I've been to Europe, multiple times and multiple countries. By and large, it is not really that different to the US in terms of the appearance of freedom.
We have our faults too, so I'm not throwing stones from a glass house in general, but when it comes to freedom of personal safety and personal defense, we are in fact better off as a whole.
There are exceptions (Chicago, DC, etc.) but consider that gun rules there are tighter than they are in Dallas, Orlando, Denver, etc. Once you remove suicide from gun deaths and remove gang on gang violence, actual gun violence in the US is actually quite low. My risk of being shot where I live is darn near close to zero. My risk of being in a car accident is FAR higher, which is why I own a big truck and always wear my seatbelt and never text and drive.
But I still own an AR-15 among other guns, and it has yet to jump up and shoot someone by itself. In fact, such weapons almost never do that, the overall percentage of guns like that used in crime is a rounding error. But such weapons are useful to remind government that they serve us and not the other way around. One is useless, 100 million of them is not. And if you think Government always wins, tell that to the rebels in Syria.
I imagine much of the "disagreement" on forums such as this comes down to the poor use of text to communicate. In person, you have instant feedback, you have body language, and you have the "tone" in the voice that says as much as the words do.
I like to think that most people are actually quite reasonable, or at least would behave reasonably regardless of their feelings, in person.
The problem with Windows updates and the Home edition is new, and has not been well advertised. "Windows 10 Pro - It Won't Screw Up Your Presentation" comes to mind as an advertising slogan, but that may just be me.
Yea, that is kinda funny.:)
I actually understand the frustration behind the "anti-MS" crowd, I just think that it is funneled into pointless rants that won't fix anything and don't help the situation. Thus my comment about the "upgrade Windows 10 to Windows 7" comment, I find that to be unhelpful, since staying forever on Windows 7 is not a reasonable option in the long run.
I also honestly don't think nearly as many people in the world care about all this as it would appear from reading forums like SlashDot and Reddit. These places attract the very vocal, but most people just aren't that tuned in to it.
If the people unhappy would, instead of ranting, register a web site like "www.changewindowsupdatestooptional.com" and get people to sign it and post comments on it, that might be more helpful than anything ranted about here.
Linux, for better or worse, is not going to displace Windows. We could debate the technical merits all day, it doesn't change the reality of the situation. The time and energy would be better spent trying to get MS to change, rather than calling them M$ and feeling smug.:)
When Winslet posed nude in a screening of Titanic, there was a 8yo instructed by his parents to turn around and not look. Sacramento CA, not the butthole of the US.
Well that just goes to show you that "progressives" in the US aren't so progressive.:)
I'm in Texas, both my 7 year old daughter and 10 year old son have watched that movie. The parts that I was most worried about was the shooting (both at Kate and the suicide of the officer who shot the passenger), which we paused the movie and talked about.
The boobs? Don't bother me or my kids a bit, I talk to my kids about that sort of stuff and put it thus: "God made us all in his image, naked and perfect. Humans are not perfect and cover up because of emotion, fear, modesty, and other feelings. There is nothing "wrong" or "bad" about a naked person, so long as that person is treated kindly. We're all naked under our clothes."
Have you seen Lord of the Rings? You would take a 13 year old to that? Or worse, a 10 year old, which I've seen happen as well.
Avengers is not violent? Transformer is not violent?
This is not spineless, this is non-stop violence that is not good for young minds that cannot process it. The last 30 min of the third Transformers movie basically never stops, it is nothing but explosions and mayhem.
This is not good for kids. It is probably not good for adults either, but we at least have a chance to put it into perspective.
You're making the (sadly typical, in this sort of debate) incorrect assumption that the goal is to prevent everything everywhere. Everyone knows that's impossible. If the US could reduce its gun death rate to the rate of other developed countries, then we'd be getting somewhere.
You mean like the nations that have subjects, instead of citizens?
Yea, thanks, but no thanks... we fought a revolution to no longer be under their control, we'll keep our guns thank you very much.
