Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more?
    #4629648 -

OK this is pretty straightforward:

We've got global warming, CO2, SO2, NOx and all kinds of gases emanating from our fossile (and biomass :smirk:) powerplants.

How about good old-fashion Nuclear Power? That never failed us!

If you "burn" 1kg of Uranium 235 you end up with about two pounds evil waste and the energy equivalent of burning some 10.000.000kg coal. If you burned the coal however you would end up with 37.500 metric tons of waste, mostly CO2 but interestingly enough also more radioactive waste than the nuke plant would leak out.

A 30 x 30 yard solar panel can supply energy to a street at most.
A 30 x 30 yard nuclear reactor can supply energy to a city at least.

I'd say encapsulate the nuclear waste and shoot it into space with a rail gun. Thusly freed of the nuclear waste problem I'd say build Nuclear Power plants and a lot of them to tide us over until we've got fusion/hydrogen working.

The science of the fission plant/rail gun combi is a no-brainer. A 21th century nuclear powerplant will be far safer than the ones we grew up with. If we can get fast breeder reactors to work nuclear fuel becomes an inexhaustible energy supply for millennia to come.

...but should we?

It might after all lead to catastrophies and a nuclear power plant is a viable terrorist target. It might proliferate weapons-grade plutonium into hands we'd rather keep it from.

So.. should we go for nuclear power for the time being, should we bet on renewables or should we burn oil, gas and coal as our major energy source?

Discuss!


.
What is our best bet for primary energy in the coming 50 years?
You may choose only one


Votes accepted from 09/07/05 11:41 AM until the end of time
You must vote before you can view the results of this poll



--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
personal empowerment for the world

:nyan: LGBT - Love God Before Tradition :nyan:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: Asante]
    #4629665 -

I don't think we should shoot it into space. There is the possibility of it coming back down, or not making it out, and spreading over a huge area. Beyond that, "spent" nuclear fuel still contains a great deal of energy - energy that we could still use, given the right technology. Why waste it all by shooting it off into space?

Deep nuclear storage sites, in the right places, should be secure for a very long time. If we keep the "spent" waste in there, there's always the possibility of someone designing a new reactor to use the "spent" fuel. This would further lower the radioactivity of the new "waste" (which itself might still be used again).

As long as the stuff has some radioactivity, it could be very useful to humans as fuel.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: trendal]
    #4629706 -

Quote:
As long as the stuff has some radioactivity


It will be more than some :wink:

We could create capsules that can withstand a failed launch, and if you shoot it @ the sun gravity will do the rest and it'll be blasted into solar wind.

The problem would be the stuff with halflifes in the 1.000-1.000.000 year range. That's pretty radioactive and longerlived than I think our society will be. (unless we go into space)
You don't want a stray comet to hit a centralized waste storage.

A 21th century nuclear power plant would likely already be underground  btw, but not as deep as storage should be.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
personal empowerment for the world

:nyan: LGBT - Love God Before Tradition :nyan:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: trendal]
    #4629724 -

"Experts Find Reduced Effects of Chernobyl"
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050906/ZNYT03/509060388

Chernobyl wasn't as bad as they thought is was going to be, and we can build them safer today.

We need a marshall plan for American energy resources and infrastructure. Energy is a national security issue.

We need to pour money into the energy grid, into 100 new nuclear reactors and into Alaskan Oil and the Canadian Tar sands. Fuck the arabs. We can do this.

And you can't outsource those jobs, and all the money stays in North America.

I would like to thumb my nose at that goon Chavez and the rest of those fucking towel heads. Fuck them.

Those nuke plants will last at least 50-60 years. By then we will have already found the next big thing. Lets fucking do it.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: Asante]
    #4629732 -

Shooting it in space could be disastrous. Imagine having a Columbia like disaster with spent radioactive fuel being spred across our atmosphere it would disastrous.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: JesusChrist]
    #4629734 -

Senator Tom McClintock
Date: April 30, 2001
Publication Type: Column Print Version

The newspaper?s front page contained one of those jigsaws of incongruity that one comes to expect these days in California. One article reported that the California Independent System Operator had just declared the latest in a long series of Stage Two electricity shortages, while another reported on workers merrily dismantling the Rancho Seco nuclear electricity generating plant near Sacramento.
Those two stories form the bookends of this state?s energy crisis. We need 15,000 megawatts of additional generating capacity to meet immediate demand, produce a sufficient surplus to force prices down, and to accommodate unexpected breakdowns of the state?s aging fleet of generators. And we can?t get there without a major commitment to nuclear energy.

