What did in nuclear power far more than TMI and anti-nuclear sentiments is the cost. It was cheaper and faster to build coal fired power plants with a more immediate and better ROI. If nuclear power were the inexpensive alternative you can bet that more of them would have been built. As it is now with the Vogtle plants being built it's difficult to get financing without government loan guarantees.
Probably 2 electric motors is enough, one for the front axle and one for the rear axle. You don't really want to put the motors out on the wheels because the weight of them interferes with the suspension's action and makes it less reactive to bumps in the road.
Considering that Members of Congress and their staff are already required to get their health care insurance through the exchanges I doubt it would really make any impression on SCOTUS at all.
LOL, I just pulled those numbers out of my butt. I think my first drive was actually a 20 MB drive but at 63 years old my memory is not as good as it used to be;)
If there is demand it will drive an increase in supply. Rare earth minerals are not really all that rare, just not as well concentrated as some more common minerals. I don't see any of your cavils as show stoppers.
It's true you can buy a similar sized gas car for far less than the Leaf but then the ongoing cost of ownership is much less so it probably works out to a similar lifetime cost for the two.
If this pans out it probably means the end to the claims that solar PV and wind power can't affordably supply us with all of our electricity needs. It also makes electric cars all that much more affordable. Elon Musk may need to redesign his battery factory.
Here's my anecdote. For the first time in my lifetime I was not able to ski at HooDoo Ski Area on the Santiam Pass in Oregon because of the lack of snow (I've skied there since 1967). That's just another drop in my bucket of anecdotes contradicting the flood of climate science denier bullshit and just as meaningful as yours.
Sea levels have been rising for hundreds and thousands of years, with no acceleration visible.
Sea level has been rising since the late 1800s but it was remarkably stable for the preceding 2000 years. Here's a paper about it and the abstract:
We present new sea-level reconstructions for the past 2100 y based on salt-marsh sedimentary sequences from the US Atlantic coast. The data from North Carolina reveal four phases of persistent sea-level change after correction for glacial isostatic adjustment. Sea level was stable from at least BC 100 until AD 950. Sea level then increased for 400 y at a rate of 0.6 mm/y, followed by a further period of stable, or slightly falling, sea level that persisted until the late 19th century. Since then, sea level has risen at an average rate of 2.1 mm/y, representing the steepest century-scale increase of the past two millennia. This rate was initiated between AD 1865 and 1892. Using an extended semiempirical modeling approach, we show that these sea-level changes are consistent with global temperature for at least the past millennium.
Ice melting, not really. Antarctica is at a record high the past few years, and arctic ice has had a nice recover the past 2 years,
Antarctic sea ice is at record highs but the land ice continues to melt and far more land ice has melted than sea ice has formed. Arctic sea ice has come back a bit since an all time record low year in 2012 but it's an example of regression to the mean. It's still lower than any year before 2007.
You'll have to come up with something more credible than WUWT for me to give your ocean acidification claims any credence.
For being a hoax it's amazing how many of the predictions are coming to pass. Rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting ice, and ocean acidification to name some of the biggies.
For anything short of President or Senator in a large population state I'm talking about at most maybe a couple thousand donations at most. That's possible with a few weeks of shoe leather going door-to-door in the district.
It will never happen but what I'd like to see is the Senate transformed to a national body where the members are elected based on their parties proportion of the vote received for the party. In other words in the Senatorial election I would vote for a party rather than an individual and the number of Senators that party has is equal to their percentage of the vote. That would free voters to vote for the party that most closely matches their politics. No doubt Libertarians would make up 5 or 10% of the Senators and the Green Party would get some also. It would give a better idea of how politics are split in the US where the nuances tend to get drowned out by the dominant D's and R's.
But it would take a Constitutional Amendment and that's not going to happen any time soon.
Corporations are people, in the same way that beaches are sand and school classes are children. That is, corporations are just shared property between a bunch of individuals. If those individuals want to use their property to speak out on political matters, what possible reason should there be to deny them that right?
I am an employee (and a stockholder) of a rather large corporation. No one ever asked me if I agree with using corporate funds to support political positions and I don't agree with all of the positions my corporation holds. I and none of my other fellow employees have given up our individual rights to speak freely (outside of the office of course) but it irks me when the corporation purports to speak on my behalf without consulting me first.
On top of that if I happen to agree with my corporations political positions their use of corporate funds to support the positions amplifies my speech over someone who doesn't have the benefit of a corporation backing them up.
Most of the time political advertising is more about name recognition than anything else. What's actually said in the ad is less important than just getting the name in peoples minds.
My thought is that in order to qualify for public funding you would have to first collect small donations ($5-$10) from a certain percentage of the voters eligible to vote for that particular office. And if the district is large enough they would have to be somewhat distributed over the the geographic (or demographic) area. That would weed out those who aren't willing to do a minimal amount of work to run for the office.
Slashdot Mirror
What did in nuclear power far more than TMI and anti-nuclear sentiments is the cost. It was cheaper and faster to build coal fired power plants with a more immediate and better ROI. If nuclear power were the inexpensive alternative you can bet that more of them would have been built. As it is now with the Vogtle plants being built it's difficult to get financing without government loan guarantees.
Probably 2 electric motors is enough, one for the front axle and one for the rear axle. You don't really want to put the motors out on the wheels because the weight of them interferes with the suspension's action and makes it less reactive to bumps in the road.
Considering that Members of Congress and their staff are already required to get their health care insurance through the exchanges I doubt it would really make any impression on SCOTUS at all.
