Well maybe they are mainstream if you're going by market share. It's a term they use for "everybody" else. Just think of it as a convenient way to differentiate between Fox and the other network news organizations. It's not like it's an important distinction.
Alright...that I would agree with...just so long as we all know that "mainstream" is just a marketing ploy used by Fox News to attempt to increase their ratings. To make it clear, I'm not saying there's even anything wrong with Fox News...I simply don't see how they are any different than MSNBC (just in the opposite direction).
We don't need "some place to stick the shit under"...97% of what you call "shit" is FUEL that can be reused in Nuclear Power Plants.
Problem: This produces weapons-grade refined nuclear material, which by treaty we're not allowed to produce. The refining and feeding in of spent fuel for more fuel is great in theory; but look at the politics involved, and you start to see a thin and ineffective attempt at preventing weaponized nuclear programs.
Uh...I believe you might be mistaken, I know of no (and have been unable to find one since reading your reply) of any "treaty" signed by the United States preventing our reprocessing of our own spent Nuclear Fuel.
I know that in the 70s, former President Carter (for the reasons you mentioned) issued an executive order forbidding the use of Public Money in the operation or construction of Reprocessing Plants, but that was overturned less than three years later by former President Reagan.
It was really politics on both sides because (as I stated earlier) Reprocessing is a waste of money, period, at the moment because it is cheaper to simply mine new Uranium.
However, we do know for a fact that eventually that won't be the case so I do not see the logic of putting this amount of money and time (getting back to Yucca Mountain) putting this (soon to be) highly valuable and sought after fuel source completely out of reach for time in memorial (speaking of the plans of permanently sequestering the stuff underground.
The French (who receive 80% of their electricity from Nuclear Energy) do not behave so shortsightedly and I do not think we should either.
P.S. - I wasn't be facetious when I said I couldn't find the treaty you spoke of, if you are able to find a link I could read, I would be most appreciative.
Yucca Mountain happens to be the only safe place to store the shit. It's a giant rock that you can stick shit under, and it'll block radiation. On top of that, they do research inside the waste site; this means they stick shit in radiation-impervious steel barrels so it's a non-issue sitting at ground level, effectively. Where else are you gonna put it all?
Yucca Mountain is the biggest Nuclear Pork Project of all time.
We don't need "some place to stick the shit under"...97% of what you call "shit" is FUEL that can be reused in Nuclear Power Plants.
Now, it makes no sense to Reprocess the fuel right now because Uranium is still cheaper to mine, but that won't always be the case. When it isn't, we'll have HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF YEARS worth of Nuclear Fuel sitting quietly in these stainless steel casks (which you would practically need a f$%king tactical Nuclear Weapon to penetrate, anyway).
"Radioactive waste -- a longstanding concern of environmental advocates and nuclear power critics -- can be stored indefinitely in water on the plant site, company officials said." -- http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09088/959091-96.stm
The problem of "radioactive waste" is the biggest INVENTED problem of all time. It DOES NOT exist anywhere outside of the media.
The only real "waste" are things like clothing, gloves, building materials, dirt, etc. that have become radioactive. All of that equals about 1% of what people count as "waste".
Basically, you need nothing more than a dust mask and thick rubber gloves to safely pick it up -- you could bury it in a whole the size of an Olympic sized swimming pool and never think about it again.
Yes...I know. The truth hurts. No one likes to admit there isn't a single unbiased source of news anymore. I think I quit taking network news seriously when Cronkite retired. It's been spin city ever since. Now the conservatives badmouth the mainstream media and liberals badmouth Fox and talk radio. Funny thing is they are both usually correct. They never see the bias on their side though. If you point it out you're a troll. Ah well....I generally feel good about myself when both sides think I agree with the other side. Liberals think I'm conservative and conservatives think I'm liberal. Frankly I don't give a rats ass. A plague on both their houses.
What's this bullshit about "mainstream media" and then mentioning Fox News, as though they two completely separate things.