California has only two nuclear power plants left from the era when California?s leaders were committed to cheap, clean and abundant electricity. Those two plants alone still produce 16 percent of the state?s electricity at the cost of roughly 3-cents per kilowatt hour ? a fraction of the 16-cents it now costs to produce the same electricity with a natural gas-fired plant.

The state of Vermont gets 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. France gets 76 percent. And yet, under current law, a nuclear power plant application cannot even be considered in California.

How are we to meet the demands for cheap, clean and abundant electricity without it?

California has overrun its natural gas supply, natural gas prices have skyrocketed and air regulators routinely require large plants to pay as much as $4.8 million per day for air pollution permits. And yet, gas fired plants are the only applications currently being considered.

?Renewables? like solar power are often touted as the energy supply of the future, but their power is neither cheap nor abundant. To replace the daily output of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant with photovoltaic cells, for example, would cost $66 billion (the price of 22 similar-sized nuclear plants today) and require 36 square miles of solid solar panels.

Coal is cheap ? about the same cost as nuclear power per kilowatt-hour ? but is the dirtiest form of energy available.

If clean, cheap and abundant power is the question, the only readily available answers are hydroelectric and nuclear.

Four thousand megawatts of hydroelectric power could be made available in the next five years by completing the Auburn Dam, increasing the capacity of the Shasta Dam and upgrading a variety of existing facilities. But hydroelectricity becomes unreliable in droughts, and still doesn?t bring us close to the 15,000 megawatts that California needs.

Which brings us back to the merry vandals at Rancho Seco, and ultimately to the ideological opposition that has blocked nuclear power development in California for 25 years.

During that period, nuclear technology has taken quantum leaps that have dramatically decreased costs and increased safety and reliability. The arguments of nuclear opponents have simply been eclipsed by a quarter century of solid technological advances.

Today, nuclear power can boast the safest operating record of any competitive power source in the history of the world. Modern nuclear plants operate for less than 2-cents per kilowatt-hour; 3-cents when construction and decommissioning costs are factored in. At that rate, the average home electricity bill would be $18 per month.

Nuclear power completely eliminates the chronic air pollution associated with electricity generation. In 1999, California?s two nuclear plants prevented the release of 181,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 7.7 million metric tons of carbon particulates that would have been produced by fossil fuel plants. And with production reactors in use around the world, the fuel is inexhaustible.

Nuclear plants create a fraction of the waste of conventional power plants. An ideal waste depository exists at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and recycling of nuclear waste ? a common practice around the world but not in the United States ? would reduce that fraction to a fraction.

California?s public officials will hear none of this, of course. After all, sky-high prices for electricity, ubiquitous power blackouts, dirty air, and yet another exodus of business away from California are a small price for them to pay to avoid the wrath of California?s anti-nuclear zealots. But is it a price the rest of us should pay?


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: Asante]
    #4629780 -

If we can find a safer or more productive way to dispose of the waste, I'd be all for nuclear energy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: Asante]
    #4630040 -

I'd like to learn more about shooting the stuff into space with a rail gun. It would have to be one HELL of a rail gun though, but if we could pull it off it could work. There aren't any explosions involved with them since its powered by electromagnetic fields, so there wouldn't be any colombia type mishaps. Shooting an unmaned projectile into space is a million times less complex than shooting a man aircraft into space and having a way for them to land safely.


--------------------
Kira: What do Klingons dream about?

Worf: Things that would send cold chills down your spine, and wake you up in the middle of the night. No, it is better you do not know

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: Worf]
    #4630438 -

Well, starting from scratch for those unfamiliar with rail guns:

Imagine you got a steel ball. Hold a magnet close to it and the ball will roll towards it. Now imagine a tube thats a row of electromagnets. When the ball almost reaches the first magnet it shuts down and the second activates. This is basically the principle of the monorail train.

