Belgium To Give Up Nuclear Power 298
AmiMoJo writes "Belgium's political parties have reached a conditional agreement to shut down the country's two remaining nuclear power stations. Older reactors will be decommissioned by 2015, with the final closures happening before 2025. The exit is conditional on alternatives being available. 'If it turns out we won't face shortages and prices would not skyrocket, we intend to stick to the nuclear exit law of 2003,' a spokeswoman for Belgium's energy and climate ministry said."
A little slow... (Score:2)
They've been planning this since 2003, when they passed legislation to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite. Legislation was passed in 2003 requiring it, but the current news is that both political sides have finally hammered out a strategy, plan to do so and actually agreed to the implementation process.
Actually, for politicians, eight years to plan turning off a few power plants seems almost speedy... *cough*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There was a very nice disclaimer though, which went something like "if alternatives can be found to replace the power plants". Without going with coal/oil (and Belgium is not very rich in hydro), there are not that many solid options. Effectively they are saying to the public that "yes we will turn them off" but in reality they are saying "yeah, we will turn them off (but you know... there are no realistic alternatives, so we will just kick the can in front of us and make a decision later)".
Slow and stupid. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's sad to watch whole countries shoot themselves in the foot over hysteria and foolishness. But those are the times we live in: where most countries have adopted a system where any two idiots can outvote an expert, whether those people are rank and file (straight democracy), or holding elected office (republics and so on.) And all this in environments where experts are actually rare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
In the state in Germany where I live (Germany is a federation like the US), the percentage of renewable energy in the mix already is at 55%
Please provide proof.
Anyone can say anything.
Please provide proof that an energy hungry country like Germany can obtain 55% of its total energy needs solely from renewable sources.
Danke !
Re: (Score:2)
It's about 10% currently. However, he said his state has a percentage of 55%, not Germany as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
He said "In the state in Germany where I live", not the whole of Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to Wikipedia it's only 17 per cent. [wikimedia.org]
That's probably higher on a windy day (heck, even here in Spain we can hit 40% on a windy day) but the leap from 17% to 100% is massive. A vast chasm. Maybe even impossible to achieve in practice.
At some point you're going to have to burn fuel. If you stop using those cold war bomb manufacturing plants as energy sources then Nuclear is the best option.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's ingenious really. Politicians get to say they killed nuclear power (15 years from now) so they appease the anti-nuke crowd. Pro-nukes wins either way, if reactors are replaceable and some technology does come along then we get cheap clean energy anyway, if not then the nukes stay around.
Unless we find an alternative it's essentially pro-nuke legislation dressed up as greenpeace.
in other news, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Honest question: How come Slashdot seems to be the only outlet recognizing Ron Paul's candidacy?
When looking to news, or debates or whatever, they present O'Romney, Parry, Whats-her-name, and pizza-dude, but I hardly every hear Ron Paul being mentioned, even when he is right there on the screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice strawman!
*claps slowly*
Re: (Score:2)
Money isn't an issue, just guarantee the loans and it should happen. Nuclear reactors are really cheap to operate virtually all of the expense involved comes from constructing the plant. After that, even with proper safety procedures the cost isn't that much.
I'm actually surprised that places like Montana and Nebraska aren't all over this, give that they can be built in the middle of nowhere and still be quite useful.
Re: (Score:3)
just guarantee the loans and it should happen
Yep, and just don't forget to add the cost for one of them having a rare accident. In Japan, Fukushima is estimated to have added 5 (the local nuclear lobby) to 48 (independent Japanese university researchers of nuclear power) yen to every nuclear-power generated kilowatt, which allegedly used to cost 5 yen before the accident.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to ask where the money for this would come from, but seeing as it's Ron Paul, I'd imagine he's aiming at cutting the safety regulations behind nuclear power and letting the free market have a field day at creating shoddier, but significantly cheaper, nuclear plants.
Nothing can go wrong, guys! The invisible hand of the market will force all those energy companies whose plants meltdown will die out and only those who have put in significantly into safety will be able to last long enough to be rich!