Want to know what the "mainstream media" is? It's any news source that makes a living out of telling the news in such a way to guarantee the largest possible audience for said news outlet.
Audience equal ratings and ratings equal money.
I've got news for you, Fox News IS the "mainstream media".
She's probably getting elected even though she's an idiot. That's okay though...someone has to take Pelosi's place as the biggest airhead in congress. The House that is. Their are several competitors in the Senate. And then there is Biden. Man...every time I watch C-Span I'm amazed that with the nutty leadership we have this country still survives.
I lived through eight years of George W. Bush, you'll live through eight of Barack H. Obama.
Harry has already done enough to ruin the country.
Harry Reid isn't the Senator "for the country", he is a Senator for the State of Nevada and for the State of Nevada, he has done a whole hell of a lot.
I do not understand this call of "well, this congressperson didn't represent the country..." IT'S NOT THEIR JOB TO REPRESENT "The country", it is THEIR job to represent the people who elect them to their seats.
For that reason, I don't understand why anyone thinks Nancy Pelosi (she seems to be the target of much mockery, so I will use her as an example, but it really applies to anyone on Congress) gives two shits what some asshat in Texas thinks of her (again, Texas is just an example of an area where a lot of mockery seems to come from, I'm not in any way saying it is only Texas).
The only people Nancy Pelosi need give a shit about are the people of the 8th Congressional District of California -- THEY and they alone "put her in her place" and THEY and they alone can remove her from Congress.
p.s. I'm speaking of her as a Congressperson, not specifically as "Speaker of the House", I'm well aware that she most certainly will not be speaker of the house come next term if Democrats do not maintain a majority...my point was that she will still be IN CONGRESS so long as the people of the 8th Congressional District of California continue sending her back.
That's one reason I kinda understand why some schools ban the use of Wikipedia proper for school assignments...because all the kid has to do is use the referenced sources (in lieu of the "according to Hoyle" Wiki article) and none are the wiser.
But that's no different than any source of information, period. Anyone who takes the word of CNN, MSNBC, or (God forbid) Fox News WITHOUT CHECKING FOR THEMSELVES is setting themselves up to look stupid.
All these sources are great for starting your search...they are hardly the place to end it!
Relativity is a pesky little fucker, among other issues.
But even with Relativity, it is possible to visit (at least near by stars) in a human lifetime...with enough money, of course...but money is all that is stopping it.
In case you wondered, like I did, the GOP is apparently an acronym, Grand Old Party, ie the Republicans. I know/. is US-centric, but, come on, give the rest of us a break and speak English! Thank GOD (not an acronym) for Google.
I prefer the GOPP -- Grand Old Pity Party -- because that's all they've become in the last four years after being kicked out on their collective asses.
"Once I was at a bar with James Doohan, who played Scotty on Star Trek. We were doing shots of Jim Beam. I looked over at James and said 'Beam me up Scotty'. He laughed...but it was kind of a fake laugh".
Now, just to be clear, I'm a pickup person myself.
I couple of years ago I needed to purchase a 3/4 ton truck to do a little hauling and had to choose between a big Gasoline engine (which from Ford and Dodge was a V10 gasoline engine and with GM was a Big-Block V8) or a Diesel.
At the end of the day, even considering the much better mileage of the diesel (both hauling and just driving) I ultimately chose the big Gasoline engine because (and this was pretty universal) it only added about $500 to the total price whereas the Diesel added about $5000+.
It simply would have taken me too long to have made up the price.
Derr... if it gets too hot, we just turn up the A/C. A small increase in fossil fuel consumption to produce the required electricity is expected, which may increase AGW, but we can just turn up the A/C to compensate.
The funny thing is that corporate profits are on both sides of this argument. There are many who stand to make billions off of cap-and-trade. You don't really think that all those people pushing so hard on the we're all doomed bandwagon are really altruistic do you? There are billions at stake here and lots of liars on both sides. I'm not all that fond of the shrill anti global warming people but I don't find the other side all that appealing either. Hatefulness doesn't make any argument more appealing.
