Slashdot Mirror

I notice you did not comment on my limited resources refutation.

I didn't because that applies to virtually everything whether "green"or not. We haven't gotten to the point where we can get more energy out of hydrogen than what is put into making it.

I thought your characterization of NIMBYs had some merit.

Ted Kennedy who I had mentioned before was one of the NIMBYs who opposed an offshore wind farm in Cape Cod.

photocells: a more sophisticated approach as to how we make our living is that we increase the energy density in the productive process.

I don't know for fact but I think concentrated solar power has a higher efficiency than PVs. It also doesn't need as much rare earth metals I read in a science article. PVs can be used in smaller areas though.

I oppose general power supplies from solar power. Too low density to be really helpful for our continued existence.

Do you know more about solar power than those who write for SciAm? A Solar Grand Plan estimates solar power can "supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." In the article Sunny Outlook: Can Sunshine Provide All U.S. Electricity? it is claimed solar can provide all of California's and Texas' electricity. It goes on: "The entire energy use of 2006, the current technology including storage would use a patch of land 92 miles by 92 miles," O'Donnell says. "Ten percent of the [Bureau of Land Management] land in Nevada is enough."

Now on to sanity. suppose we had a nuclear spasm.
would you classify that as sane? If not, why not? If not sane, how do classify the people who advocated this?
How do you classify the people whose policies led to this?

Sane? I don't consider nuclear power sane. As for those whose policies favored nuclear power, ump. Ike, Dwight D Eisenhower, favored policies friendly to nuclear power. He also warned about the military industrial complex, yet he made them powerful, with his push against democracy in Viet Nam. Yes he opposed democracy in Viet Nam. By 1954-55 the French and North and South Vietnam came to an agreement whereby the people in Viet Nam would vote for reunification. Ike sent then Colonel Edward Lansdale to South Vietnam to arm and train Vietnamese who opposed reunification. If it hadn't been for that military contractors may never have gotten so big. They had a new war, the Vietnam War.

Falcon

Even with solar being taken seriously, you'd be using up a lot of land (hopefuly not arable) to be able to provide enough to satisfy household + industrial need.

Just as almost everyone else does, you're concentrating on the One Big Energy Source instead of looking at what sources can be harvested in different locations. The "Economist" has the article A new look at solar power about a solar farm in the Mojave Desert in CA. Both it and the article Sunny Outlook: Can Sunshine Provide All U.S. Electricity? says it produces 350 megawatts of energy, enough to power 90,000 homes. According to the SciAm article using the technology available in 2006 building solar farms on a piece of land 92 miles squared in Nevada, that's just 10& the Bureau of Land Management's land, would produce almost all of the electricity of the US.

That's just solar power. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details the wind potential of different regions of the US. The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind energy to supply all of the 48 continuous states with electricity. Then there's geothermal, which is a baseload provider, hydroelectric, and tidal power sources. One geothermal power plant on Hawaii's Big Island provides 25% of the island's electricity. Geothermal generated 13 terawatts hours of electricity in California. Combine these with a rebuilt smart national electric grid, which needs to be done anyways, and almost every coal, Natural Gas, and Nuclear power plant can be closed. Until the bulk energy storage problem is solved some plants can be kept running for more of the baseload.

Falcon

No, that's reporting the "news", not reporting the news. Who gives a fuck what the wife of a washed up singer thinks of a new singer?

It seems many people do, otherwise it wouldn't be watched. Why do you think there is bad gangster rap on MTV? Because people vote it up.

Things like these are easier to follow than todays complex coherencies in politics or economy. Watching those the whole day would be quite heavy.

Also, a psychology study found that following celebrities (or other public figures) and relating to them and their everyday situations, playing through the scenarios and solutions, is almost required for psychological balance.

