Information I'm seeing is ~4-6 cents a kw/h, and that's including paying for the plant over 40 years.
You can't have everything with Nuclear, you either get less efficient use of fuel, OR nuclear proliferation problems.
At this point in time, what with China, NKorea, and Iran, I'm a little less worried about proliferation in US plants. Besides, IFRs are designed to avoid the proliferation that traditonal breeders were known for. Besides, it's not like you have to pull the plutonium out of them much. It's safe in the reactor.
I also love how you go on about how solar and renewables have advanced - and seem to assume that Nuclear hasn't come forward any since the 1960's.
Next year solar will surpass new nuclear capacity, wind already did it 3 years ago. even with all of the hidden economic subsidies for nuclear.
Well duh, we haven't built a new nuke plant since the 80's. All increases in nuclear power during that time was increasing their rated capacity through upgrades. IE a plant rated for 750 megawatts in 1980 might be a gigawatt plant today.
Thing is, we need baseband power. Our choices are pretty much coal and nuclear for that. Heck, your nice PDF points out that almost half of the decentralized generation is natural gas. I've read projections showing that we're draining NG reserves faster than oil. I'd prefer nuclear for a number of reasons, for one it's non-polluting if you do it right. Nuclear power deaths are so low that any are generally reported world wide.
Heck, I saw a blurb about a garbage processing facility that produces power, a NG equivalent, and molten glass as a byproduct. The best part is that no sorting is required. I'd love to see that done, and if it actually makes economic sense like they're promising (cost is half that of what NYC is currently spending to dispose of it's garbage), I'd see them popping up all over.
Sure, economize when it makes sense. My house is about half CFL and half tube FL(even more efficent than CFLS). The two remaining incandescents in the house are in the closets (averge monthly run time: ~5 minutes, if that). I'll replace them with CFLs when they burn out.
I'm researching getting a heat pump, but it'd have to be geo-thermal and I have some other issues with the house(it's old) to sort out before I do that. Let's just say that I'm far enough north for sizing to be an issue; and I'll probably end up keeping the propane furnace to help with the sizing. Don't need much cooling; need a good bit of heat even with nearly a yard of insulation in the attic.
Please note that I mentioned industrial processes that take large amounts of electricity to function. If they find a better way, great. But until then, we can best advance in QOL by going ahead and producing the electricity.
We'll need the grid for a while. At least until we get some sort of electrical storage capability far better than what we have now.
As for the developing countries, not to mention just remote areas in the united states, I agree with you. It doesn't help that theft is a problem, the metal's valuable, and can't be guarded like a house.
Still, after a point the grid does end up being cheaper. Even for a small village, they've developed a micro-reactor that can power a first world villages energy needs with power to spare. It's more expensive than for a large plant, but doesn't require any maintenance of the nuclear components for decades.
You have to understand, my vision of the future includes *more* electrical demands. We're not just talking homes and offices here, we're talking about stuff aluminum smelting plants, titanium refining, galvinization, etc... A hospital goes through a lot more power than it could get through it's roof and sides. It needs massive amounts of power even at night. There's all sorts of processes that cheaper power could assist with, but I HATE coal power.
For replacing the car, I'd love to see PRT systems installed. Faster, safer, cheaper, what's not to love? Design the system right, it could double as a power distribution grid and using line power for the motors eliminates the need for anything other than UPS level battery systems. In case of a power loss, the car has enough juice to get you to the next station.
Solar is currently economically feasible in many markets, even with inefficient labor/installation. With electricity at 18+ cents/kWh in the northeast and California, solar looks very good. Now add to that large-scale installation by "virtual" utilities (instead of an installer who does 8 installs a year, a utility scale company doing thousands a year). Labor cost impact would bring system costs very close to equipment costs (10-15% extra for labor, instead of 40%).