Of course they're not altruistic, they're looking to make money just like those who those who deny Climate Change are looking to save money?
What your side can never tell us, however, is how exactly making money off a solution to Global Climate Change somehow impugns the science?
The science is sound and once again has been proven so.
Arguing that making a profit fixing someone else's mistake somehow makes the mistake not real is analogous to someone a hundred years ago claiming that because Kerosene was a competitor to whale oil for lamps, that somehow magically meant that whales weren't being driven to extinction.
It's yet another cry of "Conspiracy!" from those terrified they may have to spend an extra $8.25 per month (which, in the United States at least, is what "Cap and Trade" will cost the average consumer) to help solve a problem they themselves helped create.
I thought that in running for public office, your life was effectively an open book?...
Sure... except for a person's birth certificate. Only a complete nut would want to know where and when a candidate for public office was born.
Who's birth certificate are you speaking of? I don't know a single candidate or office holder who hasn't produced legally accepted proof of their birth.
Birth Certificate is kinda of a loaded word because not every state produces what another state might consider an according to Hoyle "Birth Certificate".
However, every state produces records so as too allow a citizen to show they were born in the United States and when as required by law.
Solar's a bit less risky than that -- far less likely to have cost overruns or construction problems. Generally the government does not price risk high enough, but that doesn't mean they lose every dollar they guarantee. Most of it gets payed back.
Not a SINGLE utility has ever defaulted on a loan-guarantee for a Nuclear Power Plant.
Of course, if you come out EVERY SINGLE DAY and declare "it will rain because I say so!", one day, it will probably rain.
No mining operations to provide feedstock (which require petroleum).
No transportation of feedstock (which require petroleum).
Use of electric cars.
Oops... I opened up a can of worms. Just so people understand, I get that battery manufacturers pollute quite a lot too. I also understand their ranges are limited. However, there are companies out there (globally) working on projects like quick-change battery stations (I believe Israel is going to pilot their installation).
This is what I call a "2 standard deviation" solution. There are situations where alternative solutions would be needed for long-distance transport. I think returning to a rail system for cargo would be a good idea, and that could be based off of electricity vs fossil fuels. However, when the majority of manufacturers are making electric vehicles, I think we will see some good technological advancements and economies of scale kick in.
Or we could just cut to the chase and use the basically (compared to Fossil Fuels, anyway) free and clean electricity to manufacture synthetic Hydrocarbons (Jet Fuel, Diesel, Gasoline, plastics, etc.).
Sticking solely to vehicles, using electricity to directly power electric vehicle is a lot more efficient than using electricity to produce synthetic hydrocarbons, but if the electricity will never run out, then it's simply a matter of which is more economical.
And at this point in time, it is far more doable to create synthetic hydrocarbons to replace our dependence on petroleum than it is to figure out alternatives for every single product manufactured from hydrocarbons.
802.11b is still faster than the majority of Internet Services out there.
So, aside from being limited to WEP, it's slow speed moving things from computer to computer in your home/office won't be a factor for the majority of people who use wireless only for Internet Access.
I know that's basically been said time and time again in the above posts, I just wanted to chime in about it's slower speed not being an issue if it's only used for Internet Access.
....when the sea was several hundred feet higher?....
The fact is, that just the opposite was true in ages past. If you want evidence of this, just get yourself a National Geographic map of the world's oceans. There you will see the continents, the continental shelves and the deep abysmal ocean basins. There you will also see clearly depicted on such maps the continued course of many of the world's rivers, such as the Amazon, the Mississippi and the Nile and others. This of course could not be if the riverbed has not at some point been on dry land rather than underwater such as they are today. This underwater riverbed tracing is especially prominent for the Amazon River. Because the continental shelf is rather wide on the east coast of South America, the riverbed tracing is unusually deep and long.