______
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-science-of-gossip http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199607/the-real-slant-gossip

Neither wind nor solar are feasible

On the contrary, they are very feasible. We can convert entirely, yes entirely, to wind, water, and solar power, and we can do it in 20 years, and thereby head off further global warming. No need for coal or nuclear. But don't take my word for it. Read about it here.

it seems as if environmentalists want to destroy the economy

Where do you get off repeating stupid, trollish statements like that? Saving the environment is NOT diametrically opposite the economy, but you repeat that lie as if you halfway believe it. Proposals must be carefully considered, and I agree that ethanol doesn't seem a good idea. Managing the environment is like keeping alive and healthy the goose that lays the golden eggs. It is essential for the economy and more that we do so. A big effort to switch to renewable energy would be wonderful for the economy. Lots of green jobs setting up all those windmills and solar panels. And after, the economic good continues as manufacturing enjoys cheaper power, and it will eventually be cheaper. And we get a big Green Dividend from not having to clean up as many messes and health problems, you know, sort of like the Peace Dividend Reagan got us for bringing about the end of the Cold War. Kicks the props out from under the trollish follow on that environmentalists want to destroy the economy.

GM foods is a separate issue, as is the economy. I'm perfectly fine with GM foods. For thousands of years, we've eaten such and been breeding for desirable characteristics. All modern GM does is allow us to select for desirable traits much faster than with traditional techniques.

People who worry about copyright piracy don't read.

Yes, yes we do. Next stupid comment.

Ah, but by reading, you create another copy of that work you read in your memory. Naughty, naughty, you haven't paid for that copy. That makes you a pirate. See here and here for further info, and prepare to pay the appropriate copy fee plus punitive damages, bribes, etc.

Anyone else noticed DARPA's recent major marketing/publicity campaign? There is now this well-publicized balloon hunt. There was the televised robotic vehicle challenge. Even very recently, DARPA was central to the plot of an episode of NCIS: LA. Its research efforts have been given very visible press in magazines such as Scientific American. (Look here for another recent SA article about DARPA research.) DARPA has also been featured twice on 60 Minutes in the past few months. And, it now has quite a following on Facebook.

All of these somehow involve or inform the general public--not exactly par for the course given DARPA activities historically have been kept very much under wraps. What's really going on here? Why the recent publicity barrage? Two years ago, or less, I'm willing to bet 98% of Americans had no idea DARPA even existed. Might it be the old magician's trick of having us watch one hand while the other hand is actually performing the "magic?" For example, have you seen iRobot's shape-shifting Chembot recently developed with DARPA funding?

Anyone else noticed DARPA's recent major marketing/publicity campaign? There is now this well-publicized balloon hunt. There was the televised robotic vehicle challenge. Even very recently, DARPA was central to the plot of an episode of NCIS: LA. Its research efforts have been given very visible press in magazines such as Scientific American. (Look here for another recent SA article about DARPA research.) DARPA has also been featured twice on 60 Minutes in the past few months. And, it now has quite a following on Facebook.

All of these somehow involve or inform the general public--not exactly par for the course given DARPA activities historically have been kept very much under wraps. What's really going on here? Why the recent publicity barrage? Two years ago, or less, I'm willing to bet 98% of Americans had no idea DARPA even existed. Might it be the old magician's trick of having us watch one hand while the other hand is actually performing the "magic?" For example, have you seen iRobot's shape-shifting Chembot recently developed with DARPA funding?

Actually it isn't so much the media pushing the "metrosexual" crap, it comes down to birth control pills of all things. Just look at the "macho he man" types that were popular before the pill, like Kirk Douglas, and how after the pill became popular you had the sudden rise of the 'pretty boy" types like Tab Hunter.

The pill changes a females taste in men, the media was simply giving the female what she wanted, even if they didn't know at the time why they wanted that particular type. The article I linked to explains on the chemistry level, but I have seen plenty that have shown that depending on whether she is on the pill or not will skew which males in pictures she finds attractive. A woman who doesn't take the pill will like the classic "macho he man" types, whereas a woman on the pill goes for the Brad Pitt "soft boy" types.