We'll still have tons of nuclear disasters on our hand until that self regulation, but the market can do no wrong, right?
And also, a little bit of radiation never did anybody any harm. If anything, it speeds along evolution and gives us superpowers! :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear reactors were still incredibly expensive in the USSR, China, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia and North Korea. That should indicate that you really haven't been very well informed on this issue.
The above story is really putting a "green" spin on doing nothing. It's a major long term expense to build new nuclear capacity or
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Hell, after he shuts down the Department of Energy it's not like there'll even be anyone to judge the safety of those new rectors.
Re: (Score:2)
What? You would Denigrate our Great Political Process, Suh? Why, I oughta... That is To Say... if I were a Younger Man, Suh...
Re: (Score:3)
Safety and Success aren't synonymous.
No, but an industry that is limited by public hysteria are only shooting themselves in the foot if they allow even a small scale accident to occur. This isn't even about safety - its about public perception of safety.
Only France is not foolish in EU. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only France is not foolish in EU. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's French power (plus new brown coal burning plants, yuck!) that will make up for the impending loss of nuclear plants in Germany.
Why is that (aside from the brown coal plants) a bad thing that a country decides to buy cheap electricity from another? Especially when it's all in Europe where you can throw a stone across three countries?
From a political point of view, it is actually rather sensible. You drop the cost associated with maintaining aging nuclear facilities which offsets the price you buy it for from France who will no doubt be happy to sell it to you, your country doesn't get any worse in terms of emissions and in the terrible event that something goes wrong at the plant, you will sleep happily in the political knowledge that the meltdown didn't happen in your country.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially when it's all in Europe where you can throw a stone across three countries?
[...]
you will sleep happily in the political knowledge that the meltdown didn't happen in your country.
We may be safe from the political fallout; unfortunately not the other kind. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
in the terrible event that something goes wrong at the plant, you will sleep happily in the political knowledge that the meltdown didn't happen in your country.
You might want to take a look at this this map of french nuclear reactors [wikipedia.org] and notice along which border the top 3 are located. The (significant) costs of this will be borne by the people as usual and the politicians get another board position to retire to. What's wrong with this picture ?
Re: (Score:2)
in the terrible event that something goes wrong at the plant, you will sleep happily in the political knowledge that the meltdown didn't happen in your country.
If something did go badly wrong in France the whole of western Europe would have a problem. When the Chernobyl accident happened it affected EU countries as well as Russia.
Back to the topic at hand the EU is looking to build large solar thermal plants in northern Africa. Expect Libya to get them in the next few years. Handy how France and the UK helped liberate them, but I'm sure it was purely altruistic and in no way an attempt to secure valuable resources.
Re: (Score:3)
We invaded them to gain access to some empty desert?
I've heard it all now.
Re: (Score:2)
France also export a lot of electricity to their neighbors and have just about the lowest per-kWh prices in Europe. It's French power (plus new brown coal burning plants, yuck!) that will make up for the impending loss of nuclear plants in Germany. I bet the story of Belgium will be somewhat similar.
The belgian energy market is owned by Electrabel, which in turn is owned by the french GDF Suez. We will very soon by forced to import even more energy from France. Of course the two are completely unrelated (!)
Re: (Score:2)
And as the ability to produce one's own energy decreases I would expect a rise in prices to export it from another country. Supply and demand and all that.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Only France? The UK has affirmed it's stance that new reactors are needed and will be built...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not much new here... (Score:2)
They felt this way in 2003, they're confirming they still feel this way today, and those plants will probably be at the end of their design life by the time they are decommissioned anyway.
If they happen to change their minds anytime in the next 14 years, they can always start the construction of new plants then.
It's not as if they're so far from France that they're safe from nuclear power generation accidents or anything...
Re: (Score:2)
More likely they will be far, far beyond the end of their design life by the time they're decommissioned, and they'll probably get decommissioned because they get a serious accident due to running far, far beyond the end of their design life because they weren't replaced by new reactors or anything else.
