becasue it would be far more expensive. I have no idea why you think private companies don't have a high overhead. In fact, it's usually higher then government overhead.
Landfill needs to be done on a federal level. Local counties and city's have failed. We could dig a holes large enough to put all the trash we will use for the next 200 years and it won't even be half full.
The issue is land and organization, and counties are always pissing all over each other.
That statement is meaning less. We need to now how many KWs you use a month. We need to know is $300 is actually a lot. comparatively. How many dollars of the is fees and taxes?
$9/W based on watt capacity not watts generated ever time. That number is often used as a scare tactic to make people thing they will pay 9$ W. Assuming you're build plants to produce more the 1 GW over time. Ob. if you were to shut it down after producing 1GW, it would need to cost$9 a watt.
I like nuclear, but it does have issues, even 4th Gen plants. Why go to Nuclear when we an use solar? Seems like an unneeded step. Sadly America is fighting 3 things right now: A hard to change entrenched infrastructure. First developed tech issue. A wider and increasing base if ignorant people. The idea that somehow money should be all the determines anything. This is a lot worse the it was 30-40 years ago.
I have a nexus, and it's a simple phone that just works, JUST LIKE EVERY PIECE OF ELECTRONICS IS SUPPOSE TO. What other company wold have that kind of Gall. Samsung Microwave: It just works.
But other hone con't become bent. The go back into shape. This is a manufacturing problem. It's not a good one. I would wager it's one that wouldn't have gotten past Jobs.
" My keys are metal. They don't bend." I bet they have. Keys will bend with time. Take out two keys and place them against each other, very often one will be bent. This is on old circus trick technique for 'mind bending' illusion. They way you worded that implies you think metal can't be bent. Which is obviously incorrect...right?
False. Completely false. Why do you persist in this nonsense? Women, in the same career field as a man, almost always makes less. They only place it's close is in a wage controlled environments. Where a person doing X classification makes the same by contract. Even in those case women rise through the class slower then men. This is a real problem. Why does this scare you? Probably for the same reason a woman wanting for all people to be equally made people on 4chan angry.
Did you listen to her speech? She talks about men and women.
She also talks about inequality men face as well as women.
You are so attached to your provably(and proven) wrong belief that you don't even read the abstract before spew you emotional based nonsense and polluting the comments.
Nothing in the study refute the fact that excess greenhouse gasses are trapping energy.
Unless you are ready to overturn 100+ years of science the proves greenhouse gasses trap energy?
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact. In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test. 1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes 2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes 3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes 4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes 5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false? So now you have to answer: Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
no. They have shown that a local effect, pacific northwest, might have had a bigger impact on local winds. The fact tat ther wind changes can be do yo e;levate GLOBAL energy trapping isn't addressed in any clear way.
The fact that they used global model and tried to apply them to a local event is suspect. No matter, it's one study. Lets see follow up. NOTHING in the study refutes the fact that the lower atmosphere of the earth is warming do to excess CO2 trapping energy.
If you don't think excess greenhouse gasses, (CO2, tc) are cause an increase in trapped energy, then you are an idiot. This is proven science.
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact. In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test. 1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes 2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes 3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes 4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes 5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false? So now you have to answer: Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
Slashdot Mirror
I do something similar.
I cook the bacon, slice the Brussels sprout in to quarters, slice some onion.
Then I through away that shit and eat the bacon.
Stop adding stuff to bacon. It lowers the bacon to whatever you adding to it.
Do you cut them in half first?
" Fine. I'll grind them in my garbage disposal and wash them down my drain."
well, don't complain when your sewer bill gets more expensive.
": offer rewards for reporting rather "
You mean if I stuff my garbage into your bins and then report you I get money?
Anyways, read the article., your post makes you look like an idiot.
becasue it would be far more expensive.
I have no idea why you think private companies don't have a high overhead.
In fact, it's usually higher then government overhead.
"I have not read it .."
Then STFU.
"Why should poor people who generate little waste subsidize waste disposal for wealthy people?"
I'm not sure why you think that's true.
Landfill needs to be done on a federal level. Local counties and city's have failed.
We could dig a holes large enough to put all the trash we will use for the next 200 years and it won't even be half full.
The issue is land and organization, and counties are always pissing all over each other.
"keep vermin-encrusted bins in their home?"
If you have vermin in your home you have bigger problems.
do it at a station, don't put that work on residents.
It's easier, faster, more accurate, and doesn't piss people off.
That statement is meaning less.
We need to now how many KWs you use a month. We need to know is $300 is actually a lot. comparatively. How many dollars of the is fees and taxes?
$9/W based on watt capacity not watts generated ever time.
That number is often used as a scare tactic to make people thing they will pay 9$ W.
Assuming you're build plants to produce more the 1 GW over time. Ob. if you were to shut it down after producing 1GW, it would need to cost$9 a watt.
Burning trees is carbon neutral. Adding trees is carbon neutral.
No, coal is not renewable.
The conditions that create coal during the Carboniferous era no longer exist.
Solar thermal does exactly that.
And yes, energy storage IS plausibly on that scale if it would be needed; which it wouldn't.
I like nuclear, but it does have issues, even 4th Gen plants. Why go to Nuclear when we an use solar? Seems like an unneeded step.
Sadly America is fighting 3 things right now:
A hard to change entrenched infrastructure. First developed tech issue.
A wider and increasing base if ignorant people.
The idea that somehow money should be all the determines anything. This is a lot worse the it was 30-40 years ago.
"This is also a private company too, which means they are profiting at this rate."
maybe, maybe not. Utilities are an odd beast.
I have a nexus, and it's a simple phone that just works, JUST LIKE EVERY PIECE OF ELECTRONICS IS SUPPOSE TO.
What other company wold have that kind of Gall. Samsung Microwave: It just works.
I don't think software has much to be blamed for when the case is bending, and I don't think the case is to be blamed for buggy software.
And no, it's almost never a chicken and egg problem. It is often a blame game hidden behind people saying its a chicken and egg problem.
But other hone con't become bent. The go back into shape.
This is a manufacturing problem. It's not a good one. I would wager it's one that wouldn't have gotten past Jobs.
" My keys are metal. They don't bend."
I bet they have. Keys will bend with time. Take out two keys and place them against each other, very often one will be bent. This is on old circus trick technique for 'mind bending' illusion.
They way you worded that implies you think metal can't be bent. Which is obviously incorrect...right?
False. Completely false. Why do you persist in this nonsense?
Women, in the same career field as a man, almost always makes less. They only place it's close is in a wage controlled environments. Where a person doing X classification makes the same by contract. Even in those case women rise through the class slower then men.
This is a real problem. Why does this scare you? Probably for the same reason a woman wanting for all people to be equally made people on 4chan angry.
Did you listen to her speech? She talks about men and women.
She also talks about inequality men face as well as women.
You are so attached to your provably(and proven) wrong belief that you don't even read the abstract before spew you emotional based nonsense and polluting the comments.
Nothing in the study refute the fact that excess greenhouse gasses are trapping energy.
Unless you are ready to overturn 100+ years of science the proves greenhouse gasses trap energy?
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
no.
They have shown that a local effect, pacific northwest, might have had a bigger impact on local winds. The fact tat ther wind changes can be do yo e;levate GLOBAL energy trapping isn't addressed in any clear way.
The fact that they used global model and tried to apply them to a local event is suspect.
No matter, it's one study. Lets see follow up.
NOTHING in the study refutes the fact that the lower atmosphere of the earth is warming do to excess CO2 trapping energy.
If you don't think excess greenhouse gasses, (CO2, tc) are cause an increase in trapped energy, then you are an idiot. This is proven science.
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?