I have witnessed this IRL with the way my GF doesn't understand how her friends can like all these "little boys" like Orlando Bloom but will practically drool over "tough hombres" Sam Elliot and Viggo Mortensen in LoTR, but only when he was looking "all scrappy and hot", her words. She of course isn't on birth control and all her friends are, so it gave me a good chance to observe and yeah, it really does change their tastes as far as men go.

Portugal. Decriminalized *all* drugs (including heroin etc) in 2001. With considerable success from almost any public health or criminological perspective:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124061360462654683.html
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

As I understand it, they're under sporadic pressure by the US and Sweden and other holdouts for demonstrably failed drug policy to revert to the bad old days, but the benefits have been so significant neither the Partido Socialista or any of its viable competition has shown any real sign of buckling.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-foil-phishing-scams

This is a good start and I'd recommend investigating the author's other published material.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last

Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

Note that the fuel cost for nuclear is a small part of the cost. Huge increases in fuel cost wouldn't be as bad as other power sources.

If it is not real then there's nothing to debate. So that can not be the real debate. The real debate is what to do, if anything, if it is real.

it seems to be that warmer weather would increase crop yield, right?

Yea, we need more poison ivy. Meanwhile some crop yields are lower with higher levels of CO2.

Falcon

The same biochemical matrix (Of fibronectin fibers created by fibroblasts, and the cellular messages these special matrix cells convey to stem cells) is used for all tissue types: Be it bone, Skin, Kidney, or even neural.

Being able to directly control this to the practical extreme of being able to completely regrow arbitrary organs in vitro, we would be able to regenerate lost brain tissue.

As for instances where stemcells have been used to regenerate neural tissue in the CNS (brain and spinal column) I leave you with this little story:

Toddler shows remarkable improvement after receiving own cord blood stemcells

The usual issue with human scarring VS "salamander like" regeneration is that human fibroblasts "lose" some of their ability to communicate with each other, and with neighboring tissues to know where they are in the body, and how to properly direct tissue regeneration.

SciAM: Can people regrow lost body parts?

Being able to properly instruct human fibroblasts to perform "Proper" tissue regeneration WOULD imply full neural repair being made possible, at least theoretically.

We do need to think about our future energy needs both with respect to the environment and energy security. What we don't need is silly government micro management of our lives.

I agree here.

So yes that means we need to subsidize nuclear, wind and solar power.

Here I disagree. There should be no subsidies. Let people pay the full cost of the energy they use and they're more likely to be conservative.

The problem is that the greenies block everything.

What's with the FUD?

greenies don't want to allow wind power on mountains in Vermont and New Hampshire even though no-one lives on the top of a mountain.

Here is one who supports geothermal, solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources. And most of those I know also support them. Googling falcon geothermal or solar or wind site:slashdot.org you can see where I have repeatedly supported renewable energy. For instance with the " Wind Could Provide 100% of World Energy Needs" thread I posted a number of tymes in support of alternative energy. I have also posted the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States which details the wind potential of various parts of the US. The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind power to supply the 48 continuous states with power. In some of my posts I posted I supported the Solar Grand Plan. In it they conclude solar energy could "supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050."

Falcon

The next step from DARPA is asking Lada to reinvent the wheel to make it more military friendly, adding automatic braking and better resilience against bullets.

Ok, here.

there is contention that climate change might decrease winds in the future, thus reducing the impact of wind farms on energy production. i think also read the an increase in trees might have a negative effect on wind power potential, but i can't remember where i read that now.

Ahh, more classic Slashdot snark stupidity. Make a pseudo-rational claim and then insult the opposition by calling them "weenies".

It's not that your idea is all bad, but in the real world corporate America will gladly poison and kill thousands to millions for profit. For a current example consider coal ash/fly ash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash. The coal lobby has bought enough legislation to keep this stuff completely unregulated. Actually it is rather toxic.