Ah, well, I've gotten my own hydro power facility now so my needs are more than covered (well, will be once I bring the turbine on-line).
Russia and France are loving this! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, just like rare earths (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sure, just like rare earths (Score:4, Insightful)
I am afraid you give way too much credit to the anti-nuke movement, and way too little credit to corporate greed.
Re:Sure, just like rare earths (Score:4, Informative)
By that same definition, people smoking tobacco and breathing in asbestos right now have not died, so those substances are perfectly safe, right? That argument has worked for those respective industries for a while. What are you going to do when people smarten up to the delayed incubation trick? Just move to the next talking point, I suppose . . .
"From JUST West Virginia"
Because we all know that every state has identical levels of coal mining . . . But, really, mining? Because we all know that there are absolutely no risks to uranium mining [moabtimes.com]. Oh, and there are absolutely no additional risks to residents close to uranium mines [uc.edu] that residents close to coal mines don't have to worry about . . .
Re:Russia and France are loving this! (Score:5, Informative)
Belgium has quite a bit of a renewables coming online:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Belgium#Renewable_energy [wikipedia.org]
I'll be the last person to bash nuclear. New designs are safe, efficient, and cost effective. But once you put enough solar and wind generation out there, and back it with proper storage/buffering facilities (large battery/flywheel banks, pumped storage, etc), the argument is moot.
The price of solar is dropping so fast, solar businesses are struggling to stay afloat. Their loss is our gain, and you'll continue to see the price per watt of solar plummet. Wind is only getting more efficient, as gearboxes are being replaced with more efficient magnetic bearings and transfer systems:
http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/super-smooth-magnetic-bearings-glide-closer-to-the-mainstream.html [treehugger.com]
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/25188/page1/ [technologyreview.com]
If you read my second link, you'll see GE is building 4 MW direct drive turbine systems. Yeah, 4 megawatts. As efficiency continues to scale up, you'll see windfarm nameplate capacity rival the largest coal and nuclear plants. Yes, yes, you'll still have to deal with generation peaks and valleys, but the energy is there for the taking!
Re: (Score:2)
From your Wikipedia link. ... and ...
=============
In 2000, nuclear power contributed to 58.24% of the 78.85 TWh (total rate: 9 GWe) produced domestically.[7]
In 2000, renewable energy was used for producing 0.71% of the 78,85 TWh of electricity produced domestically.
=============
There was a rather optimistic projection of full exploitation of offshore wind at 17TWh, assuming this was possible.
If the two plants are producing over half of that 79TWh, looks like wind has a ways to go to come close to replacing
Re: (Score:2)
This is a common mistake - comparing peak (nameplate) capacity to peak capacity. For actual power generation rates throughout the year, you have to multiply by capacity factor.
For nuclear, capacity factor is about 0.9. That is if a nuclear reactor has a peak generating capacity o
Re: (Score:2)
The price of solar is dropping so fast, solar businesses are struggling to stay afloat. Their loss is our gain, and you'll continue to see the price per watt of solar plummet.
This is a false argument. The people who supply and build our systems going broke is not our gain. It has a fixed floor. The prices will either continue to plummet making it completely unviable to enter the solar business (the largest solar manufacturing plant in Australia has already closed and shipped off to ... you guessed it ... China), they hit a break even point, or the quality suffers to a point where solar panels don't last as long as they do anymore (I still have a 35 year old hifi in my house, how
50 years ago (Score:4, Interesting)
1. the space industry was booming
2. the nuclear industry was booming
3. the computer industry was just a support system for the real heroic industries
now: the computer industry is the preeminent world industry (in terms of influence, company valuations, etc), and the space industry and nuclear industry are frail, aged, and dying
not exactly what people imagined 50 years ago, in policy making and the popular imagination
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, the private sector is only interested in LEO and quick profits, they are not making new discoveries.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the problem was not with the popular imagination, but the poor policy making. The US would be fully energy independent today, and nuclear would be a brilliant, thriving industry, if only it had proceeded in a different direction. Indeed, the entire world would be a very different place, with the proliferation of cheap, safe energy, and reduced friction over fossil fuel resources. Maybe not too cheap to meter, but energy cheaper than from coal is quite possible with Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the one constant has been the porn industry.