Sure, where they've messed up the system, it makes sense. Meanwhile I enjoy 8 cents/kwh power including fuel charge. Nuclear power is around 2 cents/kwh at wholesale. It actually beats all the hydrocarbon ones as long as the power plant isn't essentially situated next to the mine.
Efficiency is not an issue. Nobody is waiting for it to go up. Current efficiencies are 15-20% for Si, 30-40% for multi layer, and 8-10% for thin films. If 10% efficiency thin films can be produced dirt cheap, it will win the marketplace. Efficiency is generally only important if it give an economic advantage.
It was a general statement. A thin film that's 15% efficient for the same price would make for some deals. Same general thing. I'll agree that the cost per watt is the main obstacle remaining.
Yes the nuclear question. I didn't check your numbers, but here is a comparison. On a small "large" project I had (30 kW), I negotiated $3.50/watt for PV. For $2 Trillion, we can get 570 million kilowatts of PV. Not quite the same amount but close - but it has no fuel, maintenance, security costs, subsidized loans externalities, insurance backdoor externalities, centralized grid cost externalities, nuclear waste, nuclear proliferation, etc, etc, etc. Still for $ 2 trillion I'd hope we could negotiate better rates!
I was figuring $2/watt construction cost. There are new proposals at $1/watt, assuming 'type' certification. For the kw/h comparison, I went to CIA.gov to find the annual electricity usage, and assumed a 24x365, with a factor of.95*. Solar panels can't break 50%, a google search came up with 10% for fixed panels in England. Even if we assume 40%, a watt of solar capacity is half as effective as a watt of nuclear capacity.
As for the better rates - the first nuclear plant for a type certification costs $1.40/watt capacity, subsequent at $1/watt.
As for the waste - build breeder and integral fast reactors. They're more expensive to build, but cheaper to run, as their fuel can be all the 'waste' fuel rods sitting around. Eliminate two birds with one stone.
*What percentage of the plant's maximum wattage it averages. US nuclear reactors average something around 98-99%.
1. Sure it's a different issue. Solar cells aren't physically logical if they have a negative energy return. Still, it's the same situation as with electric cars right now. They're feasable physically, but cost so much that they're substantially behind other alternatives; making them economically unfeasable in most situations.
2&3. Welcome to the reality of economics. Should be worth it to set up as a solar panel manufacters right now, right? But by economics supply should catch up as more manufacturers enter the field and current ones expand to grab more of the market. For the parent, I'd recommend waiting the said five years for costs to go down and efficiency to go up.
5. Sure, for the same $2 trillion we could build a billion kilowatts of nuclear capacity, producing 8.3 trillion kw/hs annually, or about DOUBLE our annual consumption. And the electricity wouldn't be free, as there'd still be infrastructure maintenance costs and the solar panels have an unknown(but long) effective life. Nuclear requires more maintenance, but I'm sure we could only build half as many plants and spend the extra money on that as well as recycling/eliminating the waste. Also, as you noted, you couldn't physically buy $2 trillion in panels today even if you bought every single one. You'd have to built the infrastructure to do it as well, and that'd increase the price.
The whole middle east thing is a false lead in this case.
Electricity generation in most of the world is Coal, Nuclear, and Hydro. Minor producers are natural gas, geothermal, wind, solar, etc... Oil usage in power production is insignificant. Especially since battery costs per mile for a usable electric vehicle are generally more than the cost of gasoline, rendering the price of electricity more or less moot.
It's also complicated by the fact that pacifying the middle east* would have many benefits. I'm firmly of the belief that the more people we raise out of 2nd and 3rd world standards to 1st world ones the better. In many cases all that's hold people back are intercine conflicts.
As for the subsidies; that 'helps' for now, but you have to know they'd go away when/if solar arrays become cheap enough to make it worth it to exploit the subsidy. It's uneconomical to pay more than 4X the going rate of power.
