600€ per Month??? In germany you get like 2200€ and on lowend its like 1250€ (ofc there are alot of people below this but that's "usually" the stop).
I don't know about the usual costs in your country hp but my sister just got herself a little apartment here and she pays alone 410€ for that (she's a midwife and gets 2200€ p/M)
Come over to germany and work at Crytek 
As Portugal is EU you don't even need a Visa.
Well, trust me, house rents are not much cheaper than that over here either... Depends whether the location of the house is on a urban spot, or not. Prolly life is cheaper in here, compared to countries such as UK or Finland for example, but we also receive less money on our salaries compared to those countries.
And, yeh... I waiting on a certain company to get back to me, to know if I was accepted, if not I'll definitely send CV to Crytek. Who knows, right? :roll:
Quote from e-freak600€ per Month???
That's without the taxes, we need to give a part of those 600€ to the state for our retirement found, so we usually end up with less than 550€ each month, which is my salary atm as a computer tech 
The biggest problem is that after we adopted the €, the prices inflated almost 200% in some cases, for example a coffee used to cost .25€, and it now costs 0.50€ to 0.80€, and in some places it can go up to 1€! So we get payed the same as before, but have to pay 2 times more for almost everything. What happens now is that more than half of our population is in debt, and sometimes the loans are not made to pay for a house or a car, they are made to pay for the end of the month expenses, there are even some families that get loans to pay for other loans, which is insane!
About the US financial crisis... it's great 
hahaha buying things online from the US has never been better, it even compensates for the shipping fees most of the time. For example COD4 costs 49.99$, that's more or less 30€, shipping fees are around 10$, which is more or less 5€, that totals 35€ for a game that costs 55€ in stores here in Portugal 
If you buy 2 games you save enough to buy a third game!
I love the smell of petrol.
Well there has to be those who are getting screwed by this, and I'm one of those. I'm still sending back money to France as I need to pay back my business school loan until 2011, and that's costing me a leg each time. I just send a large amount once every few months, but I sure hope the rate has gone down again (or up depending on your side of the fence) next time I do it.
And yeah that's CAD, not USD, but it's really just about the same thing right now. I heard that Canada's economy was not heading in recession unlike the US, so we may be better off here.
Those solar plantations may supply many people but you can supply many more with atomic energy, while taking less space.It's maybe not that ecologically friendly but if you think realistic, that's the solution.
It's not that simple. You would have to mine uranium minerals (which could get short, too - just like oil), isolate them and make depleted uranium in facilities, and come to think of all the nuclear waste we're supposed to put somewhere. History has proven many times (also here in Switzerland), that many nuclear waste disposals aren't safe enough or are lacking certain security measures due to cheapness. I do not like the idea of my life being threatened by the cheapness of some firm. Hence why atom reactors are not the ultimative solution.
I disagree. Uranium is found in virtually every rock on earth. It's pretty abundant and you would be surprised at how much energy you can extract from a small amount of enriched ore.
Also, depleted uranium is not THAT dangerous unless it you inhale dust when it is incenerated/exploded/etc. Not trying to underplay its' toxicity but it is nowhere as dangerous as u235.
I do admit that storing it could be dangerous, but as long as there is a good plan and strategy at containing it I still think it is the best option we have at making clean power en masse at this point. I do agree that it is not an ultimate solution but I think it is the correct stepping stone.
In the US they are building a pretty huge facility inside of a mountain in the middle of a desert, should be pretty secure, but who knows.
Solar technology I hope will be the future, but the technology still just isn't there. We still aren't to the point where the efficiency is there and the cost per watt is way too high.
Quote from ChunksI disagree. Uranium is found in virtually every rock on earth. It's pretty abundant and you would be surprised at how much energy you can extract from a small amount of enriched ore. Also, depleted uranium is not THAT dangerous unless it you inhale dust when it is incenerated/exploded/etc. Not trying to underplay its' toxicity but it is nowhere as dangerous as u235.