Because you use no moving parts (just magnets going off and on electrically) a circle of magnets can send the metal ball going around at breathtaking speeds. Think several kilometers per second.

Once the speed is sufficient you send it from the "speeder" down the "barrel" and flying off to another continent, earth orbit or directly into deep space. Because you're the one speeding up the projectile and releasing it at will you know when the projectile has sufficient speed to do what we want it to do, which is leave earth behind. If done properly, you know before release that it will be a successful launch.

It is like firing a cannon and technically a rail gun could say shoot one such projectile every half hour or so.

Interesting is that the rail gun is powered by *electricity*, prercisely the stuff the nuclear fuel provides in abundance.

Sooo.. you've got 200 pounds of nuclear waste. You put this into a solid capsule of lets say one ton of highest grade steel, and with one shot you rid yourself of the waste that provided the energy of 1 billion kilos of coal and which saved you 3.75 billion kilos of greenhouse gasses and other waste. Pooff! Problem solved.

The rail gun is tricky for shoving useful stuff into space, but a solid metal capsule with ceramic nuclear waste would be no problem at all.

It will shoot for the sun, melt and vaporize into a high speed radioactive cloud that will be blast-dispersed by the solar radiation into nonproblematic spacedust, diluted down by the solar wind to form the stardust our planet is a rather large ball of.

Personally I am a believer for the Fusion Reactor which we will see in our lifetimes, one's being built in France right now, which turns a component of all water (deuterium) into helium and the energy of the Hydrogen Bomb and the Sun.

D + D --> 3He + n + Energy (for my fellow nerds)

The fusion reactor produces no nuclear waste to speak of, but it needs some more time before its our primary energy source: Think of a power plant where water goes in and hydrogen fuel & electricity pour out.

To buy us the time, given global warming and other climate effects, I'd say meet the energy bill with old-fashion Nuclear Power in 21th century reactors until they can be decomissioned as the true energy of the future, fusion, takes over.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
personal empowerment for the world

:nyan: LGBT - Love God Before Tradition :nyan:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: Asante]
    #4630443 -

interesting.


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: Asante]
    #4630626 -

But shooting it into the sun is still waisting a potentialy vital source of energy! That's like firing all the coal off into space. It's not as good as oil for energy and it will also release a SHITLOAD of greenhouse gases and other pollutants if it was burned...so who needs it?

Any comet large enough to rupture a nuclear waste storage site and eject the contents would, itself, spell destrution for most of the human race. Radioactive waste would be the least of our worries :smirk:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: Asante]
    #4630770 -

I vote for nuclear power, but not with your poll comment: "It's A Mess But It's Confined." I have no idea what "mess" you're referring to. My only guess could be radiation, but a typical coal burning plant would miserably fail the radiation standards that a nuclear plant must pass.

Of course build more reactors. In fact, at least a few companies in the US have started looking into applying for licenses.

There are some serious engineering problems that must be solved before fusion can be a viable energy source. Expecting it in our lifetimes is extremely optimistic. It's been 20 years until fusion for the past 50 years.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: Asante]
    #4631008 -

I'm most concerned about the safety of workers in the uranium mines, and processing facilities.

The nuclear waste itself i'm not too concerned with.


Bury it in a subduction zone so it gets sucked back down into the Earth's mantle.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #4631974 -

Nuclear power is the best thing out there. There are alot myths about it, in reality it is not very dangerous at all. Too bad the average person can't tell the difference between an nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb. Take France they get a huge amount of their energy from fission, and they've never had any environmental problems as result.

Fusion would be nice, solar would be nice, but for now nuclear fission is the only smart option. I say get rid of coal and fossile fuel and use only nuclear and renewable energy sources.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: Asante]
    #4632987 -

I think we should build more nuke plants.

Using a rail-gun to shoot the stuff into space is not 100% safe, a timing or coil malfunction can cause the projectile to go off course, even possibly wrecking the gun, and at near muzzle velocity of a gun that can shoot something into space that is going to be very messy indeed. There is also the possibility of a very high energy collision with aircraft or space junk. I say store the stuff until we can reprocess it or move it into space safely, maybe with an orbital elevator.