The fault of Republicans would have been to cause 6 million+ people losing the subsidized health insurance coverage that they currently have.
Even if Kagan recused herself the vote would have still been 5-3.
Only if you drive like a maniac and have to hit the brakes so hard the regenerative braking never has a chance to work.
LOL, I just pulled those numbers out of my butt. I think my first drive was actually a 20 MB drive but at 63 years old my memory is not as good as it used to be ;)
Don't you think developments like in the story means replacement batteries become cheaper over time?
If there is demand it will drive an increase in supply. Rare earth minerals are not really all that rare, just not as well concentrated as some more common minerals. I don't see any of your cavils as show stoppers.
Brake maintenance is reduced (but not totally eliminated) for electric cars that use regenerative braking.
It's true you can buy a similar sized gas car for far less than the Leaf but then the ongoing cost of ownership is much less so it probably works out to a similar lifetime cost for the two.
You don't think a Nissan Leaf for $30K is affordable? Maybe not for everyone but it is for a lot of people.
Yeah, it's like I paid $1000 for my first hard drive and it only held 100 MB so today's 2 TB drives for $100 are impossible.
If this pans out it probably means the end to the claims that solar PV and wind power can't affordably supply us with all of our electricity needs. It also makes electric cars all that much more affordable. Elon Musk may need to redesign his battery factory.
HooDoo is a small mom & pop operation with only 3 chair lifts. They haven't needed snow making in the past.
When a wildfire gets going the birds generally abandon the area. Also, they're better at see-and-avoid than drones.
Also, firefighting airplanes that are dumping retardant on the fire are going low and slow and it wouldn't take much of a hit to put them too low.
LOL, as pugnacious as Michael Mann is I suspect he'd like to demonstrate the Buzz Aldrin technique on you.
Here's my anecdote. For the first time in my lifetime I was not able to ski at HooDoo Ski Area on the Santiam Pass in Oregon because of the lack of snow (I've skied there since 1967). That's just another drop in my bucket of anecdotes contradicting the flood of climate science denier bullshit and just as meaningful as yours.
Temps are not rising, they are flat for the past 15-20 years depending on which temp series you look at.
A rigorous statistical analysis shows the trend since 2000 is not significantly different than the trend since 1970.
Sea levels have been rising for hundreds and thousands of years, with no acceleration visible.
Sea level has been rising since the late 1800s but it was remarkably stable for the preceding 2000 years. Here's a paper about it and the abstract:
We present new sea-level reconstructions for the past 2100 y based on salt-marsh sedimentary sequences from the US Atlantic coast. The data from North Carolina reveal four phases of persistent sea-level change after correction for glacial isostatic adjustment. Sea level was stable from at least BC 100 until AD 950. Sea level then increased for 400 y at a rate of 0.6 mm/y, followed by a further period of stable, or slightly falling, sea level that persisted until the late 19th century. Since then, sea level has risen at an average rate of 2.1 mm/y, representing the steepest century-scale increase of the past two millennia. This rate was initiated between AD 1865 and 1892. Using an extended semiempirical modeling approach, we show that these sea-level changes are consistent with global temperature for at least the past millennium.
Ice melting, not really. Antarctica is at a record high the past few years, and arctic ice has had a nice recover the past 2 years,
Antarctic sea ice is at record highs but the land ice continues to melt and far more land ice has melted than sea ice has formed. Arctic sea ice has come back a bit since an all time record low year in 2012 but it's an example of regression to the mean. It's still lower than any year before 2007.
You'll have to come up with something more credible than WUWT for me to give your ocean acidification claims any credence.
For being a hoax it's amazing how many of the predictions are coming to pass. Rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting ice, and ocean acidification to name some of the biggies.
For anything short of President or Senator in a large population state I'm talking about at most maybe a couple thousand donations at most. That's possible with a few weeks of shoe leather going door-to-door in the district.
It will never happen but what I'd like to see is the Senate transformed to a national body where the members are elected based on their parties proportion of the vote received for the party. In other words in the Senatorial election I would vote for a party rather than an individual and the number of Senators that party has is equal to their percentage of the vote. That would free voters to vote for the party that most closely matches their politics. No doubt Libertarians would make up 5 or 10% of the Senators and the Green Party would get some also. It would give a better idea of how politics are split in the US where the nuances tend to get drowned out by the dominant D's and R's.
But it would take a Constitutional Amendment and that's not going to happen any time soon.
Corporations are people, in the same way that beaches are sand and school classes are children. That is, corporations are just shared property between a bunch of individuals. If those individuals want to use their property to speak out on political matters, what possible reason should there be to deny them that right?
I am an employee (and a stockholder) of a rather large corporation. No one ever asked me if I agree with using corporate funds to support political positions and I don't agree with all of the positions my corporation holds. I and none of my other fellow employees have given up our individual rights to speak freely (outside of the office of course) but it irks me when the corporation purports to speak on my behalf without consulting me first.
On top of that if I happen to agree with my corporations political positions their use of corporate funds to support the positions amplifies my speech over someone who doesn't have the benefit of a corporation backing them up.
Most of the time political advertising is more about name recognition than anything else. What's actually said in the ad is less important than just getting the name in peoples minds.
My thought is that in order to qualify for public funding you would have to first collect small donations ($5-$10) from a certain percentage of the voters eligible to vote for that particular office. And if the district is large enough they would have to be somewhat distributed over the the geographic (or demographic) area. That would weed out those who aren't willing to do a minimal amount of work to run for the office.