I do admit that storing it could be dangerous, but as long as there is a good plan and strategy at containing it I still think it is the best option we have at making clean power en masse at this point. I do agree that it is not an ultimate solution but I think it is the correct stepping stone.
In the US they are building a pretty huge facility inside of a mountain in the middle of a desert, should be pretty secure, but who knows.
Solar technology I hope will be the future, but the technology still just isn't there. We still aren't to the point where the efficiency is there and the cost per watt is way too high.
while it's true that uranium is pretty abundant, it's mostly the depleted u238 isotope that is present. the highly radioactive u235 is only found in 5% of all uranium cases (give or take, cant remember the exact numbers). also, having a facility in the desert has little to no effect on the magnitude of a nuclear meltdown; chernobyl showed us that a meltdown can create a radioactively toxic cloud the size of belarus, and with heavy winds it swept over a large part of europe. so, unless you build it on antartica (poor penguins), there'll always be massive amounts of people endangered by it.
as for solar technology, read this guy's post about it (scroll down a bit, the headline is "the laser elevator"). while the tone is sort of humourous and at times sarcastic, this is actually written by a guy that worked at nasa, so i'd imagine it's something he has a lot of insight in:
You can't have a meltdown without the fuel rods hitting critical mass, something that modern day reactors are not very likely to ever see. Not to mention that's not an issue when you are storing depleted fuel rods. The only danger in storing the waste material is if someone was to break in and steal some and then make a dirty bomb out of it, which in the end would cause more hysteria than environmental damage. Which is why storing it in one big place is safer.
Reactors are designed differently now than they were in the chernobyl days, it was a flawed design to begin with.
I think we are getting off-topic 
Quote from ChunksYou can't have a meltdown without the fuel rods hitting critical mass, something that modern day reactors are not very likely to ever see. Not to mention that's not an issue when you are storing depleted fuel rods. The only danger in storing the waste material is if someone was to break in and steal some and then make a dirty bomb out of it, which in the end would cause more hysteria than environmental damage. Which is why storing it in one big place is safer.Reactors are designed differently now than they were in the chernobyl days, it was a flawed design to begin with.
I think we are getting off-topic
the fundemental design hasn't changed since chernobyl; however in the chernobyl accident there were many warnings that the plant administrator ignored. it feels bad to say that disaster could have been averted, and with ease at that; but the administrator just wouldn't listen!
point is, there is always a chance of something like this happening. it happened at chernobyl, it happened at the three mile island, and it'll probably happen again.
also, fyi, this is the off topic forum :monocle:
Also, depleted uranium is not THAT dangerous unless it you inhale dust when it is incenerated/exploded/etc. Not trying to underplay its' toxicity but it is nowhere as dangerous as u235.
Good that nobody would ever blow up depleted uranium....oh wait - Iraq? Entirely different story I guess, but also sad...
Quote from FrieChampGood that nobody would ever blow up depleted uranium....oh wait - Iraq? Entirely different story I guess, but also sad...
Yeah, if nuclear reactors or nuclear waste disposals become targets of military strikes, and that's very likely to happen in a war, where especially one party likes to break the boundaries, we're all screwed.
You can't have a meltdown without the fuel rods hitting critical mass, something that modern day reactors are not very likely to ever see. Not to mention that's not an issue when you are storing depleted fuel rods. The only danger in storing the waste material is if someone was to break in and steal some and then make a dirty bomb out of it, which in the end would cause more hysteria than environmental damage. Which is why storing it in one big place is safer.
Something can always happen. Always. It doesn't matter if it's a meltdown like in Chernobyl or something else. People are going to pay for it. Nuclear reactors are a huge risk.
Quote from SindwillerGood that nobody would ever blow up depleted uranium....oh wait - Iraq? Entirely different story I guess, but also sad...
Yeah, if nuclear reactors or nuclear waste disposals become targets of military strikes, and that's very likely to happen in a war, where especially one party likes to break the boundaries, we're all screwed.