Spoken by the person who has none... You really, really need to come out of the clouds and join reality...
Also heating houses can be done with heat pumps.
Sure, but only in some locations, and you'd have to replace all the equipment, and that costs money, money that people don't have.
These things aren't going to change this year or next year, but as cars and boilers wear out people can replace them with more environmentally friendly technologies; it will take a decade or so
This shows how little you know.
If the entire worldwide car production instantly changed to EVs tomorrow, it would take 27 years to replace all the cars on the road in the world with EVs.
Since that isn't going to happen, it will be FAR longer than 27 years.
You live in a bubble, believing things that won't happen because you like how they sound.
Why is it that most of those supporting MS seem to post A/C ?
I don't, and I see people calling me a MS shill (which is silly, since they don't pay me anything).
I have installed Windows 10 on dozens of machines, more than 10 of my own machines. I've done everything from clean installs to updates, and it has worked perfectly every time on everything.
The strangest install I've done was on a 2007 Core2Quad machine that had Windows XP on it, I did a dual boot install of Windows 7 years ago on that machine, then upgraded Windows 7 to 8.0, then again to 8.1. Last year I upgraded Windows 8.1 to Windows 10. Not a single clean install since 7 was put there.
Works fine, nothing wrong at all. It is one of my test machines so it gets a lot of stuff installed and removed from it, frankly it probably needs a clean install, but since everything works, why?
All these people complaining about problems with 10, I just haven't seen them.
No, there are not enough techies in the world to install and support that on that many machines.
There is a ton of Windows hate here, but if it was as bad as claimed here, it would be front page news. The fact is, it isn't as bad as people here are shouting about.
The Vast majority have problems. Out of 10 friends and relatives with old machines all 10 had their computers screwed up by the "free" windows 10 upgrade because their 5 year old computers had hardware that does not have drivers for windows 10.
That doesn't ring true...
I've got nearly 10 year old computers running Windows 10 without a hitch, including a Core2Quad that first had Windows XP on it, then had Windows 7 installed dual boot with XP, then Windows 7 was updated to Windows 8.0, then 8.1, then 10, all without a clean install.
Works perfectly, and amazingly quick for a 9 year old computer.
I have 7 year old machines as well, also running Windows 10, also upgraded from Windows 8.1.
In dozens of machines, over 10 of them mine, not a single one has had a single problem with Windows 10. It has worked perfectly every single time, on everything I've put it on.
You must be in the US. DO they still make breastfeeding mothers go hide in a special room at your work?
I'm in the US, in Texas no less, which tends to still have that nonsense...
Yea, people here are sexually repressed, which is probably why we have so much sex in advertising.
But movies with huge violence are still PG-13 while movies with naked boobies are rated R.
Yes, our "religious right" is nuts, what can you do?
BTW, I watched part of that video. While the mother has very nice breasts, there is nothing sexual about that at all. It is a very loving act by a mother feeding her child.
Why don't you google and read some links and get an education?
Why don't you... I posted a reply to your last comment showing you why you're wrong...
Wind and solar is right now cheaper in production costs per kWh than nuclear.
That is probably true for new production... But all are more expensive than coal/oil/natural gas...
I have a choice in my power... 7 cents for coal power or 10 cents for wind power, and the wind power is subsidized by the government here. Texas is the largest producer of wind in the US, we have spent billions making that happen.
No, it isn't. Actually, it is shockingly cheap, if done correctly...
Here is a list of places that already have 100% renewable electricity
And that is where you're going wrong. You think that because a select few places are doing it (or appearing to do it), that means it can be everywhere.
Right now, about 5% of the world's power comes from renewables, but that is just electricity, that doesn't count all the fossil fuels used directly.
Driving, for example, consumes huge amounts of oil. Large amounts of natural gas are consumed by healing homes (and water and cooking). None of that is going to change any time soon.