In ages past, the continental shelves all over the world were dry and the oceans were confined to the deep ocean basins. Today the water covering the continental shelves is only hundreds of feet deep, whereas in the deep ocean basins in water depth is measured in thousands of feet.
The few hundred feet of water above the continental shelves, can easily be held, with room to spare in a much warmer humid atmosphere. Water holding capacity of the air increases dramatically with temperature. Furthermore, presently the majority of the moisture is held in the lower 20,000 feet of the atmosphere. If the earth and its atmosphere warms up, this threshold of altitude also rises, making that much more air capable of holding that much more moisture.
Thus, if the earth did get warmer, as it once was, the ocean's levels would go down, making more space for all land animals. The assumption that global warming in the long-term is detrimental, is based upon the idea of extrapolating present conditions by faulty mathematical model assumptions, not upon observations.
Even if we had been observing the climate for 400 or 500 years, which we obviously have not, that would be a miniscule amount of time, compared to the geologic timescales involved in long-term climate of the earth.
The problem is that we're talking about two completely different frames of time.
Fossil Fuel deposits and the Earth's geography are two completely different things.
And, yes, we can in fact study the Earth's Climate (along with what the atmosphere was like during past climate cycles) because of ice cores from places like Antarctica. Ice from thousands of feet down contain bubbles of air that give us a direct sample from the atmosphere at the time the ice formed.
Again, Climate Change Science is not a "belief" or "assumptions", it is a theory backed by facts.
However, it really doesn't matter whether one subscribes to the Theory of Human caused Global Climate change or not. Every single proposal aimed at combating Global Climate Change in regard to the United States will also make the United States more and more energy independent...until that magical day when we are not forced to import any of our energy, period.
It would be so nice if that were true! The fact is that our so-called scientists have intentionally forgotten that all these fossil fuels were produced by sunshine converted by photosynthesis in plants. Therefore, all the stored carbon we are now liberating must have been available in the air to those plants growing ages ago upon this planet. If mankind were to release every single carbon atom that was sequestered underground, the conditions on earth would have to revert to whatever they were at the time when the fossil fuels were formed.
We do know from science as well as everyday life, that plants grow much better in a warm environment. Isn't that why we build hothouses? Who is to say that turning the entire earth into a gigantic hothouse will not be beneficial to mankind and all other living creatures in the long run?
Oh you mean the "good old days" when the sea was several hundred feet higher?
You see, that's the problem with being a "jailhouse" scientist.
Simple ideas like that are taken directly into account when real scientists tell you we've got a problem...it is hardly the "faith based initiative" right-wingers make it out to be.
Just to be clear, I'm not mocking you (I'm simply saying your incorrect), I'm mocking the radio talk show you heard that from:)
You've got to be kidding, right? It's a political football just trying to find a state that will take nuclear's "emissions."
And yet another "political football" that's simply a waste of time.
95% of what is called "Nuclear Waste" can be reprocessed into new fuel.
Very, VERY little of what we call "Nuclear Waste" here in the United States is actually waste at all, but just unused fuel.
In France, the amount of actual "waste" is about equivalent in size to a cigarette lighter per French Citizens' personal electrical-footprint per year.
The reason? France reprocesses all the spent fuel they can.
Slashdot Mirror
Well maybe they are mainstream if you're going by market share. It's a term they use for "everybody" else. Just think of it as a convenient way to differentiate between Fox and the other network news organizations. It's not like it's an important distinction.
Alright...that I would agree with...just so long as we all know that "mainstream" is just a marketing ploy used by Fox News to attempt to increase their ratings.
To make it clear, I'm not saying there's even anything wrong with Fox News...I simply don't see how they are any different than MSNBC (just in the opposite direction).
We don't need "some place to stick the shit under"...97% of what you call "shit" is FUEL that can be reused in Nuclear Power Plants.
