs.Path;
import org.apache.hadoop.fs.PositionedReadable;
import org.apache.hadoop.fs.Seekable;
import org.apache.hadoop.fs.permission.FsPermission;
import org.apache.hadoop.io.BytesWritable;
import org.apache.hadoop.util.Progressable;

/**
 * Pseudo local file system that generates random data for any file on the fly
 * instead of storing files on disk. So opening same file multiple times will
 * not give same file content. There are no directories in this file system
 * other than the root and all the files are under root i.e. "/". All file URIs
 * on pseudo local file system should be of the format
 * pseudo:///<name>.<fileSize> where name is a unique name
 * and <fileSize> is a number representing the size of the file in bytes.
 */
class PseudoLocalFs extends FileSystem {
  Path home;
  /**
   * The creation time and modification time of all files in
   * {@link PseudoLocalFs} is same.
   */
  private static final long TIME = System.currentTimeMillis();
  private static final String HOME_DIR = "/";
  private static final long BLOCK_SIZE  = 4 * 1024 * 1024L; // 4 MB
  private static final int DEFAULT_BUFFER_SIZE = 1024  * 1024; // 1MB

  static final URI NAME = URI.create("pseudo:///");

  PseudoLocalFs() {
    this(new Path(HOME_DIR));
  }

  PseudoLocalFs(Path home) {
    super();
    this.home = home;
  }

  @Override
  public URI getUri() {
    return NAME;
  }

  @Override
  public Path getHomeDirectory() {
    return home;
  }

  @Override
  public Path getWorkingDirectory() {
    return getHomeDirectory();
  }

  /**
   * Generates a valid pseudo local file path from the given fileId
   * and fileSize.
   * @param fileId unique file id string
   * @param fileSize file size
   * @return the generated relative path
   */
  static Path generateFilePath(String fileId, long fileSize) {
    return new Path(fileId + "." + fileSize);
  }

  /**
   * Creating a pseudo local file is nothing but validating the file path.
   * Actual data of the file is generated on the fly when client tries to open
   * the file for reading.
   * @param path file path to be created
   */
  @Override
  public FSDataOutputStream create(Path path) throws IOException {
    try {
      validateFileNameFormat(path);
    } catch (FileNotFoundException e) {
      throw new IOException("File creation failed for " + path);
    }
    return null;
  }

  /**
   * Validate if the path provided is of expected format of Pseudo Local File
   * System based files.
   * @param path file path
   * @return the file size
   * @throws FileNotFoundException
   */
  long validateFileNameFormat(Path path) throws FileNotFoundException {
    path = path.makeQualified(this);
    boolean valid = true;
    long fileSize = 0;
    if (!path.toUri().getScheme().equals(getUri().getScheme())) {
      valid = false;
    } else {
      String[] parts = path.toUri().getPath().split("\\.");
      try {
        fileSize = Long.valueOf(parts[parts.length - 1]);
        valid = (fileSize >= 0);
      } catch (NumberFormatException e) {
        valid = false;
      }
    }
    if (!valid) {
      throw new FileNotFoundException("File " + path
          + " does not exist in pseudo local file system");
    }
    return fileSize;
  }

  /**
   * @See create(Path) for details
   */
  @Override
  public FSDataInputStream open(Path path, int bufferSize) throws IOException {
    long fileSize = validateFileNameFormat(path);
    InputStream in = new RandomInputStream(fileSize, bufferSize);
    return new FSDataInputStream(in);
  }

  /**
   * @See create(Path) for details
   */
  @Override
  public FSDataInputStream open(Path path) throws IOException {
    return open(path, DEFAULT_BUFFER_SIZE);
  }

  @Override
  public FileStatus getFileStatus(Path path) throws IOException {
    long fileSize = validateFileNameFormat(path);
    return new FileStatus(fileSize, false, 1, BLOCK_SIZE, TIME, path);
  }

  @Override
  public boolean exists(Path path) {
    try{
      validateFileNameFormat(path);
    } catch (FileNotFoundException e) {
      return false;
    }
    return true;
  }

  @Override
  public FSDataOutputStream create(Path path, FsPermission permission,
      boolean overwrite, int bufferSize, short replication, long blockSize,
      Progressable progress) throws IOException {
    return create(path);
  }

