Large Hardon Collider

[Kryssan]

Olde, but I still like it. Also, YouTube tags.

[Max™]

Pretty cool.

[BerenTebogo]

Watching some thing on NATGEO following a bunch of Molec. Bio grad students and one of them just mentioned that he was getting $24,000 a year as a grad student. Isn't that like 2-3 times the average or am I thinking semester vs. year?

[Woozie]

I made a topic asking about this a few months ago. Based on the responses I got, that's about average (or maybe a little above) for a science student. My school is only going to give me 13k, but everyone tells me I can expect a HUGE increase once I graduate and go to a different school.

Edit: http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87955

[Kryssan]

California/New York/New Jersey move to ban once through cooling


Emphasis on California since NY/NJ are still in the thinking stage whereas Cali is in the implementing stage.


Crossposted:

Californian regulators have adopted a policy requiring coastal power plants - including the state's two nuclear power plants - to phase out the use of once-through cooling systems.



California's State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) voted on 4 May in favour of adopting the Policy on the Use of Coastal and Estuarine Waters for Power Plant Cooling. The policy applies to 19 existing power plants - including Pacific Gas & Electric's (PG&E's) Diablo Canyon and Southern California Edison's (SCE's) San Onofre nuclear power plants - that currently withdraw over 15 billion gallons per day from the state's coastal and estuarine waters to cool their turbines and then return the water at higher temperatures. The new regulations require such plants to stop this "once-through" practice and install equipment to reduce their impact on marine life.
Most plants will have until at least 2015 to phase out their once-through cooling systems. Plants in the Los Angeles area will have until 2020 because of the region's "more complex and challenging" power needs. The policy allows plants to choose between implementing a closed-cycle cooling system, such as a cooling tower, or other unspecified operational or structural changes. The SWRCB estimates that the upgrades will cost on average some 1 cent per kilowatt-hour, excluding lost revenue while the plants are offline for the modifications.

The policy will require plant owners to submit details over the next six months of their plans to comply with the new regulations. Some plants will be required to comply with the regulations as soon as one year after the policy goes into effect.

The state has given SCE until 2022 to ensure the cooling system at San Onofre complies with the new regulations, while PG&E will have until 2024 to make sure those at Diablo Canyon comply.

SCE claims that the use of innovative features in San Onofre's water intake systems already prevents harm to some 94% of local marine life. Meanwhile, two marine enhancements projects being developed by the company - an artificial reef and a wetlands project - will more than replace the 6% of fish adversely affected by the plant’s cooling system, according to SCE.

The SWRCB said that the new policy would provide "clear standards and consistency" in implementing requirements under the federal Clean Water Act in California's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The Clean Water Act requires power plants to use the "best technology possible" in the interest of protecting marine life.

It added that the new policy is intended to "protect marine and estuarine life from the impacts of once-through cooling without disrupting the critical needs of the state's electrical generation and transmission system."

The new policy will now be studied by California's Office of Administrative Law, which reviews administrative regulations proposed by state agencies.

Two states on the USA's east coat - New York and New Jersey - have also introduced draft policy requiring certain industrial facilities, including nuclear power plants, to construct cooling towers. In New York, six nuclear reactors - which supply almost one-third of the state's electricity - may require some $2 billion in investment to continue operating should the policy be adopted. Meanwhile, Exelon has warned that it might have to close its Oyster Creek nuclear power plant after New Jersey officials issued a draft permit requiring cooling towers to be constructed.

Currently, of the USA's total of 104 nuclear power reactors, 60 use once-through cooling from rivers, lakes or the sea, while 35 use wet cooling towers. Nine units use dual systems, switching according to environmental conditions.

Lets just keep adding on regs to shut 'em down, eh? Not like we need them or anything. I probably wouldn't be so bitter if they'd just man the fuck up and start building new ones to replace the archaic ones rather than introduce new legislation and regulation that requires billions of dollars to modify existing plants that are already on the verge of being shutdown anyway because they are archaic/out of fuel/past service lifetime/etc. Also, I'm slightly curious to know what this applies to since military vessels use the same once-through system as well, since yeah... they don't exactly have the ability to mount cooling towers. But lets just disregard the 99+ mobile reactors the USN has and lace some extra dis-qualifiers on the civvy plants. Its all good. /endrant

[BerenTebogo]

I have a really annoying question that I'd rather not just throw out into the intrawebs concerning Einstein and spacetime. Woozie or someone who actually has legit knowledge in the field PM me please, gonna drive myself insane over this, lol.

[Max™]

*assumes "copy pasted wikipedia articles" doesn't mean legit knowledge, but can't be sure as there is no wikipedia article defining legit knowledge*

[Mizango]

Just saw your post Sath, you can pm me if you havent had any answers yet. Long day at work and school yesterday =/

[Woozie]

Sath, I got your PM. I'll be reading it when I get home.