Problem: This produces weapons-grade refined nuclear material, which by treaty we're not allowed to produce. The refining and feeding in of spent fuel for more fuel is great in theory; but look at the politics involved, and you start to see a thin and ineffective attempt at preventing weaponized nuclear programs.
Uh...I believe you might be mistaken, I know of no (and have been unable to find one since reading your reply) of any "treaty" signed by the United States preventing our reprocessing of our own spent Nuclear Fuel.
I know that in the 70s, former President Carter (for the reasons you mentioned) issued an executive order forbidding the use of Public Money in the operation or construction of Reprocessing Plants, but that was overturned less than three years later by former President Reagan.
It was really politics on both sides because (as I stated earlier) Reprocessing is a waste of money, period, at the moment because it is cheaper to simply mine new Uranium.
However, we do know for a fact that eventually that won't be the case so I do not see the logic of putting this amount of money and time (getting back to Yucca Mountain) putting this (soon to be) highly valuable and sought after fuel source completely out of reach for time in memorial (speaking of the plans of permanently sequestering the stuff underground.
The French (who receive 80% of their electricity from Nuclear Energy) do not behave so shortsightedly and I do not think we should either.
P.S. - I wasn't be facetious when I said I couldn't find the treaty you spoke of, if you are able to find a link I could read, I would be most appreciative.
Yucca Mountain happens to be the only safe place to store the shit. It's a giant rock that you can stick shit under, and it'll block radiation. On top of that, they do research inside the waste site; this means they stick shit in radiation-impervious steel barrels so it's a non-issue sitting at ground level, effectively. Where else are you gonna put it all?
Yucca Mountain is the biggest Nuclear Pork Project of all time.
We don't need "some place to stick the shit under"...97% of what you call "shit" is FUEL that can be reused in Nuclear Power Plants.
Now, it makes no sense to Reprocess the fuel right now because Uranium is still cheaper to mine, but that won't always be the case. When it isn't, we'll have HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF YEARS worth of Nuclear Fuel sitting quietly in these stainless steel casks (which you would practically need a f$%king tactical Nuclear Weapon to penetrate, anyway).
I favor the approach Westinghouse has used with the AP1000 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000
"Radioactive waste -- a longstanding concern of environmental advocates and nuclear power critics -- can be stored indefinitely in water on the plant site, company officials said." -- http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09088/959091-96.stm
The problem of "radioactive waste" is the biggest INVENTED problem of all time. It DOES NOT exist anywhere outside of the media.
The only real "waste" are things like clothing, gloves, building materials, dirt, etc. that have become radioactive. All of that equals about 1% of what people count as "waste".
Basically, you need nothing more than a dust mask and thick rubber gloves to safely pick it up -- you could bury it in a whole the size of an Olympic sized swimming pool and never think about it again.
Yes...I know. The truth hurts. No one likes to admit there isn't a single unbiased source of news anymore. I think I quit taking network news seriously when Cronkite retired. It's been spin city ever since. Now the conservatives badmouth the mainstream media and liberals badmouth Fox and talk radio. Funny thing is they are both usually correct. They never see the bias on their side though. If you point it out you're a troll. Ah well....I generally feel good about myself when both sides think I agree with the other side. Liberals think I'm conservative and conservatives think I'm liberal. Frankly I don't give a rats ass. A plague on both their houses.
What's this bullshit about "mainstream media" and then mentioning Fox News, as though they two completely separate things.
Want to know what the "mainstream media" is? It's any news source that makes a living out of telling the news in such a way to guarantee the largest possible audience for said news outlet.
Audience equal ratings and ratings equal money.
I've got news for you, Fox News IS the "mainstream media".
She's probably getting elected even though she's an idiot. That's okay though...someone has to take Pelosi's place as the biggest airhead in congress. The House that is. Their are several competitors in the Senate. And then there is Biden. Man...every time I watch C-Span I'm amazed that with the nutty leadership we have this country still survives.