  @Override
  public FileStatus[] listStatus(Path path) throws FileNotFoundException,
      IOException {
    return new FileStatus[] {getFileStatus(path)};
  }

  /**
   * Input Stream that generates specified number of random bytes.
   */
  static class RandomInputStream extends InputStream
      implements Seekable, PositionedReadable {

    private final Random r = new Random();
    private BytesWritable val = null;
    private int positionInVal = 0;// current position in the buffer 'val'

    private long totalSize = 0;// total number of random bytes to be generated
    private long curPos = 0;// current position in this stream

    /**
     * @param size total number of random bytes to be generated in this stream
     * @param bufferSize the buffer size. An internal buffer array of length
     * bufferSize is created. If bufferSize is not a
     * positive number, then a default value of 1MB is used.
     */
    RandomInputStream(long size, int bufferSize) {
      totalSize = size;
      if (bufferSize <= 0) {
        bufferSize = DEFAULT_BUFFER_SIZE;
      }
      val = new BytesWritable(new byte[bufferSize]);
    }

    @Override
    public int read() throws IOException {
      byte[] b = new byte[1];
      if (curPos < totalSize) {
        if (positionInVal < val.getLength()) {// use buffered byte
          b[0] = val.getBytes()[positionInVal++];
          ++curPos;
        } else {// generate data
          int num = read(b);
          if (num < 0) {
            return num;
          }
        }
      } else {
        return -1;
      }
      return b[0];
    }

    @Override
    public int read(byte[] bytes) throws IOException {
      return read(bytes, 0, bytes.length);
    }

    @Override
    public int read(byte[] bytes, int off, int len) throws IOException {
      if (curPos == totalSize) {
        return -1;// EOF
      }
      int numBytes = len;
      if (numBytes > (totalSize - curPos)) {// position in file is close to EOF
        numBytes = (int)(totalSize - curPos);
      }
      if (numBytes > (val.getLength() - positionInVal)) {
        // need to generate data into val
        r.nextBytes(val.getBytes());
        positionInVal = 0;
      }

      System.arraycopy(val.getBytes(), positionInVal, bytes, off, numBytes);
      curPos += numBytes;
      positionInVal += numBytes;
      return numBytes;
    }

    @Override
    public int available() {
      return (int)(val.getLength() - positionInVal);
    }

    @Override
    public int read(long position, byte[] buffer, int offset, int length)
        throws IOException {
      throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
    }

    @Override
    public void readFully(long position, byte[] buffer) throws IOException {
      throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
    }

    @Override
    public void readFully(long position, byte[] buffer, int offset, int length)
        throws IOException {
      throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
    }

    /**
     * Get the current position in this stream/pseudo-file
     * @return the position in this stream/pseudo-file
     * @throws IOException
     */
    @Override
    public long getPos() throws IOException {
      return curPos;
    }

    @Override
    public void seek(long pos) throws IOException {
      throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
    }

    @Override
    public boolean seekToNewSource(long targetPos) throws IOException {
      throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
    }
  }

  @Override
  public FSDataOutputStream append(Path path, int bufferSize,
      Progressable progress) throws IOException {
    throw new UnsupportedOperationException("Append is not supported"
        + " in pseudo local file system.");
  }

  @Override
  public boolean mkdirs(Path f, FsPermission permission) throws IOException {
    throw new UnsupportedOperationException("Mkdirs is not supported"
        + " in pseudo local file system.");
  }

  @Override
  public boolean rename(Path src, Path dst) throws IOException {
    throw new UnsupportedOperationException("Rename is not supported"
        + " in pseudo local file system.");
  }

  @Override
  public boolean delete(Path path, boolean recursive) {
    throw new UnsupportedOperationException("File deletion is not supported "
        + "in pseudo local file system.");
  }

  @Override
  public void setWorkingDirectory(Path newDir) {
    throw new UnsupportedOperationException("SetWorkingDirectory "
        + "is not supported in pseudo local file system.");
  }