It has radioactivity: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste which has been shown to contaminate areas near coal fired power plants. It also has toxic heavy metals:

Fly ash contains trace concentrations of heavy metals and other substances that are known to be detrimental to health in sufficient quantities. Potentially toxic trace elements in coal include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, radium, selenium, thorium, uranium, vanadium, and zinc. Approximately 10 percent of the mass of coals burned in the United States consists of unburnable mineral material that becomes ash, so the concentration of most trace elements in coal ash is approximately 10 times the concentration in the original coal.

(from the above linked Wikipedia article).

There is a vast amount of this dangerous material in unstable storage and it has already caused big problems. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/01/60minutes/main5356202.shtml and http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/science/earth/01ash.html.

So, since you think that anyone who is worried about environmental issues is a "weenie", I propose that you put your money (or in this case your health) on the line. Get some coal ash, a 3 or 4 cubic feet and spread it around where you live. Make sure it gets in your food and in your lungs. The coal industry says that you have nothing to fear, and you can surly trust them with your life. if you choose not to do this then I suggest that you shut the fuck up

Wouldn't the moon be accreted from the ring? Why would Phoebe be shedding material?

Impacts. Stuff gets kicked up from Phoebe and accreted by Iapetus:

The study's authors speculate that meteoric impacts on Phoebe's dark, heavily cratered surface liberate the particles that form the ring. That assertion might explain the anomalously two-toned surface of Iapetus, a Saturnian moon inside Phoebe's orbit. The smaller particles of the Phoebe-generated ring should migrate inward, where they would eventually be swept up by Iapetus, coating the inner moon's leading face with dark material--a prediction knocked about for decades that jibes with observation. The presence of the debris ring implies that this process is ongoing.

Scientific American just had an article about a theory that quantum effects would stop a Black Hole from actually forming, instead it'd be a Black Star. Interesting read, even if I'm not a cosmologist.

They are not cowards, but you do have it half right: they are bullies. But like criminals, they are actually narcissists, people with a pathologically-high self-esteem. They think they do have the right to boss other drivers around.

They ARE cowards because they don't normally reveal this sort of aggression unless it's a situation where you would be hard pressed to do anything about it. Like when you're in an automobile, for example. It's amazing how brave they are when they're in a large truck or an SUV. When you are face-to-face, and can physically reach that person, they tend to be much nicer and more courteous. Not genuinely, of course, but suddenly their aggression is much lower. This is true so long as you don't show weakness, because if you should make that mistake, then and only then do they feel brave again.

For quite a while, shrinks have been telling us that bullies are those with a very low self-esteem, who do what they do in order to bolster their self-image. It makes more sense to me (and to this researcher: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=violent-pride [scientificamerican.com]) that this cannot be, as someone with a very low self-esteem lacks the necessary aggressiveness to act as bullies do. The linked article points out that criminals and bullies rate high on tests for narcissism.

Personally I like to borrow a term from Bill Hicks and describe them as "fevered egos." I don't view it in terms of self-esteem, I view it in terms of whether that petty tyrant known as ego is running their show or whether they have the discipline, compassion, insight, and fortitude to overcome it. Because they lack those things, they are the way that they are. This is why they come from a position of weakness. They are aware of that, even if they are not consciously aware of it, so they compensate by doing their damndest to appear strong and intimidating. That it's compensatory means this is not genuine, though if you handle them incorrectly they will try very hard to make it real enough.

Just think about conceal-carry permits and why they have reduced violent crime in every state which has allowed them. The reason why is easy: criminals want helpless victims who say "oh please mr. mugger, don't shoot me, I'll give you anything you want". They do not want to get into shootouts. That's because they are cowards, at heart, no matter how tough they want to act. If they weren't cowards, the possibility of getting into a shootout would not stop them from doing what they want to do and crime rates would remain roughly the same in the aforementioned states or would even get worse due to more gunfights taking place.

The kind of courage that allows you to do something with no regard for risk because it is the right thing to do and absolutely must be done is reserved only for those who truly believe in the nobility and importance of what they do. Firefighters are a perfect example. Criminals and other bullies are naturally excluded from this and must get their living by preying on those who are weaker and willing to submit. That is why they are cowards.