I lived through eight years of George W. Bush, you'll live through eight of Barack H. Obama.
You may want to read this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070203977.html
Harry has already done enough to ruin the country.
Harry Reid isn't the Senator "for the country", he is a Senator for the State of Nevada and for the State of Nevada, he has done a whole hell of a lot.
I could point to the fact that PRECISELY BECAUSE of Harry Reid, Nevada won't be another Nuclear Waste Dump Pork Project -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
I do not understand this call of "well, this congressperson didn't represent the country..." IT'S NOT THEIR JOB TO REPRESENT "The country", it is THEIR job to represent the people who elect them to their seats.
For that reason, I don't understand why anyone thinks Nancy Pelosi (she seems to be the target of much mockery, so I will use her as an example, but it really applies to anyone on Congress) gives two shits what some asshat in Texas thinks of her (again, Texas is just an example of an area where a lot of mockery seems to come from, I'm not in any way saying it is only Texas).
The only people Nancy Pelosi need give a shit about are the people of the 8th Congressional District of California -- THEY and they alone "put her in her place" and THEY and they alone can remove her from Congress.
p.s. I'm speaking of her as a Congressperson, not specifically as "Speaker of the House", I'm well aware that she most certainly will not be speaker of the house come next term if Democrats do not maintain a majority...my point was that she will still be IN CONGRESS so long as the people of the 8th Congressional District of California continue sending her back.
for finding references to other sources.
That's one reason I kinda understand why some schools ban the use of Wikipedia proper for school assignments...because all the kid has to do is use the referenced sources (in lieu of the "according to Hoyle" Wiki article) and none are the wiser.
But that's no different than any source of information, period. Anyone who takes the word of CNN, MSNBC, or (God forbid) Fox News WITHOUT CHECKING FOR THEMSELVES is setting themselves up to look stupid.
All these sources are great for starting your search...they are hardly the place to end it!
Relativity is a pesky little fucker, among other issues.
But even with Relativity, it is possible to visit (at least near by stars) in a human lifetime...with enough money, of course...but money is all that is stopping it.
For example...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Longshot
In case you wondered, like I did, the GOP is apparently an acronym, Grand Old Party, ie the Republicans. /. is US-centric, but, come on, give the rest of us a break and speak English! Thank GOD (not an acronym) for Google.
I know
I prefer the GOPP -- Grand Old Pity Party -- because that's all they've become in the last four years after being kicked out on their collective asses.
"Once I was at a bar with James Doohan, who played Scotty on Star Trek. We were doing shots of Jim Beam. I looked over at James and said 'Beam me up Scotty'. He laughed...but it was kind of a fake laugh".
Now, just to be clear, I'm a pickup person myself.
I couple of years ago I needed to purchase a 3/4 ton truck to do a little hauling and had to choose between a big Gasoline engine (which from Ford and Dodge was a V10 gasoline engine and with GM was a Big-Block V8) or a Diesel.
At the end of the day, even considering the much better mileage of the diesel (both hauling and just driving) I ultimately chose the big Gasoline engine because (and this was pretty universal) it only added about $500 to the total price whereas the Diesel added about $5000+.
It simply would have taken me too long to have made up the price.
Derr... if it gets too hot, we just turn up the A/C. A small increase in fossil fuel consumption to produce the required electricity is expected, which may increase AGW, but we can just turn up the A/C to compensate.
Solving the problem once and for all!
ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!
"IEEE Spectrum takes a look at the machines developed by a company funded by Kevin Costner that are supposed to extract the oil from the Gulf waters."
Well I wrecked the gate...don't hear me braggin'.
The funny thing is that corporate profits are on both sides of this argument. There are many who stand to make billions off of cap-and-trade. You don't really think that all those people pushing so hard on the we're all doomed bandwagon are really altruistic do you? There are billions at stake here and lots of liars on both sides. I'm not all that fond of the shrill anti global warming people but I don't find the other side all that appealing either. Hatefulness doesn't make any argument more appealing.
