The parent has the authority to access what may be in the subsidiaries which means they would be forced to comply with US court orders to the extent they can but the inverse isn't true. The subsidiary in another nation won't have free access to the parent in another country and if the parent shuts them out there's nothing they can do about it. However they still might be liable for obstruction if they did something that made the parent shut down access.
Here's another great thing about nuclear energy. The cost of generation is nearly 3/4 tied up in capital costs rather than variable costs. That means the cost of energy generation is going to be relatively stable even if the price of fuel fluctuates wildly.
Capital Costs 88.1% Solar PV 79.8% Wind 74.3% Nuclear 62.7% Coal 21.6% Natural Gas
Operations & Maintenance Costs 16.2% Wind 12.3% Nuclear 8.8% Solar PV 4.3% Coal 2.6% Natural Gas
Variable Operations & Maintenance Costs [Include Fuel] 74.0% Natural Gas 31.7% Coal 12.3% Nuclear 0.0% Solar PV & Wind
If anything, you can make an argument that while it's intent is to save Israeli lives a side effect is that it is also helping save Palestinian lives by reducing the Israeli desire for retribution.
You didn't learn from history either it looks like. Your assessment is... dumb because you're comparing a peace-time program to the development and production of tanks during a war. Not the least of Germany's problems was the air superiority the Allies enjoyed which was being used to pound German industrial facilities day and night (leading to significantly reduced production capacity) and air superiority that, post-Normandy, neutered the usage of armored forces on the western front. Both of those are aspects which permitted the M-4 and T-34 fair far better off than they should have.
While he's got facts wrong, it is true that had the US maintained it's military level between the world wars, we would have been capable of creating a credible western front far sooner than 2.5 years after Germany declared war on us. That is quite significant because the post-WW2 era would have been drasticly different. It is quite unlikely that the Germans would have cast any more forces against the Allies than they already did. Event would have panned out in relatively similar manner to how it did pan out. Eventually Hitler would have been killed or died, and the western front would have been weakly defended while the eastern front was fought with tooth and nail. That was an ideological difference between the two that prevents the Germans from being willing to surrender German territory to the Soviets and in fact was a hinge that Eisenhower utilized in order to help strongarm a ceasefire out of the German. The Soviet hegemony would have been decidedly smaller as the allied forces would have been able to sweep further westward. Places that were could have taken before the Soviets (Berlin, Prague for example) would have been taken by us which would have drastically changed the post WW2 diplomatic field.
The only way you can say that things wouldn't have been better is if you were rooting for the rise of Soviet style communism and hegemony.
It's hard to judge how maintaining or even a slightly build up between the wars would have impacted the pacific theater.
The US only said they couldn't confirm or deny who made the arrest, which in this case was flak for the Maldives not to take responsibility if they so choose.
Let's give the OP some credit. He predicted that they would not admit they were wrong and they would claim the Maldives are covering up. The first response to him matched the former but failed to accurately predict the latter. However i consider that a great success.
The EIA estimates that the average capacity of a solar plant in the US would be 25% for solar PV and 20% for solar thermal. Mind you that's the US average. Sites in a desert are going to have a much higher capacity factor while sites in many places in the northern latitudes will likely have lower capacities. We use 4 GWhs of electricity annually. In order to built out enough solar to meet EIA's estimate we would need 16 GWhs of capacity in our PV solar plants or 20 GWhs of capacity in solar thermal plants. Now mind you, you need to build out this capacity local to where its needed and unfortunately the places where it's most needed are on the coasts where land prices are at a premium. That's why restructuring the grid is so valuable. You can actually take advantage of the large unpopulated for areas because you aren't losing as much to transmisison and you don't need to build out 3-5 times the capacity of your annual usage.