The real reason why... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm from Belgium and this has been discussed since 2003... why now? Knowing that Electrabel until recently was the owner of these 2 power, the following may explain why the decision has been taken to decommission them:
From the Wikipedia page for Electrabel:
For a long time a majority stake in Electrabel was held by the French company Suez. In 2005, Suez increased its stake to 96.7% and a squeeze-out of the remaining shareholders was completed on 10 July 2007, when the company was delisted from the stock exchange. Following Suez's 2008 merger with Gaz de France, Electrabel is now a subsidiary of GDF Suez.
I won't speculate on the exact economic benefits it will bring to GDF, but lets be clear the decision wasn't made for climate or anti-nuclear reasons. This decision will certainly assure the energy monopoly of GDF in Belgium.
!Tautology (Score:4, Insightful)
if (false && false) exit_nukes();
Hope they don't choose coal (Score:3, Insightful)
Crunching the numbers, the health effects from a normally operating coal plant (+10% cancer rate within 20 km) is about the projected effect of Fukushima's fallout for inhabitants within 30 km. Long term effects of coal outside this range are also similar (same order of magnitude), regular functioning coal vs. major nuclear accident.
Furthermore, the majority of the long term Fukushima radiation effect (Cs) has a half-life of two years, were much of the cancer effect from coal is permanent due to chemical ground water and soil contamination.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
France will happily provide power from Givet (Score:2)
France has a power plant near Givet [google.com], which is situated in a "peninsula" of French territory going into Belgium. That's going to be pretty convenient when Belgium needs to buy massive amounts of power from abroad (hint: Belgium is very poorly endowed for hydro/solar/geothermal energy)
Re: (Score:2)
You're half-way there. France already sells Italy a substantial fraction of Italy's power. Add in Germany and now Belgium, and one starts to see a nice national business for the French, exporting the results of decades of investment and mass-production of nuclear power plants and operators, and the whole fuel chain. It will keep getting cheaper by the unit, the more they do. France is undoubtedly the mainstay of the OECD analysis that nuclear is actually the most competitive investment, with the provi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think a large reason that a lot of nuclear reactors end up on the border is because you have to build them next to running water, by coincidence running water is also the most practical place to draw a border after a peace agreement.
Just thinking... (Score:2)
I've been reading foundation recently, and it's spot on. Nuclear power plants breaking down because they're old and in disrepair? Train new technicians and build new plants? Unthinkable! Restrict nuclear power! Nuclear power is one of the only viable mid-term energy sources until we can get ourselves on to decentralized green energy, and even then it's incredibly useful for base load, non-intermittent power generation. We're now trying to get off of it for what exactly? Solar's not that viable in Europe as
Where Have We Come in 70 Years? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
French nuke plants are good quality (Score:2)
I am Belgian... (Score:2)
Buying power from neighboring countries... (Score:2)
Its a good thing that all European countries get along so well with their neighbors, and that they always will.
If history is any lesson, this should continue to work smoothly for hundreds of years!
Seems logical (Score:2)
If you have a plentiful source of cheap energy you should quit nuclear too. The condition is rational, whether it will be true by 2025 is another question.
They won't (Score:2)
Only 2 to 5% nuclear (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here Here! (Score:4, Interesting)
This, they're idiots. First they sold off our national energy company to the french, causing prices to skyrocket so we now pay the second highest price for our energy of all of europe (only Ireland beat us.) Now they're closing down the only reliable local source of energy we have which will force further imports and further price rises. They did pretty much the same with our banks too, selling to the french who then sucked them dry and left us with the bankruptcy and the costs. Oh and our national airline, ... Belgium's politicians are totally corrupt, or at best hopelessly incompetent. And people wonder why we haven't been able to form a new government for more than 500 days now.