  @Override
  public boolean delete(Path f) throws IOException {//dummy implementation
    return true;
  }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
colspan=2 style="text-align: center; background-color: Template:Taxobox/Error colour" | Jaguarundi[1]
Genus: Puma
Species: P. yagouaroundi
Puma yagouaroundi
(Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803)[3]
Jaguarundi range
colspan=2 style="text-align: center; background-color: Template:Taxobox/Error colour" | Synonyms
Species synonymy
Felis yagouaroundi
Geoffroy, 1803
Felis unicolor
Thraill, 1819
Felis eyra
Fischer, 1814
Felis cacomitli
Berlandier, 1859
Felis apache
Mearns, 1901
Felis fossata
Felis panamensis
Allen, 1904
Puma yaguaroundi
Lacépède, 1809
Desmarest, 1816
Herpailurus yagouaroundi
The jaguarundi or eyra cat (Puma yagouaroundi), is a small, wild cat native to Central and South America. In 2002, the IUCN classified the jaguarundi as Least Concern, although they considered it likely that no conservation units beyond the megareserves of the Amazon Basin could sustain long-term viable populations. Its presence in Uruguay is uncertain.[2]
In some Spanish-speaking countries, the jaguarundi is also called gato colorado, gato moro, león brenero, onza, tigrillo, and leoncillo.[2] The Brazilian Portuguese pronunciation of its common English and Portuguese name is Template:IPA-pt. It is also called gato-mourisco, eirá, gato-preto, and maracajá-preto in Portuguese. Jaguarundi comes from Old Tupi yawaum'di.[4]
2.1 Distribution of subspecies
3 Ecology and behavior
3.1 Reproduction
4 Threats
Red color phase
The jaguarundi has short legs, an elongated body, and a long tail. The ears are short and rounded. The coat is without spots, uniform in color, with, at most, a few faint markings on the face and underside. The coat can be either blackish to brownish-grey (grey phase) or foxy red to chestnut (red phase); individuals of both phases can be born in the same litter. It has a total length of 53 to 77 cm (21 to 30 in) with a 31- to 60-cm-long tail, and weighs 3.5 to 9.1 kg (7.7 to 20.1 lb).[5][6][7]
The two color phases were once thought to represent two distinct species: the grey one called jaguarundi Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:IPAc-en/data' not found. ZHAG-wə-RUN-dee,[8] and the red one called eyra.
The jaguarundi is found from southern Texas and coastal Mexico in the north, through Central and South America east of the Andes, and as far south as northern Argentina. Its habitat is lowland brush areas close to a source of running water, and may include any habitat from dry thorn forest to wet grassland. While commonly found in the lowlands, they have been reported at elevations as high as 3,200 m (10,500 ft).[5] Jaguarundis also occasionally inhabit dense tropical areas.
Jaguarundis have also been sighted in the US state of Florida since the early 20th century. Here, the species is thought to have been introduced, but it is not known when the introduction occurred. Their presence in Florida is said to have been the work of a writer who at some point imported the animals from their native habitat and released them near his hometown of Chiefland and in other locations across the state. No live or dead specimens have been found, but many sightings considered credible by biologists have been reported. The earliest of these occurred in 1907, and was followed by various additional sightings throughout the Florida Peninsula from the 1930s through the 1950s. The first official report was released in 1942. Significantly fewer reliable sightings were reported after that, and by 1977, W. T. Neill concluded the population had declined; however, sightings have continued. Sightings of jaguarundis in the coastal area of Alabama also have been made. This may be evidence of the Florida population migrating northward.[9]
The jaguarundi has also been sighted around the Guiana Space Centre in French Guiana.[10]
Distribution of subspecies[edit]
P. y. yagouaroundi (Geoffroy, 1803) – Geoffroy's jaguarundi (Guyana and the Amazon Rainforest)[3]
P. y. ameghinoi (Holmberg, 1898) – (western Argentina, far eastern Chile)
P. y. cacomitli (Berlandier, 1859) – Gulf Coast jaguarundi (southern Texas and eastern Mexico)
P. y. eyra (G. Fischer, 1814) – eyra cat (Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina)
P. y. fossata (Mearns, 1901) – Guatemalan jaguarundi (southern Mexico to Honduras)
P. y. melantho (Thomas, 1914) – (Peru and Brazil)
P. y. panamensis (Allen, 1904) – Panamanian jaguarundi (Nicaragua to Ecuador)
P. y. tolteca (Thomas, 1898) – Sinaloan jauguarundi (western Mexico; unconfirmed sightings have been reported in Arizona and Sonora)[6]
Ecology and behavior[edit]
Gray color phase
Jaguarundis are primarily diurnal, being active during the day rather than evenings or night. They are comfortable in trees, but prefer to hunt on the ground. They will eat almost any small animal they can catch, typically catching a mixture of rodents, small reptiles, and ground-feeding birds. They have also been observed to kill larger prey, such as rabbits, and opossums; relatively unusual prey include fish and even marmosets. Like many other cats, they also include a small amount of vegetation and arthropods in their diets.[5]
Although they seem to be somewhat more gregarious than many other cats, willing to tolerate the close presence of other members of their species, in the wild, they are generally encountered alone, suggesting a solitary lifestyle. Their home range is widely variable, depending on the local environment; individuals have been reported as ranging over territories from 6.8 to 100 km2 (2.6 to 38.6 sq mi). Like other cats, they scent mark their territory by scratching the ground or nearby branches, head-rubbing, urination, and leaving their faeces uncovered.[5] They are shy and reclusive, and evidently very cautious of traps.[9]