If you look at LCOE costs for a MWh of electricity, natural gas is one of the cheapest sources. Coal is a bit more expensive. The problems with coal and natural gas is that fuel costs are the most significant portion of the price. Infrastructure and non-variable operations and maintenance account for less than 50% of their total cost. If I recall correctly variable costs, including fuel, accounted for about 65-70% of the cost of a MWh from natural gas/coal.. As long as coal and natural gas are cheap to purchase, the price of electricity will remain low. It also means that the price of electricity is also more subject to market factors than nuclear. Nuclear is around 75% capital infrastructure costs with maybe 15% being fuel costs. Combine that with it's high capacity factor (which renewables lack) and that is what makes nuclear the fantastic option. The cost of electricity from nuclear isn't going to fluctuate wildly based on market prices for fuel because the dominant portion of the price of electricity is recouping the costs of paying for the building. Nuclear is a stable and controllable source of power whereas coal/NG are controllable but unstable due to variable fuel costs and renewables are stable (due to no fuel costs) but lack of control on external factors. Also factor that NG is commonly a byproduct of oil production so if we're also trying to kick oil and coal out at the same time you should expect the price of NG to rise.
Like it or not, nuclear is going to need to be a significant factor in energy generation going forward if you want to avoid totalitarian and dictatorial governments that control its population's consumptions and other behaviors (ie, requiring less energy). That's what the article is getting at by promoting nuclear.
Labor intensive tasks were moved to China because the labor cost difference between US labor and Chinese labor was sufficient enough to justify the increased capital expense of setting up plants and assembly lines. We lack the capital infrastructure to support the robots in the US, hence why it's cheaper to install them in China since it's basically dropping them in place of workers. To do it in the US we would need to spend $20,000 per robot and spend the millions of dollars purchasing land and building the plants.
I'm guessing they anticipate that the displays/cameras will have a lower maintenance cost than the windows. Based on what I've read it looks like a lot of cracked windows come about from faulty heaters used to keep the windows at a certain temperate to avoid cracking. Total window/frame failure is rare and the only incident I could find involved maintenance installing a window & frame using the wrong sized bolts.
Slashdot Mirror
250,000 signatures is 0.197% of the number of people that voted in the last presidential election.
roman_mir is a psycho that I'm ashamed to share a UID within a range of 60,000.
The parent has the authority to access what may be in the subsidiaries which means they would be forced to comply with US court orders to the extent they can but the inverse isn't true. The subsidiary in another nation won't have free access to the parent in another country and if the parent shuts them out there's nothing they can do about it. However they still might be liable for obstruction if they did something that made the parent shut down access.
Here's another great thing about nuclear energy. The cost of generation is nearly 3/4 tied up in capital costs rather than variable costs. That means the cost of energy generation is going to be relatively stable even if the price of fuel fluctuates wildly.
Capital Costs
88.1% Solar PV
79.8% Wind
74.3% Nuclear
62.7% Coal
21.6% Natural Gas
Operations & Maintenance Costs
16.2% Wind
12.3% Nuclear
8.8% Solar PV
4.3% Coal
2.6% Natural Gas
Variable Operations & Maintenance Costs [Include Fuel]
74.0% Natural Gas
31.7% Coal
12.3% Nuclear
0.0% Solar PV & Wind
Only if doctors can be equated to scientsts....
Even better.
New Horizons was launched on January 19, 2006 to the planet Pluto. Pluto was demoted to dwarf planet on August 26, 2006.
New Horizons lost its destination within a year as the planet Pluto no longer exists.
If anything, you can make an argument that while it's intent is to save Israeli lives a side effect is that it is also helping save Palestinian lives by reducing the Israeli desire for retribution.
Speece Mahrines?
That's part of what I roll up into the ideological difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
You didn't learn from history either it looks like. Your assessment is... dumb because you're comparing a peace-time program to the development and production of tanks during a war. Not the least of Germany's problems was the air superiority the Allies enjoyed which was being used to pound German industrial facilities day and night (leading to significantly reduced production capacity) and air superiority that, post-Normandy, neutered the usage of armored forces on the western front. Both of those are aspects which permitted the M-4 and T-34 fair far better off than they should have.
While he's got facts wrong, it is true that had the US maintained it's military level between the world wars, we would have been capable of creating a credible western front far sooner than 2.5 years after Germany declared war on us. That is quite significant because the post-WW2 era would have been drasticly different. It is quite unlikely that the Germans would have cast any more forces against the Allies than they already did. Event would have panned out in relatively similar manner to how it did pan out. Eventually Hitler would have been killed or died, and the western front would have been weakly defended while the eastern front was fought with tooth and nail. That was an ideological difference between the two that prevents the Germans from being willing to surrender German territory to the Soviets and in fact was a hinge that Eisenhower utilized in order to help strongarm a ceasefire out of the German. The Soviet hegemony would have been decidedly smaller as the allied forces would have been able to sweep further westward. Places that were could have taken before the Soviets (Berlin, Prague for example) would have been taken by us which would have drastically changed the post WW2 diplomatic field.