Of course they're not altruistic, they're looking to make money just like those who those who deny Climate Change are looking to save money?
What your side can never tell us, however, is how exactly making money off a solution to Global Climate Change somehow impugns the science?
The science is sound and once again has been proven so.
Arguing that making a profit fixing someone else's mistake somehow makes the mistake not real is analogous to someone a hundred years ago claiming that because Kerosene was a competitor to whale oil for lamps, that somehow magically meant that whales weren't being driven to extinction.
It's yet another cry of "Conspiracy!" from those terrified they may have to spend an extra $8.25 per month (which, in the United States at least, is what "Cap and Trade" will cost the average consumer) to help solve a problem they themselves helped create.
I voted for kotos!"
Jokes aside, I could very easily go into all the reasons why I use the Mac OS...but it's not proper to dance on another's grave :)
Andromeda has mutated to a noninfectious form!
I thought that in running for public office, your life was effectively an open book?...
Sure... except for a person's birth certificate. Only a complete nut would want to know where and when a candidate for public office was born.
Who's birth certificate are you speaking of? I don't know a single candidate or office holder who hasn't produced legally accepted proof of their birth.
Birth Certificate is kinda of a loaded word because not every state produces what another state might consider an according to Hoyle "Birth Certificate".
However, every state produces records so as too allow a citizen to show they were born in the United States and when as required by law.
Any claim to the contrary is in error.
It might be a start to stop electing so many dang lawyers.
Yeah, because why could we possibly want to elect lawmakers who actually have a degree in law.
Oh, as a New Yorker I can say that I will be voting a completely "Non Incumbent" ticket come November.
You know, I know this "anti-incumbent" shit is real PC right now,...but do you know what happens when you vote against candidates instead of for them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene
One of the riskiest classes of loan guarantee made by the feds is for nuclear power plant construction.
Those loans are expected to have a 50% default rate.
Solar's a bit less risky than that -- far less likely to have cost overruns or construction problems. Generally the government does not price risk high enough, but that doesn't mean they lose every dollar they guarantee. Most of it gets payed back.
Not a SINGLE utility has ever defaulted on a loan-guarantee for a Nuclear Power Plant.
Of course, if you come out EVERY SINGLE DAY and declare "it will rain because I say so!", one day, it will probably rain.
Does that mean you can create rain?
Oops... I opened up a can of worms. Just so people understand, I get that battery manufacturers pollute quite a lot too. I also understand their ranges are limited. However, there are companies out there (globally) working on projects like quick-change battery stations (I believe Israel is going to pilot their installation).
This is what I call a "2 standard deviation" solution. There are situations where alternative solutions would be needed for long-distance transport. I think returning to a rail system for cargo would be a good idea, and that could be based off of electricity vs fossil fuels. However, when the majority of manufacturers are making electric vehicles, I think we will see some good technological advancements and economies of scale kick in.
Or we could just cut to the chase and use the basically (compared to Fossil Fuels, anyway) free and clean electricity to manufacture synthetic Hydrocarbons (Jet Fuel, Diesel, Gasoline, plastics, etc.).
Sticking solely to vehicles, using electricity to directly power electric vehicle is a lot more efficient than using electricity to produce synthetic hydrocarbons, but if the electricity will never run out, then it's simply a matter of which is more economical.
And at this point in time, it is far more doable to create synthetic hydrocarbons to replace our dependence on petroleum than it is to figure out alternatives for every single product manufactured from hydrocarbons.
802.11b is still faster than the majority of Internet Services out there.
So, aside from being limited to WEP, it's slow speed moving things from computer to computer in your home/office won't be a factor for the majority of people who use wireless only for Internet Access.
I know that's basically been said time and time again in the above posts, I just wanted to chime in about it's slower speed not being an issue if it's only used for Internet Access.