Jaguarundis make an unusually wide range of vocalisations, including purrs, whistles, yaps, chattering sounds, and even a bird-like chirp.[5]
Reproduction[edit]
The timing of the breeding season among jaguarundis is unclear; they breed all year round. Oestrus lasts three to five days, marked by the female regularly rolling onto her back and spraying urine. After a gestation period of 70 to 75 days, the female gives birth to a litter of one to four kittens in a den constructed in a dense thicket, hollow tree, or similar cover.[5]
The kittens are born with spots on their undersides, which disappear as they age. The young are capable of taking solid food at around six weeks, although they begin to play with their mother's food as early as three weeks. Jaguarundis become sexually mature at about two years of age, and have lived for up to 10 years in captivity.[5]
Threats[edit]
Jaguarundis are not particularly sought after for their fur, but are suffering decline due to loss of habitat. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has expressed concern that the presence of the jaguarundi in South Texas may be imperiled due to loss of the cat's native habitat.[11]
Captive jaguarundi
The North and Central American populations of P. jagouaroundi are listed in CITES Appendix I. All the other populations are listed in CITES Appendix II. P. y. cacomitli, P. y. fossata, P. y. panamensis, and P. y. tolteca are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.[1]
The jaguarundi is closely related to the much larger and heavier cougar, having a similar genetic structure and chromosome count. While both species are in the genus Puma it is sometimes classified under the genus Herpailurus, and until recently both cats were classified under the genus Felis.
According to a 2006 genomic study of Felidae, an ancestor of today's Leopardus, Lynx, Puma, Prionailurus, and Felis lineages migrated across the Bering land bridge into the Americas about 8.0 to 8.5 million years ago. The lineages subsequently diverged in that order.[12]
Studies have indicated the cougar and jaguarundi are next most closely related to the modern cheetah of Africa and western Asia,[12][13] but the relationship is unresolved. Ancestors of the cheetah have been suggested to have diverged from the Puma lineage in the Americas and migrated back to Asia and Africa,[12][13] while other research suggests the cheetah diverged in the Old World itself.[14] The outline of small feline migration to the Americas is thus unclear (see also American cheetah).
^ a b c Template:IUCN
^ a b Template:ITIS
^ Ferreira, A.B.H. (1986) Novo Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa. Segunda edição. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira. P. 980
^ a b c d e f g Sunquist, M.; Sunquist, F. (2002). Wild Cats of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 113–119. ISBN 0-226-77999-8.
^ a b Brown, D. E., and Gonzalez, C. A. (1999). "Jaguarundi (Felis yagouaroundi tolteca)" (PDF). Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science. pp. 155–157. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Boitani, L. (1984). Simon & Schuster's Guide to Mammals. Simon & Schuster/Touchstone Books. ISBN 978-0-671-42805-1
^ Template:MW
^ a b Simberloff, D.; D. C. Schmitz; T. C. Brown (1997). Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. pp. 172–173. ISBN 1-55963-430-8. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
^ Centre Spatial Guyanais - Un florilège de faune sauvage au CSG
^ Endangered Species. Tpwd.state.tx.us (2003-04-15). Retrieved on 2011-09-15.
^ a b c Johnson, W.E.; Eizirik, E.; Pecon-Slattery, J.; Murphy, W.J.; Antunes, A.; Teeling, E.; O'Brien, S.J. (6 January 2006). "The Late Miocene radiation of modern Felidae: A genetic assessment". Science. 311 (5757): 73–77. doi:10.1126/science.1122277. PMID 16400146. Retrieved 2007-06-04.
^ a b Culver, M.; Johnson, W. E.; Pecon-Slattery, J.; O'Brien, S. J. (2000). "Genomic Ancestry of the American Puma" (PDF). Journal of Heredity. Oxford University Press. 91 (3): 186–97. doi:10.1093/jhered/91.3.186. PMID 10833043.
^ Barnett, R.; I. Barnes; M. J. Phillips; L. D. Martin; C. R. Harington; J. A. Leonard; A. Cooper (2005). "Evolution of the extinct Sabretooths and the American cheetah-like cat". Current Biology. Cell Press. 15 (15): R589–R590. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.07.052. PMID 16085477.
Species portrait Jaguarundi; IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group
Stock photographs with a variety of examples from both coat phases
Jaguarundi page and photos at bigcatrescue.org
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/agarman/bco/jundi.htm
Smithsonian Institution - North American Mammals: Puma yaguaroundi
Smithsonian Wild: Puma yagouaroundi
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/w/index.php?title=Jaguarundi&oldid=206804"
IUCN Red List least concern species
Puma (genus)
Mammals of Argentina
Mammals of Bolivia
Mammals of Brazil
Mammals of Colombia
Mammals of Ecuador
Mammals of French Guiana
Mammals of Guyana
Mammals of Suriname
Mammals of Paraguay
Mammals of Peru
Mammals of El Salvador
Mammals of Nicaragua
Mammals of Panama
Guaraní words and phrases
This page was last edited 20:29, 28 February 2015 by Wikipedia anonymous user Imported>Zzorse. Based on work by Wikipedia anonymous user imported>Zzorse.