The only way you can say that things wouldn't have been better is if you were rooting for the rise of Soviet style communism and hegemony.
It's hard to judge how maintaining or even a slightly build up between the wars would have impacted the pacific theater.
The Vietnamese did this once. They gave him back.
The Secret Service HQ is in DC, Maldives are in the Pacific
The Maldives are south west of the southern tip of India.
The US only said they couldn't confirm or deny who made the arrest, which in this case was flak for the Maldives not to take responsibility if they so choose.
Let's give the OP some credit. He predicted that they would not admit they were wrong and they would claim the Maldives are covering up. The first response to him matched the former but failed to accurately predict the latter. However i consider that a great success.
UFO Arabs or Arab aliens?
Given toys for sale and various videos across the Internet, I don't believe most people care whether it was a human or machine that just got them off.
The EIA estimates that the average capacity of a solar plant in the US would be 25% for solar PV and 20% for solar thermal. Mind you that's the US average. Sites in a desert are going to have a much higher capacity factor while sites in many places in the northern latitudes will likely have lower capacities. We use 4 GWhs of electricity annually. In order to built out enough solar to meet EIA's estimate we would need 16 GWhs of capacity in our PV solar plants or 20 GWhs of capacity in solar thermal plants. Now mind you, you need to build out this capacity local to where its needed and unfortunately the places where it's most needed are on the coasts where land prices are at a premium. That's why restructuring the grid is so valuable. You can actually take advantage of the large unpopulated for areas because you aren't losing as much to transmisison and you don't need to build out 3-5 times the capacity of your annual usage.
If you look at LCOE costs for a MWh of electricity, natural gas is one of the cheapest sources. Coal is a bit more expensive. The problems with coal and natural gas is that fuel costs are the most significant portion of the price. Infrastructure and non-variable operations and maintenance account for less than 50% of their total cost. If I recall correctly variable costs, including fuel, accounted for about 65-70% of the cost of a MWh from natural gas/coal.. As long as coal and natural gas are cheap to purchase, the price of electricity will remain low. It also means that the price of electricity is also more subject to market factors than nuclear. Nuclear is around 75% capital infrastructure costs with maybe 15% being fuel costs. Combine that with it's high capacity factor (which renewables lack) and that is what makes nuclear the fantastic option. The cost of electricity from nuclear isn't going to fluctuate wildly based on market prices for fuel because the dominant portion of the price of electricity is recouping the costs of paying for the building. Nuclear is a stable and controllable source of power whereas coal/NG are controllable but unstable due to variable fuel costs and renewables are stable (due to no fuel costs) but lack of control on external factors. Also factor that NG is commonly a byproduct of oil production so if we're also trying to kick oil and coal out at the same time you should expect the price of NG to rise.
Like it or not, nuclear is going to need to be a significant factor in energy generation going forward if you want to avoid totalitarian and dictatorial governments that control its population's consumptions and other behaviors (ie, requiring less energy). That's what the article is getting at by promoting nuclear.
Virgin-trove : A trove of virgins. Example, slashdot.
Labor intensive tasks were moved to China because the labor cost difference between US labor and Chinese labor was sufficient enough to justify the increased capital expense of setting up plants and assembly lines. We lack the capital infrastructure to support the robots in the US, hence why it's cheaper to install them in China since it's basically dropping them in place of workers. To do it in the US we would need to spend $20,000 per robot and spend the millions of dollars purchasing land and building the plants.
It's not the kid's father.
I imagine the cost savings are likely more in maintenance than fuel savings from improved aerodynamics and lowered weight.
I'm guessing they anticipate that the displays/cameras will have a lower maintenance cost than the windows. Based on what I've read it looks like a lot of cracked windows come about from faulty heaters used to keep the windows at a certain temperate to avoid cracking. Total window/frame failure is rare and the only incident I could find involved maintenance installing a window & frame using the wrong sized bolts.