ROFLMAO. You do know that nuclear reactors can fail at any time
Laugh all you like, but while that is true, it isn't that common, and the load is picked up by other things. They don't have enough natural gas turbines to take up the load of all the reactors at once, but perhaps one of them here and there. Most shutdowns are planned, for what it is worth.
Ok, but your post said (or implied) that Trump was wrong for doing what he does, that if he really cared he would stop regardless.
I like to think Trump does care, but he also plays with the rules as they are.
It is not an impossible position to both take advantage of the rules while thinking they are unfair or wrong. I do the same thing. I own my own business and I pay far less in taxes as a percentage of my income than a wage earner does, due to the tax laws. Is that fair? No. But I'm not going to stop until the rules are changed.
I would support the rules being changed, while using them while they exist. I have no problem with this viewpoint either.
---
Side note: I can see *some* benefit to the H-1B program, but I also see a crap ton of abuse. It might be worth taking a year off from the program and rebuilding it, because clearly it has problems. I would agree that what gets posted about H-1B visas here is generally wrong (such as the Disney thing) and should not be allowed).
I run a business myself, and I am trying like hell to use local resources.
And that's fine, more power to you...
But don't confuse your personal choice with someone else making a different personal choice, assuming both sides are following the rules...
I suspect Trump has slightly more money than you do. Maybe you don't care, and that's ok, but don't try and put your personal moral viewpoint on him, he has no obligation to accept it.
Don't be silly, he is playing the game by the rules that exist.
That is like suggesting that he should pay more taxes than he has to, just because he is rich. That is not logical or sensible.
If he doesn't use H-1Bs, then his competition will. He is playing the game. Don't like the rules, change them. But don't hate the player for following the rules.
No, I'm actually very likely to win it. You can't seem to see beyond the EU. Who gives a crap what the EU does, it is only 10% of world-wide carbon, it could go to zero and wouldn't make any real difference.
There is a world beyond your little space, when you're prepared to come out and see it, you'll be prepared to deal with reality.
No, it's not subsidies, and the cost is still going down. Taller wind turbines produce energy much more cheaply and give more consistent power.
Then why is Wind power 30% more expensive than coal power?
It also isn't consistent, if you think it is, you're kidding yourself. Texas produces more wind power than any other state, yet it is highly variable and natural gas turbines have to be kept on standby to make up for the shortfalls when they happen.
Uh huh. Nuclear power is getting more expensive over time, and is already more expensive than onshore wind.
I don't doubt it, but the reasons for that are also political in nature... we could get the costs down if we got over our "oh my god the nuclears" fears. If we don't, then it will be coal, oil, and natural gas.
And there's no upper limit on the amount of wind you can put on a grid, and the costs of electricity storage are dropping in price exponentially as well.
While it is true that you can put tons of wind power on the grid, it doesn't do any good if the wind stops blowing. Or is blowing too fast. As far as storage, don't be silly, the type of storage that would be required to make wind our primary power is a galaxy away from the types of storage that exist. If you honestly think batteries are going to work, you need a math lesson.
One main trick is to export any spare electricity you have. That's what Denmark does, and they're already running on 40% wind power, and have a plan to take it to 85%.
Yea, you forgot the politics thing... Denmark is a lousy example, it is a small nation of a few million people with only one neighbor, who is an ally. That idea doesn't work most places.
The grand mistake that people like you make is that you look at very small examples of wealthy nations of a few people spending huge sums to do very little, and think it can be applied world-wide. You fail to take into account both politics and math, and in doing so are just kidding yourself. You think that just because something CAN be done, that it WILL be done.
Once you give up that pipe dream and come back to reality, let me know which you would prefer, nuclear or carbon...
In 2014, Germany produced 572 TWh of power and about half of it came from coal.
It is also worth noting that Germany is wealthy and appears willing to throw huge amounts of national treasure at this. Germans also pay triple the cost per KWh that Americans do for power, so frankly using them for an example is a pretty piss-poor one.
So no, there is no choice between carbon and nuclear.
You are welcome to keep thinking that, but you're wrong if you do. This is not an opinion, it is a fact.