You can't have a meltdown without the fuel rods hitting critical mass, something that modern day reactors are not very likely to ever see. Not to mention that's not an issue when you are storing depleted fuel rods. The only danger in storing the waste material is if someone was to break in and steal some and then make a dirty bomb out of it, which in the end would cause more hysteria than environmental damage. Which is why storing it in one big place is safer.
Something can always happen. Always. It doesn't matter if it's a meltdown like in Chernobyl or something else. People are going to pay for it. Nuclear reactors are a huge risk.
Actually I meant depleted uranium used on bullet shells to penetrate heavy amor. The shit is inhaled by soldiers and civilians alike and causes birth defections. Agent Orange anyone? But you might also have a point, I'm just not sure what kind of bomb it takes to damage a modern age nuclear power plant, those things are pretty tough.
Quote from SindwillerSomething can always happen. Always. It doesn't matter if it's a meltdown like in Chernobyl or something else. People are going to pay for it. Nuclear reactors are a huge risk.
Nuclear reactors are pretty damn safe, the only time things have gone wrong (Chernobyl,3 Mile) has been due to human error. I've been inside a Nuclear reactor complex and its a pretty amazing place and the safety precautions they have are amazing.
Nuclear reactors are pretty damn safe, the only time things have gone wrong (Chernobyl,3 Mile) has been due to human error. I've been inside a Nuclear reactor complex and its a pretty amazing place and the safety precautions they have are amazing.
what good are safety precautions if you don't follow them?
Its all automated these days, humans have very little input to cock things up. Chernobyl was a flawed reactor design with human incompetance controlling it, Three Mile island was mechanical flaws overlooked and ignored by humans. Lessons have been learned and things like this are a rareity. The weakpoint in systems like these are the humans in charge and especially these days the humans have been taken out of the process and the stations are run by computers which do not have hesitations and know what is the right course of action instantly.
I'm not saying Nuclear is 100% safe, it isnt but its by far the best interim option before we get to renewable energy.
I think some people still see Nuclear power stations as a huge idle nuclear bomb, which they're not. Same basic reaction, wildly different timescale of operation. Nuclear reactors have been around for approximatly 13,000 "reactor" years and we've had 2 significant reactions. Only Chernobyl really released anything dangerous, theres been plenty of other minor meltdowns but none have ever effected anyone outside the plants. More people die a year from coming into contact with other radioactive sources (scrapped X-ray machines in third world countries etc) than by nuclear power plant irradiation.
A good read:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html
Edit: The chart at the bottom illustrates the relative safety of Nuclear power over its last 40 years of operation
Nuclear has 32 immediate fatalities, mostly Chernobyl. Coal has 6400, Gas 1200 and Hydroelectricity 4000.
Its all automated these days, humans have very little input to cock things up. Chernobyl was a flawed reactor design with human incompetance controlling it, Three Mile island was mechanical flaws overlooked and ignored by humans. Lessons have been learned and things like this are a rareity. The weakpoint in systems like these are the humans in charge and especially these days the humans have been taken out of the process and the stations are run by computers which do not have hesitations and know what is the right course of action instantly.
And if the computer algorithms get to be wrong. What if they handle a new, so far unknown situation the wrong way (this applies for both human and computers). I mean, sure, nuclear power plants are much safer these days, no doubt. Computer technology is a huge step forward, no doubt. Though fully relying on them would increase the risk of something bad to happen, as there would be more power plants having the potential to go "boom"
Everything is run on redundant systems, a lot like an airplane but even moreso. If something fails there are 4+ backups.
Nuclear power is one of the safest alternatives out there. There has been so much hysteria and misinformation in the past and therefore it has gotten a bad rap. It deserves alot more credit than it has been given in terms of safety and effectiveness.
And back on the topic of depleted uranium. The toxicity is in no way related to its radioactivity, rather the fact that it is just a heavy metal ala lead.
The most potentially dangerous things often are historically the most safe, because everyone knows they can be dangerous as hell and a massive amount of resources are put into keeping them safe.
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