To me, bullies on the road are no different in principle. They are cowards, and as such they put themselves in positions where they can hassle others with little fear of harm to themselves.

They are not cowards, but you do have it half right: they are bullies. But like criminals, they are actually narcissists, people with a pathologically-high self-esteem. They think they do have the right to boss other drivers around.

For quite a while, shrinks have been telling us that bullies are those with a very low self-esteem, who do what they do in order to bolster their self-image. It makes more sense to me (and to this researcher: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=violent-pride) that this cannot be, as someone with a very low self-esteem lacks the necessary aggressiveness to act as bullies do. The linked article points out that criminals and bullies rate high on tests for narcissism.

You might take this with a grain of salt as this Scientific American article points out it relies on fMRI (with the researcher also expressing caution). The same sort of scans were used to recently show that dead salmon think and also was called into question before that. From what I understand, there's a potentially huge problem with the statistical correlation done on the data to reach the images and conclusion (basically you are able to decide how much of a result you get). Given these sequential very controversial findings, I think it's time to push for research on these tools and research processes to ensure they are robust and reporting correct findings.

For that matter, why does anyone think it's normal for humans to eat cow secretions?

Ah; now that's a more interesting one. Once upon a time it wasn't normal however, (almost certainly, unless you are a freak or are Chinese) you and your genetically dominant have been taking advantage of a recent gene mutation to make that normal.

Well, here's a much more detailed discusssion:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-viruses-alive-2004

Not conclusive one way or another, but it certainly informs the debate.

One of the researchers in this article, unrelated to depression and the marketing of Prozac, seems to believe that Prozac has a pronounced physiological effect:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=adult-lazy-eye-treatments

I'm very glad you pointed this out! Ever hear the expression that if you plant kudzu in the back yard, it'll beat you to the porch? This stuff is all over the place hear in Georgia, and it grows so thick that it can suffocate trees. People would probably consider it a great service if someone were to come and remove it. What's better is that it grows all along the highways, not on farm land that should much rather be used for food crops.

Why are we wasting time and energy (literally) on food crops as fuel when we can make it out of weeds? Another good example of this is
switchgrass.

I'd be interested to see a company that offers landscapingl services which in turn and sells weeds/yard refuse as biofuel fodder.

With some positive results. Drug dealers still go to jail, but addicts go to treatment centers. Their main goal was to reduce deaths due to overdose which, five years later dropped as well as users infected by dirty needles. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

Errrr - that depends on how one defines "acceptable risks". They built something along those lines in the '40's. "Hot" exhaust tends to be bad for the environment - a fact recognized decades before the green movement. Solve that problem, and there are dozens more problems to solve. How about the problem of a crash? Do we really want a nuclear engine to miss the runway at LAX, or La Guardia? Just imagine the joy of New Yorkers if presented with the concept of another 9/11, but with nuclear engines. Here's one (relatively shallow) article on the subject: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-powered-aircraft

Nuclear powered spacecraft make sense, because a catastrophe won't add poison to a biosphere. Nuclear powered aircraft will never make sense.

Go ahead, let it out.

You'll feel better

Scientific American reports that an analysis by chemist Yuegang Zuo of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth of 234 banknotes from 18 US cities has found cocaine on 90 percent of the bills tested, not surprising given that the US Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that more than 2 million Americans used cocaine in 2007 and for cocaine users, a rolled up bill is said to be the most convenient tool for snorting the powder form of the drug. What might be more surprising is the fact that the percentage of contaminated bills seems to be rising; just two years ago, Zuo did a similar study that found cocaine on only 67 percent of banknotes in Massachusetts. "It is too early to draw a conclusion about why," Zuo says. "The economic downturn may partly contribute to the jump." Zuo also tested banknotes from Brazil, Canada, China and Japan, and found that Asians appear to use the drug less - only 20 percent of the 112 Chinese renminbi notes tested had traces, and only 12 percent of 16 Japanese yen notes tested bore the drug. Washington DC. ranked highest in the survey - 95 percent of the sampled bills there bore cocaine contamination - along with Baltimore, Boston and Detroit while Salt Lake City had the lowest average levels of contamination. "The examination of cocaine contamination on paper money can provide objective and timely epidemiological information about cocaine abuse in individual communities," adds Zuo.