World wide power production in 2014 was 40.4% coal, 22.5% natural gas, and 5.0% oil. The oil number is low because much of the energy in oil is used for cars/trucks/trains/planes/ships. These numbers are just for electricity. Those numbers also don't take into account how many homes are heated directly by natural gas (mine is one of them).
Renewables are at about 5%, and I expect that to grow to 20% in the second half of the 21st Century. It will run into a wall at that point due to a number of factors, cost being one, politics being another, the need for reliable base-load being a third.
As our population grows, we'll need even more power than we use today. We'll become more efficient, but the total number will still go up. As more renewables are installed, the demand for coal/oil/natural gas drops, and thus so does the price. Nations like Germany can spend huge sums on going solar, but all that means is that cheap coal will be burned by someone else. Cheap oil will be burned by someone else. Germany going solar/wind doesn't cause the oil/coal/natural gas to just vanish, someone, somewhere will burn them.
Yeah, right. This is just wishful thinking on your part.
Like I said, people who think Wind and Solar will become a majority of our power are bad at politics and math.
Wind power alone is already making 10% of the EU's average electricity supply, and wind energy is now cheaper than coal or gas in many parts of America.
The EU has spent a huge pile of money to get there, and you start to run into problems if you grow it more. But I suspect they'll get to 20%.
Of course, I said world-wide, not EU. The EU is 10% of the world-wide carbon problem, so it is nice, but not really a solution.
The US is growing, but Wind is only cheap when government dollars make it so. In Texas, I can buy coal power for 7 cents per kWh or wind power for 10 cents per kWh, and that is with the government pushing wind.
Of course this ignores the base load problem. Yea, yea, "the wind is always blowing somewhere", but that assumes there is no politics and that we magically have massive long distance transmission lines, which we don't have and politics and money will prevent us from having any time soon.
Solar is smaller, but growing faster, the price is still relatively high, but dropping like a stone; and in sunny places it's already very competitive.
Solar isn't competitive unless the government messes with the markets and hurts average people by making sure they pay stupid prices for power.
Just how radioactive is this stuff? Couldn't we just fill an old oil tanker with this water, seal it up tight, then flood the outer hull and watch it sink into a deep sea subduction zone?
No, Oil Tankers are made from steel and rust, it would never stay sealed. Even if it did, it would likely break in half when it hit the bottom of the ocean traveling at a respectable speed.
Leaving the water where it is likely makes the most sense.
Neither continue AGW business as usual, nor use more nuke. Those aren't our two only and sole choices.
In the long run, you're correct.
In the minor, you're correct.
In the short run major, you're wrong. For the rest of the 21st Century, Coal/Oil/Natural Gas/Nuclear are likely to be the primary 4 power sources for humans on Earth.
Yes, Wind and Solar will slowly go up as a global percentage, but not by enough to really move the needle.
As if there were only two ways to generate electricity.
There are many ways to do it, but for now, the major ways are Fossil Fuels or Nuclear.
Wind and Solar will slowly grow as a percentage of the world wide total amount of power generated, but neither will be a major source of power in the 21st Century.
There are many political reasons for that, as well as economic ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation needed...
I've been to Europe, multiple times and multiple countries. By and large, it is not really that different to the US in terms of the appearance of freedom.
We have our faults too, so I'm not throwing stones from a glass house in general, but when it comes to freedom of personal safety and personal defense, we are in fact better off as a whole.
There are exceptions (Chicago, DC, etc.) but consider that gun rules there are tighter than they are in Dallas, Orlando, Denver, etc. Once you remove suicide from gun deaths and remove gang on gang violence, actual gun violence in the US is actually quite low. My risk of being shot where I live is darn near close to zero. My risk of being in a car accident is FAR higher, which is why I own a big truck and always wear my seatbelt and never text and drive.