Also, for Sath, Mizango, and anyone else into astronomy/astrophysics

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9800

That's not the whole article, but I'd imagine you could find it on demonoid or something. I'm reading it at the library at the moment and it's actually pretty interesting.

[Eliseos]

Oh wow, I'll have to check that article out. Pretty much everything I ever remember learning about the sun the teacher always said it's just an average star lol.

Also, I hate physics grade-curves. I thought I was doing absolutely horrible in thermo (I'd consider horrible around a C or so), professor released pre-final exam grades and I have a B+. Absolutely no idea how I pulled that off lol.

[Woozie]

I have an astrophysics question. Is there some sort of limit on how big a terrestrial planet can get? Or is it (theoretically) possible to have a rocky planet as large as a gas planet?

[Mizango]

Sath, I got your PM. I'll be reading it when I get home.

Also, for Sath, Mizango, and anyone else into astronomy/astrophysics

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9800

That's not the whole article, but I'd imagine you could find it on demonoid or something. I'm reading it at the library at the moment and it's actually pretty interesting.

Oh wow cool, looking for a torrent now. Thanks for the heads up.

I have an astrophysics question. Is there some sort of limit on how big a terrestrial planet can get? Or is it (theoretically) possible to have a rocky planet as large as a gas planet?

Theoretically yes, it is possible. We have a pretty good idea that rocky planets can range from 1 to about 10 Earth masses or so, with the largest being somewhere in the area of the size of Uranus or Neptune to give you a comparison. I think the problem with having a rocky planet the size of a mega Jovian planets is that the gravitational field (assuming it was stable) as it was being formed would have attracted all of the nearby gas and would eventually turn it into a gas giant with a super rocky core anyway.

Imagine having a crust that is several hundred thousand miles thick. The core of a planet like that would have to be something crazy to keep all of that together, and seeing how gas is far lighter than anything terrestrial this would cause all sorts of problems with it intact for billions of years. But since we are talking purely theoretical, you are absolutely right in thinking that anything is possible. I personally would love to observe one, perhaps one of these umpteen million hot Jupiters we're finding will show that they have a huge rocky core once their parent star burns off all of the accompanying gas.

One thing I am learning with space is there is no such thing as "absurd".

[Mizango]

Here is an article I had saved that talks about "Super Earths" (The term I couldnt remember above) and about the maximum size that we believe they can be. Iirc we have found a few of them in a galaxy close to us, relatively speaking.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1214121523.htm

[BerenTebogo]

I had thought there was a limit, but I couldn't tell you why.

I'll look into that other reading for sure but I need to finish this book I'm reading now, it's wicked good. The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.

[Mizango]

Brian Greene is awesome. Check out Fabric of the cosmos too! I can give you some fantastic reads when you're done with that.

[Max™]

Pretty sure if a rocky planet got past a certain mass it would easily accumulate a hydrogen/helium atmosphere and turn into a gas giant.

Finding a rocky planet past that mass would require some mechanism preventing it from holding onto lighter gases, I'd assume.


Seconding Fabric of The Cosmos btw, if you like Elegant Universe especially you'll enjoy it, then it depends if you like Smolin's writing style as to whether you'd like The Trouble With Physics and whatnot, good book though.

[Kaylia]

I have an astrophysics question. Is there some sort of limit on how big a terrestrial planet can get? Or is it (theoretically) possible to have a rocky planet as large as a gas planet?

Do we even have a clear definition for planets?


Anyway, Miz is right about the upper limit. Around 10 earth-mass, the gravity become strong enough to keep hydrogen atoms and this is, if our planet formation theory are correct, the difference between what will a jovian planets and a rocky planet.

Hot jupiter do evaporate, meaning they could in theory leave an empty core that is bigger than 10 earth-mass, but to wipe out all the hydrogen off the incredibly heavy core would require the planet to be very close from its star, so you have another "upper bound" here.


Assuming planets can be formed far away from stars and stellar clouds, the next size limit would be the fusion point of it's component (it would become a star otherwise). There is no serious scenario where something like this could happen, but nothing stop you from taking a large amount of asteroid to form the biggest rocky planets ever (in before pluton argument).

[Max™]

Isn't the brown dwarf > fusion ignition point somewhere around 10 jupiters though?

[Kaylia]

It is, but if jupiter was made entirely of silicium, the fusion points would be much higher.

[Effluo]

What would happen if you were traveling at the speed of light, and then turned on your headlights? Is that even possible?

I know if your driving your car at say, 120mph during a high speed shoot out, and then fire your gun, you get the velocity plus that extra 120mph or something like that... I'm curious if it's possible with light. Would that be considered FTL?