France clinched their first victory in Bulgaria for 85 years to move back to the top of Group A in the race to qualify for next year's World Cup finals.
Les Bleus had failed to win on any of their last seven visits to Bulgaria but Blaise Matuidi's early goal proved enough for a 1-0 victory in Sofia.
Sweden had applied the pressure with an 8-0 thumping of Luxembourg, who held France to a goalless draw in their last outing, earlier in the day.
That saw the Swedes temporarily move into top spot but victory means France know that three points at home to Belarus on Tuesday will book their place in Russia.
Boss Didier Deschamps made his intentions clear by naming a front trio of Kylian Mbappe, Alexandre Lacazette and Antoine Griezmann.
Griezmann was involved in the opener after only three minutes, showing a deft touch to set up Matuidi for a fine finish from a tight angle.
In very wet conditions, the visitors looked determined to put the game out of sight.
Mbappe forced a save from Plamen Iliev at his near post before Griezmann sent an acrobatic volley just wide.
The front trio then teamed up to create a great opening for Lacazette in the 29th minute but Vasil Bozhikov denied what appeared a certain goal with a brilliant late tackle.
France were forced into a change when Chelsea midfielder N'Golo Kante tweaked a hamstring and was replaced by Adrien Rabiot of Paris Saint-Germain.
Bulgaria had been non-existent as an attacking force but almost equalised in the 37th minute.
Todor Nedelev's shot did not appear too troublesome but Hugo Lloris could not hold it in the slippery conditions and the ball was lifted up to Georgi Kostadinov, whose header was brilliantly kept out by the French keeper as he threw himself across the goal.
The half ended with Mbappe shooting just wide but the impetus went out of France in the second half and they began to look lacklustre.
However, they never appeared in serious danger of conceding an equaliser and comfortably held on for three vital points.