But I still own an AR-15 among other guns, and it has yet to jump up and shoot someone by itself. In fact, such weapons almost never do that, the overall percentage of guns like that used in crime is a rounding error. But such weapons are useful to remind government that they serve us and not the other way around. One is useless, 100 million of them is not. And if you think Government always wins, tell that to the rebels in Syria.
I see we aren't disagreeing as much as I thought.
I imagine much of the "disagreement" on forums such as this comes down to the poor use of text to communicate. In person, you have instant feedback, you have body language, and you have the "tone" in the voice that says as much as the words do.
I like to think that most people are actually quite reasonable, or at least would behave reasonably regardless of their feelings, in person.
The problem with Windows updates and the Home edition is new, and has not been well advertised. "Windows 10 Pro - It Won't Screw Up Your Presentation" comes to mind as an advertising slogan, but that may just be me.
Yea, that is kinda funny. :)
I actually understand the frustration behind the "anti-MS" crowd, I just think that it is funneled into pointless rants that won't fix anything and don't help the situation. Thus my comment about the "upgrade Windows 10 to Windows 7" comment, I find that to be unhelpful, since staying forever on Windows 7 is not a reasonable option in the long run.
I also honestly don't think nearly as many people in the world care about all this as it would appear from reading forums like SlashDot and Reddit. These places attract the very vocal, but most people just aren't that tuned in to it.
If the people unhappy would, instead of ranting, register a web site like "www.changewindowsupdatestooptional.com" and get people to sign it and post comments on it, that might be more helpful than anything ranted about here.
Linux, for better or worse, is not going to displace Windows. We could debate the technical merits all day, it doesn't change the reality of the situation. The time and energy would be better spent trying to get MS to change, rather than calling them M$ and feeling smug. :)
When Winslet posed nude in a screening of Titanic, there was a 8yo instructed by his parents to turn around and not look. Sacramento CA, not the butthole of the US.
Well that just goes to show you that "progressives" in the US aren't so progressive. :)
I'm in Texas, both my 7 year old daughter and 10 year old son have watched that movie. The parts that I was most worried about was the shooting (both at Kate and the suicide of the officer who shot the passenger), which we paused the movie and talked about.
The boobs? Don't bother me or my kids a bit, I talk to my kids about that sort of stuff and put it thus: "God made us all in his image, naked and perfect. Humans are not perfect and cover up because of emotion, fear, modesty, and other feelings. There is nothing "wrong" or "bad" about a naked person, so long as that person is treated kindly. We're all naked under our clothes."
Have you seen Lord of the Rings? You would take a 13 year old to that? Or worse, a 10 year old, which I've seen happen as well.
Avengers is not violent? Transformer is not violent?
This is not spineless, this is non-stop violence that is not good for young minds that cannot process it. The last 30 min of the third Transformers movie basically never stops, it is nothing but explosions and mayhem.
This is not good for kids. It is probably not good for adults either, but we at least have a chance to put it into perspective.
You're making the (sadly typical, in this sort of debate) incorrect assumption that the goal is to prevent everything everywhere. Everyone knows that's impossible. If the US could reduce its gun death rate to the rate of other developed countries, then we'd be getting somewhere.
You mean like the nations that have subjects, instead of citizens?
Yea, thanks, but no thanks... we fought a revolution to no longer be under their control, we'll keep our guns thank you very much.
OK, I'm out, you have no clue.
Spoken by the person who has none... You really, really need to come out of the clouds and join reality...
Also heating houses can be done with heat pumps.
Sure, but only in some locations, and you'd have to replace all the equipment, and that costs money, money that people don't have.
These things aren't going to change this year or next year, but as cars and boilers wear out people can replace them with more environmentally friendly technologies; it will take a decade or so
This shows how little you know.
If the entire worldwide car production instantly changed to EVs tomorrow, it would take 27 years to replace all the cars on the road in the world with EVs.
Since that isn't going to happen, it will be FAR longer than 27 years.
You live in a bubble, believing things that won't happen because you like how they sound.
Why is it that most of those supporting MS seem to post A/C ?