....when the sea was several hundred feet higher?....
The fact is, that just the opposite was true in ages past. If you want evidence of this, just get yourself a National Geographic map of the world's oceans. There you will see the continents, the continental shelves and the deep abysmal ocean basins. There you will also see clearly depicted on such maps the continued course of many of the world's rivers, such as the Amazon, the Mississippi and the Nile and others. This of course could not be if the riverbed has not at some point been on dry land rather than underwater such as they are today. This underwater riverbed tracing is especially prominent for the Amazon River. Because the continental shelf is rather wide on the east coast of South America, the riverbed tracing is unusually deep and long.
In ages past, the continental shelves all over the world were dry and the oceans were confined to the deep ocean basins. Today the water covering the continental shelves is only hundreds of feet deep, whereas in the deep ocean basins in water depth is measured in thousands of feet.
The few hundred feet of water above the continental shelves, can easily be held, with room to spare in a much warmer humid atmosphere. Water holding capacity of the air increases dramatically with temperature. Furthermore, presently the majority of the moisture is held in the lower 20,000 feet of the atmosphere. If the earth and its atmosphere warms up, this threshold of altitude also rises, making that much more air capable of holding that much more moisture.
Thus, if the earth did get warmer, as it once was, the ocean's levels would go down, making more space for all land animals. The assumption that global warming in the long-term is detrimental, is based upon the idea of extrapolating present conditions by faulty mathematical model assumptions, not upon observations.
Even if we had been observing the climate for 400 or 500 years, which we obviously have not, that would be a miniscule amount of time, compared to the geologic timescales involved in long-term climate of the earth.
The problem is that we're talking about two completely different frames of time.
Fossil Fuel deposits and the Earth's geography are two completely different things.
And, yes, we can in fact study the Earth's Climate (along with what the atmosphere was like during past climate cycles) because of ice cores from places like Antarctica. Ice from thousands of feet down contain bubbles of air that give us a direct sample from the atmosphere at the time the ice formed.
Again, Climate Change Science is not a "belief" or "assumptions", it is a theory backed by facts.
However, it really doesn't matter whether one subscribes to the Theory of Human caused Global Climate change or not. Every single proposal aimed at combating Global Climate Change in regard to the United States will also make the United States more and more energy independent...until that magical day when we are not forced to import any of our energy, period.
....Climate Change is a Science ....
It would be so nice if that were true! The fact is that our so-called scientists have intentionally forgotten that all these fossil fuels were produced by sunshine converted by photosynthesis in plants. Therefore, all the stored carbon we are now liberating must have been available in the air to those plants growing ages ago upon this planet. If mankind were to release every single carbon atom that was sequestered underground, the conditions on earth would have to revert to whatever they were at the time when the fossil fuels were formed.
We do know from science as well as everyday life, that plants grow much better in a warm environment. Isn't that why we build hothouses? Who is to say that turning the entire earth into a gigantic hothouse will not be beneficial to mankind and all other living creatures in the long run?
Oh you mean the "good old days" when the sea was several hundred feet higher?
You see, that's the problem with being a "jailhouse" scientist.
Simple ideas like that are taken directly into account when real scientists tell you we've got a problem...it is hardly the "faith based initiative" right-wingers make it out to be.
Just to be clear, I'm not mocking you (I'm simply saying your incorrect), I'm mocking the radio talk show you heard that from :)
"Nuclear produces no emissions"
You've got to be kidding, right? It's a political football just trying to find a state that will take nuclear's "emissions."
And yet another "political football" that's simply a waste of time.
95% of what is called "Nuclear Waste" can be reprocessed into new fuel.
Very, VERY little of what we call "Nuclear Waste" here in the United States is actually waste at all, but just unused fuel.
In France, the amount of actual "waste" is about equivalent in size to a cigarette lighter per French Citizens' personal electrical-footprint per year.
The reason? France reprocesses all the spent fuel they can.