First we have some scientist doubling the lifespan of flies now they won't sleep? Why are they trying to create immortal sleepless flies? Please somebody stop them!

I, for one, won't welcome them...

Show me safe nuclear power.

How about any other mass produced energy source (not solar).

Ah, disallow an energy source that can provide 69% of the US's electrical needs and 35% of it's total energy by 2050. Okay, let's use wind, which could supply 20% of the US's electricity by 2030.

Stack the deck against alternatives when nuclear power would not survive without subsidies.

Falcon

One Bills final projects at Microsoft was to systematize software for robotics. I dont know if ever got very far with this. It didnt seem to be immediately commercial.

This is exactly the conclusion of this article of Scientific American, May 2009.

Also reminds me of this. They touch your hand (which is hidden) and a fake hand at the same time, and your mind begins to think the fake hand is your own.

That sounds like a terrible idea, caffeine is pretty addictive, but it is mostly a mild stimulant. There is research that suggests that nicotine completely rewires the pleasure centers of the brain (to make them dependent on nicotine):

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hooked-from-the-first-cigarette

Smoking Away Schizophrenia? Scientific American Mind, 2007-11-27.

Scientific American also published an article in 2003 suggesting that a by-product of nicotine can slow the onset of Alzheimer's disease. It does not take a nicotine-addict to see that CNS stimulants can have beneficial effects on brain function.

Smoking Away Schizophrenia? Scientific American Mind, 2007-11-27.

Scientific American also published an article in 2003 suggesting that a by-product of nicotine can slow the onset of Alzheimer's disease. It does not take a nicotine-addict to see that CNS stimulants can have beneficial effects on brain function.

If you can't articulate without resorting to words that have been deemed impolite by a society that existed even before IRC (yes, some things did =) then you're not going to go far in life.

By the same token, if you are too emotional to articulate without swearing you're probably not going to take enough notice of the advice you're given in a help channel.

I understand your point; I assume it wasn't intended for me, specifically. (You'll notice I generally don't use swear words in my posts--in fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find any.) I do have to take issue with a few things in particular...

Having a bunch of lame kids in who cannot communicate without swearing...

Well, here's the thing: It isn't just kids who swear. Kids swear because they think it's cool and pushes the boundaries of what is deemed acceptable by society. It's part of the socialization process to learn what they can and cannot get away with. Likewise, there are plenty of adults who swear but for a completely different reason (in general). Sometimes it's the only way to get the point across. Really, if someone is so easily offended by swear words, they're probably more apt to support strong censorship of movies, media, and various forms of communication. Really, it's a two-way street. There are people who swear too much, and there are people who are so thin-skinned they can't handle even a border-line swear word.

As an aside, there is some research that suggests swearing might be a form of pain relief. Like it or not, stubbing one's toe and letting loose with a cascade of violent insults directed toward no one in particular really does feel good.

Rules are there to be arbitrary, that is their function

No it's not. Rules exist to enforce strict order and to set boundaries. An arbitrary rule would mean simply that it can be applied to any situation to mean anything. Arbitrary rules don't work. Contrast the following:

Exhibit A: Clear, concise rule. Please don't swear in this channel. Thank you.

Exhibit B: Arbitrary rule. Please don't do anything that might upset the OPs. Thank you.

How do you know where the boundaries are in exhibit B? You don't. That's why rules are not arbitrary. I'm sure you remember something from school; can you recall a list of things the teacher didn't want you to do? They were usually quite specific for a reason.

Any form of censorship is always worse than the censored item. (to paraphrase a /. sig I particularly like).