I don't, and I see people calling me a MS shill (which is silly, since they don't pay me anything).
I have installed Windows 10 on dozens of machines, more than 10 of my own machines. I've done everything from clean installs to updates, and it has worked perfectly every time on everything.
The strangest install I've done was on a 2007 Core2Quad machine that had Windows XP on it, I did a dual boot install of Windows 7 years ago on that machine, then upgraded Windows 7 to 8.0, then again to 8.1. Last year I upgraded Windows 8.1 to Windows 10. Not a single clean install since 7 was put there.
Works fine, nothing wrong at all. It is one of my test machines so it gets a lot of stuff installed and removed from it, frankly it probably needs a clean install, but since everything works, why?
All these people complaining about problems with 10, I just haven't seen them.
Year of the Linux Desktop amiright?
No, there are not enough techies in the world to install and support that on that many machines.
There is a ton of Windows hate here, but if it was as bad as claimed here, it would be front page news. The fact is, it isn't as bad as people here are shouting about.
The Vast majority have problems. Out of 10 friends and relatives with old machines all 10 had their computers screwed up by the "free" windows 10 upgrade because their 5 year old computers had hardware that does not have drivers for windows 10.
That doesn't ring true...
I've got nearly 10 year old computers running Windows 10 without a hitch, including a Core2Quad that first had Windows XP on it, then had Windows 7 installed dual boot with XP, then Windows 7 was updated to Windows 8.0, then 8.1, then 10, all without a clean install.
Works perfectly, and amazingly quick for a 9 year old computer.
I have 7 year old machines as well, also running Windows 10, also upgraded from Windows 8.1.
In dozens of machines, over 10 of them mine, not a single one has had a single problem with Windows 10. It has worked perfectly every single time, on everything I've put it on.
You must be in the US. DO they still make breastfeeding mothers go hide in a special room at your work?
I'm in the US, in Texas no less, which tends to still have that nonsense...
Yea, people here are sexually repressed, which is probably why we have so much sex in advertising.
But movies with huge violence are still PG-13 while movies with naked boobies are rated R.
Yes, our "religious right" is nuts, what can you do?
BTW, I watched part of that video. While the mother has very nice breasts, there is nothing sexual about that at all. It is a very loving act by a mother feeding her child.
Why don't you google and read some links and get an education?
Why don't you... I posted a reply to your last comment showing you why you're wrong...
Wind and solar is right now cheaper in production costs per kWh than nuclear.
That is probably true for new production... But all are more expensive than coal/oil/natural gas...
I have a choice in my power... 7 cents for coal power or 10 cents for wind power, and the wind power is subsidized by the government here. Texas is the largest producer of wind in the US, we have spent billions making that happen.
Germany is producing 40% of its energy with renewables, since last year. Likely 45% this year. No idea about what you are talking.
No, it isn't... Google is your friend:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/...
Seriously, read that, whatever you're being told in Germany, you're being lied to.
Fundamentally, nuclear is pretty expensive
No, it isn't. Actually, it is shockingly cheap, if done correctly...
Here is a list of places that already have 100% renewable electricity
And that is where you're going wrong. You think that because a select few places are doing it (or appearing to do it), that means it can be everywhere.
Right now, about 5% of the world's power comes from renewables, but that is just electricity, that doesn't count all the fossil fuels used directly.
Driving, for example, consumes huge amounts of oil. Large amounts of natural gas are consumed by healing homes (and water and cooking). None of that is going to change any time soon.
ROFLMAO. You do know that nuclear reactors can fail at any time
Laugh all you like, but while that is true, it isn't that common, and the load is picked up by other things. They don't have enough natural gas turbines to take up the load of all the reactors at once, but perhaps one of them here and there. Most shutdowns are planned, for what it is worth.
Ok, but your post said (or implied) that Trump was wrong for doing what he does, that if he really cared he would stop regardless.
I like to think Trump does care, but he also plays with the rules as they are.