The waste problem aside there are other problems with nuclear power though that mean that it can not be the solution by itself.

1. Its not practical for transport, however it could be used to produce hydrogen that could be used to fuel vehicles.

2. A nuclear power plant can not vary its output very quickly. Demand surges would result in brownouts and over production would have to by sunk somewhere. Buffer stations such as kinetic storage (fuck off big fly wheels) or potential energy storage (pumping water uphill) could provide a solution to this.

3. Transmission loss. Energy loss is increased the further you have to ship it through wires. Not so much a problem for a place like the UK where we are all crammed into a little island, but the US is vast.

4. Security, terrorists yadda.. yadda.. yadda...

Nuclear can and should form an important part of energy policy, but it is not a panacea.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: Asante]
    #4633059 -

Quote:
Nuclear power is the best thing out there. There are alot myths about it, in reality it is not very dangerous at all. Too bad the average person can't tell the difference between an nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb. Take France they get a huge amount of their energy from fission, and they've never had any environmental problems as result.


The only difference between a nuclear bomb and a nuclear reactor is nothing more than the speed of the reaction, period. There is nothing debate on this issue. Granted, even if the control of a nuclear reactor fails, it will not explode like a nuclear bomb. Even though it doesn't explode like a bomb, the environmental damage done by an out-of-control nuclear reactor is severe and long lasting.

There have been numerous examples in the US of run away nuclear reactors. Most of these have been covered up. I'm not talking tinfoil hat conspiracies... if you dig long and hard at the library, you will find references. However, the mainstream media never picked the stories up for whatever reason. A good example... there was an experimental breeder reactor in the Detroit area that started to run away. They got extremely lucky and were able to poison the reaction before it went too far. Had only a few more minutes (literally) passed, Detroit would be an inhabitable ghost town for the next few thousand years.

Regarding France... they have a good record on safety. However, you have ignored the entire enrichment process of the fuel along with the storage of the waste.

In one of my college physics classes we discussed the potential of rail guns for shooting nuclear waste into space. The problem is massive in scale. The rail gun ended up being several thousand meters long and the energy requirements needed to kick an few kilogram pod out of orbit were astronomical. (It takes a lot more energy to break earth orbit than to simply reach orbit. The chance of an orbiting pod of nuclear waste falling back to earth was unacceptable for our design.) Our final design used a mountain in Hawaii to house the rail gun and geothermal power from the magma in the area to generate the power needed to use the rail gun. Our final conclusion considered the prospect unfeasible.

> Build more reactors.

Which reminds me... something else not often spoke of... the lifetime of a nuclear reactor... unlike fossil fuel plants, a nuclear reactor has a set lifetime that it is safe to operate over. The huge number of high energy neutrons zipping around takes a toll on materials.

> but for now nuclear fission is the only smart option

Our definitions of smart obviously differ.

> I'm most concerned about the safety of workers in the uranium mines, and processing facilities.

Natural uranium is not a very dangerous substance. I have a big chunk of it on my desk that I use as a paperweight. We used to use it in roofing material and in paint. Coal mining is more dangerous than uranium mining.

The processing facilities is another matter. You are correct to have concern over these. Some of the worst contamination problems that I know about happened at various processing (or reprocessing) facilities.

> The nuclear waste itself i'm not too concerned with. Bury it in a subduction zone so it gets sucked back down into the Earth's mantle.

The Soviet Union tried to do this... after a few years of pumping the nuclear waste into the ground, they ended up with a massive explosion. This was back in the height of the cold war and I was never able to find many details about what happened.

> It might proliferate weapons-grade plutonium into hands we'd rather keep it from.

Do you know what weapons-grade plutonium is? Probably not. Plutonium comes in various isotopes with the 239 isotope being the one that is used in bombs. The other common isotope is 240, which is extremely hot. The 240 isotope cannot be used in a bomb because it is too hot... the bomb will blow itself apart before it has a chance to assemble. In weapons grade plutonium, 240 is considered a poison.