Slightly ironic. You allude to individuals who cannot communicate without swearing and support OPs' decisions to enforce what is effectively a form of censorship (swearing is a form of expression) and yet a .sig you like stresses that censorship is a rather bad thing.

Perhaps you're being ironic; I see a strong disconnect here. Maybe you can clarify.

First off, it's been said that people only use 10% of their actual brain power. So 1 billion neurons probably isn't far off from what we would use anyway.

This is 100% false.

Lots of "things" are said and lots of things are wrong. "people only use 10% of their actual brain power" is belongs to both groups.

Though an alluring idea, the "10 percent myth" is so wrong it is almost laughable, says neurologist Barry Gordon at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. Although there's no definitive culprit to pin the blame on for starting this legend, the notion has been linked to the American psychologist and author William James, who argued in The Energies of Men that "We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources." It's also been associated with to Albert Einstein, who supposedly used it to explain his cosmic towering intellect.

source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=people-only-use-10-percent-of-brain

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-men-have-nipples

Size of Arizona = 72 million acres.

There is an article in Scientific American that estimates cellulose feedstocks could provide up to half of the liquid fuels used in the United States:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grassoline-biofuels-beyond-corn

And that is without building millions of acres of bioreactors.

Yeah because a sea worthy steamer, scud missile launcher and crude nuclear weapon are so easy to come by. Not saying the smart grid doesn't have other problems but it is far from easy to do serious EMP damage.

Well at least on purpose, all you really need is one good sized CME, Coronal mass ejection, which happen about every 50 years so we're due for one. Of course about every 500 years we get a big one, one that will make the Amish look high-tech afterwards, the last one was in1859;

The solar superstorm of 1859 was the fiercest ever recorded. Auroras filled the sky as far south as the Caribbean, magnetic compasses went haywire and telegraph systems failed. ...

During solar storms, entirely new problems arise. Large transformers are electrically grounded to Earth and thus susceptible to damage caused by geomagnetically induced direct current (DC). The DC flows up the transformer ground wires and can lead to temperature spikes of 200 degrees Celsius or higher in the transformer windings, causing coolant to vaporize and literally frying the transformer. Even if transformers avoid this fate, the induced current can cause their magnetic cores to saturate during one half of the alternating-current power cycle, distorting the 50- or 60-hertz waveforms. Some of the power is diverted to frequencies that electrical equipment cannot filter out. Instead of humming at a pure pitch, transformers would begin to chatter and screech. Because a magnetic storm affects transformers all over the country, the condition can rapidly escalate to a network-wide collapse of voltage regulation. Grids operate so close to the margin of failure that it would not take much to push them over.

According to studies by John G. Kappenman of Metatech Corporation, the magnetic storm of May 15, 1921, would have caused a blackout affecting half of North America had it happened today. A much larger storm, like that of 1859, could bring down the entire grid. Other industrial countries are also vulnerable, but North America faces greater danger because of its proximity to the north magnetic pole. Because of the physical damage to transformers, full recovery and replacement of damaged components might take weeks or even months. Kappenman testified to Congress in 2003 that âoethe ability to provide meaningful emergency aid and response to an impacted population that may be in excess of 100 million people will be a difficult challenge.â

Bracing the Satellite Infrastructure for a Solar Superstorm

There was an article on the problem of people not understanding probability percentages in Scientific American a few months ago, going specifically into the HIV tests.

The proposed solution was to use more "natural frequencies" as in "out of 10,000 people one person has HIV". That is, focusing on the counts and numbers and avoiding the 99%, five nines and 0.01% failure rates like the plague due to their inherit relativeness, as in something that decreases your chances of cancer from 0.02% to 0.01% is touted - technically correct, but misleading - as reducing your risk of cancer by 50%.

The most scary thing about that article was that doctors - medical practitioners - were doing just as bad as the general populace at understanding the probabilities and false positive risks when presented as percentages. Moving to natural frequencies the docs did a lot better, probably because it is more intuitive.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=knowing-your-chances

This argument keeps surfacing, but coal plants do not concentrate these radioactive materials to dangerous levels. Remember that radioactivity is one of those problems where, if you spread the problem enough, the problem disappears.