It is not an impossible position to both take advantage of the rules while thinking they are unfair or wrong. I do the same thing. I own my own business and I pay far less in taxes as a percentage of my income than a wage earner does, due to the tax laws. Is that fair? No. But I'm not going to stop until the rules are changed.
I would support the rules being changed, while using them while they exist. I have no problem with this viewpoint either.
---
Side note: I can see *some* benefit to the H-1B program, but I also see a crap ton of abuse. It might be worth taking a year off from the program and rebuilding it, because clearly it has problems. I would agree that what gets posted about H-1B visas here is generally wrong (such as the Disney thing) and should not be allowed).
I run a business myself, and I am trying like hell to use local resources.
And that's fine, more power to you...
But don't confuse your personal choice with someone else making a different personal choice, assuming both sides are following the rules...
I suspect Trump has slightly more money than you do. Maybe you don't care, and that's ok, but don't try and put your personal moral viewpoint on him, he has no obligation to accept it.
the new H-1B workers will not know how the systems works and the us workers should just tell your own your own and tell there boss to fuck off.
They can do that, but then they don't get severance.
Often the workers being replaced are paid several months pay in exchange for training their replacements.
Don't be silly, he is playing the game by the rules that exist.
That is like suggesting that he should pay more taxes than he has to, just because he is rich. That is not logical or sensible.
If he doesn't use H-1Bs, then his competition will. He is playing the game. Don't like the rules, change them. But don't hate the player for following the rules.
That is extremely unlikely as basically every nation that is building new plants is focusing on wind and solar: they are cheaper.
Saying that doesn't make it true. Wishing it doesn't make it true. Hoping for it doesn't make it true.
Let me know when you wake up to reality, then we can have an adult conversation about this.
In Germany, Portugal, Denmark, they are already.
No, they aren't, not in Germany anyway...
So it is unlikely you win your bet.
No, I'm actually very likely to win it. You can't seem to see beyond the EU. Who gives a crap what the EU does, it is only 10% of world-wide carbon, it could go to zero and wouldn't make any real difference.
There is a world beyond your little space, when you're prepared to come out and see it, you'll be prepared to deal with reality.
No, it's not subsidies, and the cost is still going down. Taller wind turbines produce energy much more cheaply and give more consistent power.
Then why is Wind power 30% more expensive than coal power?
It also isn't consistent, if you think it is, you're kidding yourself. Texas produces more wind power than any other state, yet it is highly variable and natural gas turbines have to be kept on standby to make up for the shortfalls when they happen.
Uh huh. Nuclear power is getting more expensive over time, and is already more expensive than onshore wind.
I don't doubt it, but the reasons for that are also political in nature... we could get the costs down if we got over our "oh my god the nuclears" fears. If we don't, then it will be coal, oil, and natural gas.
And there's no upper limit on the amount of wind you can put on a grid, and the costs of electricity storage are dropping in price exponentially as well.
While it is true that you can put tons of wind power on the grid, it doesn't do any good if the wind stops blowing. Or is blowing too fast. As far as storage, don't be silly, the type of storage that would be required to make wind our primary power is a galaxy away from the types of storage that exist. If you honestly think batteries are going to work, you need a math lesson.
One main trick is to export any spare electricity you have. That's what Denmark does, and they're already running on 40% wind power, and have a plan to take it to 85%.
Yea, you forgot the politics thing... Denmark is a lousy example, it is a small nation of a few million people with only one neighbor, who is an ally. That idea doesn't work most places.
The grand mistake that people like you make is that you look at very small examples of wealthy nations of a few people spending huge sums to do very little, and think it can be applied world-wide. You fail to take into account both politics and math, and in doing so are just kidding yourself. You think that just because something CAN be done, that it WILL be done.
Once you give up that pipe dream and come back to reality, let me know which you would prefer, nuclear or carbon...
Please wake up.
I would love to say the same to you...
Everybody is already adding renewables and this is working just fine.
Yep, I said they were, and they will continue to do so... but it won't become a major part of the total world-wide power production this century.