Re:Here Here! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well we're already learning dutch, french, german and english, what's one more language ? Kalispera !
Re:Here Here! (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to mention the power companies (Electrabel ) :
We are still paying for the nuclear plants to be payed of earlier ( although they are already payed off for years now ).
Yet they barely investing that money in green energy.
On the contrary : they are charging their customers, for the loss of revenue due to people placing solar panels on their roofs ( because they have to pay them green certificates, because they themselves don't reach the required quota and would have to pay fines).
So the people who actually care about the environment and place solar panels, are getting a bad name, because the other people have to pay for it.
It's a form of 'divide and conquer' : have the people fight each other, and they won't be strong enough to fight the real culprits .
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Having seen a Belgian energy bill, I can't say I fully agree. The price per kWh is not that high, however Electrabel charges something like 10 times the normal price as network connection fees. Which means that the end bill is a LOT higher than for the average European. The end result for the consumer (some of the highest bills to the electrical companies) is the same, but the devil is in the detail.
Re: (Score:2)
The "working alternative" is called France. It shares a border with Belgium
The French must be really happy with the Green Party right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Good for them! Finally, some common sense and rational planning, instead of letting the market get our power from anywhere without regard to the consequences!
I like your sarcasm. :)
Re:idiots. (Score:5, Insightful)
"its not like we aren't just as fucked if a nuclear powerplant blows up in france or in belgium"
There being no reason a modern nuke plant should "blow up", it makes more sense to pay France for power and avoid the construction, maintenance, closure, and remediation expenses of having plants in Belgium.
You need electricity. You don't need to own what produces it, and a microscopic country such as Belgium risks nothing by outsourcing power production next door. OTOH it avoids all the pitfalls of new construction.
Re:idiots. (Score:5, Insightful)
Outsourcing is never risk free. Belgians are going to pay for the construction, maintenance, closure, and remediation expenses embedded in the power costs, plus profit plus be dependent on someone for energy who will definitely put their own needs first.
If we were looking at a future glut in energy you might be ok. But that isn't really what the predictions are.
Closing down old plants and building something better is a great idea. Why not do that instead?
Re: (Score:2)
" 'There being no reason a modern nuke plant should "blow up",
Terrorism ?
Re:idiots. (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty hard with old reactors. You require something catastrophic to happen. Pretty close to impossible for new designs that use passive cooling systems.
Re: (Score:2)
+1
Only older designs are vulnerable, where you need external power for several days to actively cool a shut down core until its cool enough that thermal runaway won't occur. Newer designs? I'd live on the farking property if I could. All the hot water and power I could ever want.
"Those BWR reactors..." (Score:2)
Those BWR reactors were new and modern at the time they went online.
At the time they went on line... by which you mean "approximately half a century ago, the first two of which went on line prior to the first moon landing, when Lyndon Johnson was president of the US". Right?
We went from horse drawn carriages to landing on the moon in about the same amount of time the Fukishima BWR designs have been around; are you seriously claiming we haven't been able to design better reactors in that amount of time?
-- Terry
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty hard with old reactors. You require something catastrophic to happen. Pretty close to impossible for new designs that use passive cooling systems.
Fukushima had a passive cooling system. It was _shut_down_ because it was cooling too quickly!
Re: (Score:2)
But... but... Radiation! an... an... Hiroshima and stuff! AN.... 3 Mile Island an... Chernobyl! Glowing in the Dark! (climbs back into car and zips off down freeway...)
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm. Chernobyl, Fukushima. Nuclear power plants haven't been operating for 20,000 years. I think the odds of an accident are a little better than you think, and those are just the two biggies that have happened within recent memory.
Here's the bottom line: When there's a profit motive, corners will be cut, and accidents will happen. Period. The difference is, when an accident happens at a nuclear power plant, it contaminates the environment for hundreds of square miles. When an accident happens in a so
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see...