Some numbers from Scientific American: people living around coal plants are exposed to 1.9 millirem of fly-ash radiation yearly, whereas the average person encounters 360 millirem a year. That's an increase of 0.5%, well within the uncertainty in the 360-millirem figure.

Government-2006 energy review
http://www.carbon-info.org/carbonnews_100.htm

That is from 2006 when the then president, Bush, waged a war against science. I also noticed it says "nuclear energy produces significantly less CO2 compared to the normal fossil fuels" and says in the graph that wind emits 10 grams of CO2 per KWh and nuclear only emits 7. There is nothing there about solar.

Also I take it you couldn't re arsed reading this when I linked to it earlier.
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/cft.pdf

Three hundred and eighty three pages? My eye's be killing me after 10 pages. I did go through the chapter on solar and the paragraphs themselves focus on solar in Great Britain. Figure 6.16 only lists 2 locations in GB for average sunshine, W/m^2, the greater of the 2 is London with 109. New York City and the rainy city of Seattle, WA, on the other hand each show 147. LA, CA, shows 225. The chapter on wind says that though it doesn't provide enough energy to power the UK it can provide some and provide it economically. However SciAm's article "A Grand Solar Plan" says that by 2050 solar power can provide 69% of the US's electrical needs. And the study Global potential for wind-generated electricity published by the National Academy if Sciences of the USA says wind can provide "40 times current worldwide consumption of electricity, >5 times total global use of energy in all forms."

You know why solar and wind don't get as much total? because they're no hopers. They get money to placate people who know fuck all about generating power for the grid but want a symbol of how very green their power is.

Only those who know nothing about solar and wind support it? Those who live Off the grid know nothing? They're only source of electricity is alternatives sources but they know nothing? John Doerr, appointed a member of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board knows little? As venture capitalist and partner of Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield, and Byers he has invested billions in alternative energy but he knows nothing? Vinod Khosla, cofounder of Sun and another venture capitalist also knows little?

Did you even read my post?wind+solar cannot be used for more than 20% of the grid

Did you read the science links I provided saying solar can provide 69% of the electricity of the USA by 2050 and that wind could provide 400% of the world's energy?

Add in some kind of smart grid and you might, might just push that up to 30% and that's at an insane cost.

According to the article "Lifeline for Renewable Power" by Tech Review currently because the grid is now failing it costs businesses $80 billion dollars a year, so the grid needs to be rebuilt and made smart period. Even with more nuclear power plants that's true. But you're only using it against solar and wind, which is hypocritical.

Geothermal is fantastic for the few places where there's magma near the surface

I agree geothermal is not usable everywhere, no energy source even nuclear power is good everywhere. That's why I want a mix of different energy sources used. Biofuels can be used for fuel for things like aircrafts. The US Department of Defense is working to create biodiesel for jets.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Damn why does my browser suck? link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

The article doesn't really provide enough information to support the conclusion. All

Summary: Radioactive elements in coal and fly ash should not be sources of alarm. The vast majority of coal and the majority of fly ash are not significantly enriched in radioactive elements, or in associated radioactivity, compared to common soils or rocks.

Right, but that doesn't help because it discounts the quantity of coal, and the fact that it is being burned and released into the atmosphere. It didn't answer at all the amount of radiation released in total, only the density of the radiation. The question is: Does a coal plant release more or less radiation than a nuclear plant with equivalent output?

About Coal Creek Station: In 1993, the Nation consumed more than 2 million tons of coal per day.

And the article you linked to says:

concentrations of uranium fall in the range from slightly below 1 to 4 parts per million (ppm)

But don't know what 2 million tons x 1 part per million means.... soo... Aha!

Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste

The editor clarifies, at the end of the article:

*Editor's Note (posted 12/30/08): In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ashâ"a by-product from burning coal for powerâ"and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plantâ"a by-product from burning coal for electricityâ"carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.

As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.