If you think it will, you haven't done the math.
Germany added about 200 TWh per year in actual production
The last numbers I could find was for 2014. In 2014, Germany produced 34 TWh of solar power. Not sure where you get your 200 THh hour number from.
http://www.tsp-data-portal.org...
In 2014, Germany produced 572 TWh of power and about half of it came from coal.
It is also worth noting that Germany is wealthy and appears willing to throw huge amounts of national treasure at this. Germans also pay triple the cost per KWh that Americans do for power, so frankly using them for an example is a pretty piss-poor one.
So no, there is no choice between carbon and nuclear.
You are welcome to keep thinking that, but you're wrong if you do. This is not an opinion, it is a fact.
World wide power production in 2014 was 40.4% coal, 22.5% natural gas, and 5.0% oil. The oil number is low because much of the energy in oil is used for cars/trucks/trains/planes/ships. These numbers are just for electricity. Those numbers also don't take into account how many homes are heated directly by natural gas (mine is one of them).
Renewables are at about 5%, and I expect that to grow to 20% in the second half of the 21st Century. It will run into a wall at that point due to a number of factors, cost being one, politics being another, the need for reliable base-load being a third.
As our population grows, we'll need even more power than we use today. We'll become more efficient, but the total number will still go up. As more renewables are installed, the demand for coal/oil/natural gas drops, and thus so does the price. Nations like Germany can spend huge sums on going solar, but all that means is that cheap coal will be burned by someone else. Cheap oil will be burned by someone else. Germany going solar/wind doesn't cause the oil/coal/natural gas to just vanish, someone, somewhere will burn them.
Yeah, right. This is just wishful thinking on your part.
Like I said, people who think Wind and Solar will become a majority of our power are bad at politics and math.
Wind power alone is already making 10% of the EU's average electricity supply, and wind energy is now cheaper than coal or gas in many parts of America.
The EU has spent a huge pile of money to get there, and you start to run into problems if you grow it more. But I suspect they'll get to 20%.
Of course, I said world-wide, not EU. The EU is 10% of the world-wide carbon problem, so it is nice, but not really a solution.
The US is growing, but Wind is only cheap when government dollars make it so. In Texas, I can buy coal power for 7 cents per kWh or wind power for 10 cents per kWh, and that is with the government pushing wind.
Of course this ignores the base load problem. Yea, yea, "the wind is always blowing somewhere", but that assumes there is no politics and that we magically have massive long distance transmission lines, which we don't have and politics and money will prevent us from having any time soon.
Solar is smaller, but growing faster, the price is still relatively high, but dropping like a stone; and in sunny places it's already very competitive.
Solar isn't competitive unless the government messes with the markets and hurts average people by making sure they pay stupid prices for power.
Just how radioactive is this stuff? Couldn't we just fill an old oil tanker with this water, seal it up tight, then flood the outer hull and watch it sink into a deep sea subduction zone?
No, Oil Tankers are made from steel and rust, it would never stay sealed. Even if it did, it would likely break in half when it hit the bottom of the ocean traveling at a respectable speed.
Leaving the water where it is likely makes the most sense.
Neither continue AGW business as usual, nor use more nuke. Those aren't our two only and sole choices.
In the long run, you're correct.
In the minor, you're correct.
In the short run major, you're wrong. For the rest of the 21st Century, Coal/Oil/Natural Gas/Nuclear are likely to be the primary 4 power sources for humans on Earth.
Yes, Wind and Solar will slowly go up as a global percentage, but not by enough to really move the needle.
So what do you prefer, Carbon or Nuclear?
As if there were only two ways to generate electricity.
There are many ways to do it, but for now, the major ways are Fossil Fuels or Nuclear.
Wind and Solar will slowly grow as a percentage of the world wide total amount of power generated, but neither will be a major source of power in the 21st Century.
There are many political reasons for that, as well as economic ones.
So what do you prefer? Carbon or Nuclear?