Plutonium is bred from uranium-238. When uranium-238 absorbs a neutron, it undergoes beta decay (twice) to arrive at plutonium-239. However, if there are a lot of free neutrons, the plutonium-239 will absorb a neutron and we end up at plutonium-240. In a commercial nuclear reactor, we want lots of energy which equates to lots of heat which equates to lots of neutrons which equates to lots of plutonium-240 being produced. To create plutonium-239, the reactor must be run very slowly and the plutonium must be extracted often, well before the uranium has been consumed.

For those not familiar with plutonium, it is an 'evil' substance. Plutonium hydride will burn if exposed to air (at room temperature) creating plutonium oxide. Plutonium oxide is a fine powder that is difficult to contain. If you have a beaker of the substance, it will climb up and out of the beaker, spreading on its own. Plutonium has four ionic oxidation states and undergoes various changes in contraction as the temperature increases.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: Seuss]
    #4633185 -

So where did your vote go? Renewable energy?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: Seuss]
    #4633565 -

The only difference in a fire and an explosion is the rate of reaction.


That is just as true for wood, coal, oil, paper, flour, etc. as it is for a nuclear reaction.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: Seuss]
    #4633937 -

Quote:
Do you know what weapons-grade plutonium is? Probably not.


Weapons grade plutonium is isolated 239Pu, and it is your best bet if you're trying to get a breeder reactor to work, so it will be around. 240Pu is not just too "hot" for an A bomb but also for concentrating it for a breeder reactor. Because it is manufactured from uranium but is chemically different from it yet not too unstable it's the easiest to concentrate. France has several tons of it lying around awaiting incorporation into nuclear fuels such as LEU/Pu.

But yes its evil. A particle of one millionth of a gram, inhaled, will likely give you lung cancer.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
personal empowerment for the world

:nyan: LGBT - Love God Before Tradition :nyan:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more? [Re: Asante]
    #4634431 -

I think current fission plants are a dangerous thing...like Seuss is saying, there have been NUMEROUS near-metldowns that aren't common knowledge....and most of the plants that we do have are insanely old and very, very poorly maintained/overseen.

That being said, i do think that the United States should have a backbone of nuclear reactors to supply basic necessity power....lifesupport, emergency shelters, etc. And that there should be a mass migration AROUND THE WORLD to renewable energy resources as a way to offset the coming energy disaster.

As far as waste elimination...subduction zones is a great concept, but we don't have the technology to securely place a load there with any assurance it won't contaminate the surrounding area. Space? well, yeah, if we can get it there....what's the payload capacity of modern rockets? Shove it into orbit, then use solar power (or a space based fission reactor) to shove that shit into the sun. ALtho that could have some serious consequences as well.

But a backbone of fission plants for emergency purposes i can countenance....any use for serious power generation would be foolhardy and, eventually, disasterous.


--------------------
"..all those molecules thrashing their kinky little tails, hot for destiny and the street."  Gibson


Nuke baby seals for Jesus!

(This has been a +1 production.)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Russia delays start-up of Iran nuclear power plant by one ye wingnutx 760 1 10/13/03 07:08 PM
by lysergic
* Worldwide Power Outages
( 1 2 3 all )		 catalyst777 2,178 40 10/02/03 03:11 PM
by wingnutx
* New US Nuclear Plan. 7 Countries Named Targets. Ellis Dee 2,112 17 03/12/02 11:06 PM
by Jammer
* Iran Will Allow U.N. Inspections of Nuclear Sites Zahid 755 3 10/22/03 11:50 PM
by Zahid
* Massive East Coast Power Outage!
( 1 2 3 all )		 Swami 4,109 55 08/16/03 07:38 PM
by Cornholio
* Israel Ready to Strike Iranian Nuclear Sites Zahid 1,330 13 10/13/03 08:18 PM
by trendal
* Plants of Power: BBC Radio Broadcast involving laws andusag medicinebag 438 0 12/27/03 08:00 PM
by medicinebag
* Taliban, Nuclear? MokshaMan 1,771 19 12/11/01 05:24 AM
by Omega137

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,481 topic views. 4 members, 17 guests and 40 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.059 seconds spending 0.027 seconds on 23 queries.