text:
Tess Vigeland
Former Host, Marketplace Money
Tess Vigeland was the host of Marketplace Money, a weekly personal finance program that looks at why we do what we do with our money: your life, with dollar signs. Vigeland and her guests took calls from listeners to answer their most vexing money management questions, and the program helps explain what the latest business and financial news means to our wallets and bank accounts. Vigeland joined Marketplace in September 2001, as a host of Marketplace Morning Report. She rose at o-dark-thirty to deliver the latest in business and economic news for nearly four years before returning briefly to reporting and producing. She began hosting Marketplace Money in 2006 and ended her run as host in November of 2012. . Vigeland was also a back-up host for Marketplace. Prior to joining the team at Marketplace, Vigeland reported and anchored for Oregon Public Broadcasting in Portland, where she received a Corporation for Public Broadcasting Silver Award for her coverage of the political scandal involving Senator Bob Packwood (R-Ore.). She co-hosted the weekly public affairs program Seven Days on OPB television, and also produced an hour-long radio documentary about safety issues at the U.S. Army chemical weapons depot in Eastern Oregon. Vigeland next served as a reporter and backup anchor at WBUR radio in Boston. She also spent two years as a sports reporter for NPR's Only a Game. For her outstanding achievements in journalism, Vigeland has earned numerous awards from the Associated Press and Society of Professional Journalists. Vigeland has a bachelor's degree from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. She is a contributor to The New York Times and is a volunteer fundraiser for the Pasadena Animal League and Pasadena Humane Society. In her free time, Vigeland studies at the Pasadena Conservatory of Music, continuing 20-plus years of training as a classical pianist.
Latest Stories (866)
How much would you spend to save your sick pet?
by Tess Vigeland
For many people, pets are members of the family. So how do you put a price on the life of your pet?
ListenLISTEN Download Download READ MORE READ MORE
EMBED EMBED
https://www.marketplace.org/2013/03/25/how-much-would-you-spend-save-your-sick-pet/
Subscribe Using:
Joplin residents carry on after tornado
In May 2011, a tornado ripped through Joplin, Mo., killing 161 people. As Joplin's residents make their way through the stages of grief, three families discuss how they survived and how they're preparing for the next one.
Steve Hebert for The New York Times
https://www.marketplace.org/2012/11/13/joplin-residents-carry-after-tornado/
Why mental health check-ups matter
Physical check-ups with physicians are common, but what about a tune-up for your mind?
Adam Berry/Getty Images
https://www.marketplace.org/2012/11/13/why-mental-health-check-ups-matter/
The importance of living wills for singles
The passing of a loved one creates obvious emotional crisis for a family. But it can also fuel a financial crisis -- especially if there's no will.
https://www.marketplace.org/2012/11/13/importance-living-wills-singles/
Rebranding the emergency fund... and how to save for it
Emergency fund/uncertainty fund -- whatever you want to call it -- Carl Richards from the New York Times says it's important to set aside money for a rainy day.
flickr.com/Tax Credits
https://www.marketplace.org/2012/11/13/rebranding-emergency-fund-and-how-save-it/
Are stocks still the best investment option?
The 2008 stock market crash sent folks walking away from Wall Street. Even today, an air of fear still holds some from re-entering the market. Have investors come around?
https://www.marketplace.org/2012/11/13/are-stocks-still-best-investment-option/
A letter from Tess
Tess Vigeland shares a few observations after hosting Marketplace Money for six years.
flickr.com/J. Paxon Reyes
https://www.marketplace.org/2012/11/09/letter-tess/
Patients should discuss money with their doctors
When you receive bad news from your physician, money is often the last thing on your mind. But it's something you should consider. One doctor offers a few tips.
https://www.marketplace.org/2012/11/09/patients-should-discuss-money-their-doctors/
The future of TV: A pay-per-network model?
Can you imagine a future where you pay only for the TV channels you actually watch?
flickr.com/dhammza
https://www.marketplace.org/2012/11/09/future-tv-pay-network-model/
The shrinking middle class, the shrinking American Dream
Why are so many people in the middle class struggling right now? Author Hedrick Smith discusses the events that hurt the middle class and what can be done to help it.
flickr.com/Lorika13
https://www.marketplace.org/2012/11/02/shrinking-middle-class-shrinking-american-dream/