Terrorists might bring 500 tons of TNT into a nuclear plant and set it off. That would make a hell of a (non-nuclear) explosion. Might even break the containment vessel, if they knew what they were doing when they laid the charges. Most likely not, since it's pretty hard to synchronize that much boom.
But other than that, it's not going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorists might bring 500 tons of TNT into a nuclear plant and set it off.
What is more practical from the terrorist's POV?
1) Bring 500 tons of TNT into a guarded, monitored, secure territory that is in the middle of nowhere. Take your time to deploy these 500 tons by hand through narrow service corridors. Install charges near a meter-thick reactor vessel that is designed to survive just such explosions. Detonate the thing and scare all the nearby rabbits because the powerplant is so far from anything
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on how stoned they were when "Night of the Lepus" came on.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be extraordinarily difficult to achieve. Those plants are built like bunkers, and the security clearance needed to get to work in one is extensive. I don't know about the checks they do in Belgium, but the ones they do in the US go on for a long time before they're granted.
And you would need more than just one individual to do it too, so, you'd have to sneak through several personnel into the same nuclear power plant without being detected. I'm sure it's hypothetically possible, but at that point
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You know, this has always made me wonder.
The U.S. surely has some areas that are free from natural disasters like tornadoes, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. You always see the same few places getting socked by something horrible - and yet, a large amount of the Midwest is practically deserted.
Why hasn't the people who live there moved somewhere like that? More importantly, why hasn't the federal government encouraged people to move to such a place? Instead, we keep bailing these people out who repea
Re: (Score:2)
Big picture:
People live where they do for a reason. Usually jobs.
The coasts have, well, oceans right there. Which means incredibly cheap bulk transport for the products of their industries as well as the raw materials they need to import (food, that sort of thing).
River valleys are much the same - that river makes shipping bulk goods cheap and easy.
Alas, the parts of the country that are away from the coasts and rivers don't have those advantages.
Alas, also, the parts of the country that are away fro
Re: (Score:2)
Rivers and Oceans also provide a heat sink, which needs to be rather significant for a heat engine that tosses away 2/3's of it's power.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth. I don't mind helping out people who get hit by natural disasters....the first time. Look at New Orleans. Much of it is below sea level. From the top of the dike there on the Mississippi River I looked down at the river then turned and looked at the town, this in 1980, and wondered how long it would be before that water found it's way into New Orleans. I told my friends with me that it was only a matter of time. When you looked at that mighty river where the water level was obviously above the
Re: (Score:2)
It's the outflow of the biggest river in the continent and the ocean. It will be a major transportation and shipping hub. That means a lot of ports, and a lot of incoming boats. So lots of jobs. The people who work there will want to live nearby. They'll want to buy goods and services. Industry will want to exist nearby to take advantage of the shipping. This means more jobs, and more goods and services, requiring yet more people. This is the basis of damn near every major city in the world. There
Re: (Score:2)
I've been to those areas, and they're not uninhabited, they're occupied primarily by farms. So, yes people could move there, but then we'd have to find someplace to grow that food. Food production is vital to national security and our well being in general.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. surely has some areas that are free from natural disasters like tornadoes, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.
No place on the planet is entirely free from natural disasters. Also, most of the reactors currently operating for commercial power here in the United States are of the boiling water variety which means that some sort of external liquid (usually water) heat sink is required. Perhaps you've noticed that commercial reactors are often built nearby bodies of relatively cooler water (rivers or the oceans). This way, cooler water can be taken in and exchange heat with the water in the closed cooling loop before b
Re: (Score:2)
No, it does not. As the rest of your post depends from this, it can be ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
I take a bit of that back - of course no place would be *entirely* free from natural disaster. "Mosty free" would be a better way to put things.
Take Arizona, for instance - the biggest natural disasters that I know of offhand (without Googling) are the occasional wildfire and the *very* rare hurricane/tropical storm that makes it that far inland from the Pacific Coast. The list is pretty damn short.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, you're going to need to give us a troll car analogy.