*Assuming, of course, that we're actually doing it. Short and Long term trends; diplomatic and developmental decisions altered by our presence there are all very hard to assess. I'm afraid that our withdrawel will be seen as another Vietnam or Mogadishu. IE make the war last long enough or kill enough troops and you'll win by making us go away, and you can then control the country without interference. That's why I'd prefer an Iraqi/Afghanistan government based withdrawal strategy. As they're capable of taking over duties, withdraw the US troops covering those areas. We can't just withdraw right now or the government would most likely collapse, resulting in another Afghanistan-Taliban or Iran-Mullah type regime.
Stupid math error - I used $100/month instead of $200/month. The $100/month comes from assuming a very conservative estimate of the power produced by the array.
Point still stands, though. Assuming he's competent enough not to be oversizing the array, he's better off staying on utility electricity for now. Since he mentioned running a ranch, he's probably lighting a barn, running some pumps, etc... So his power demands could indeed be higher than the average household.
He might of figured cost of capital in there, along with inflation.
Present money is worth more than future money.
Previously I figured his power bill at ~$200/month. (I used.08 kw/h).
That'd be $1,200/year. By your figuring, he'd use 20k kw/h, for a cost of $2k/year $80k * 5% = $4,000/year
He'd make more money investing it in conservative mutual funds, stocks, or bonds, to the tune of two thousand or more dollers per year. That's enough over to keep up with inflation.
11kw would be about 90 amps of 120volt, or 45 amps of 240.
Minimum service install for homes today is 100 amps, my service is currently 60 amps, which I'll upgrade sometime to 200, which is what it looks like they're going to be requiring in the future.
Given that that's probably the systems maximum production capability, not an average, he'll likely only average a third of that. ~2,640 kw/h a month. Or $211 dollars of electricity at my local rate. 20% average and it'd be 1584 kw/h, $127. Still enough to run pretty much all electic, including stuff frequently done by gas, such as heating and cooking.
Media shifting is the major one for me. The ability to strip annoying advertisements and those annoying 'don't copy me!' when I bought the bloody thing is another.
Another nice thing is to be able to grab screenshots and clips for various reasons (fair art).
Re:I were one of the cracking groups...
on
AACS Cracked Again
·
· Score: 1
Why do you think I said it was unlikely? Heck the snarky 'Worthy of the NSA'?
Imagine the phisher's server as a type of proxy server. It's not linking you to the image on the bank's site, which is likely dynamic anyways, it's passing stuff you enter along to the login site and caching/manipulating the information to feed it back to you.
The modifications might entail stuff like changing links to keep you on the phisher site.
You enter information into the phisher site, the phisher server feeds this information(while capturing it) to the real site. The real site responds, giving the information to the phisher site, which the phisher site then sends to you.
The user doesn't have a clue. At most he might think his browser's being slow.
One way that it might make it more secure for you would be if you have a set of three or more 'secondary' passwords.
Maiden's Mother, pet, highschool, etc...
That way the phisher, even if he gets your primary password still has to hope he gets enough of the secondaries to get the one that pops up when he tries to access the system.
Sometimes in the military we have a set of 'challange phrases' and 'response phrases' that have to match up or alarms happen. That way somebody trying to fool the system can't just listen to the guy before him to get the correct answer, because it's different each time.
Re:I were one of the cracking groups...
on
AACS Cracked Again
·
· Score: 1
It's not a matter of one cracked key being easy, and another being hard. The fact of the matter is that once you crack a device, it's wide open, there is no more cracking left to be done on that device. It also means that once you crack one device, you have access to all the movies published to date, so cracking another device doesn't gain you anything.
I figure that some devices are harder than others. Simple fact. I was simply talking about not releasing a crack while another one's still 'active' IE the security group hasn't revoked the key yet.
By not releasing that they've cracked the XBox before the WinDVD's keys were revoked, that means that they can't patch both sets and revoke the keys at once.
XBox isn't the greatest to crack in my mind, it's still too easy to update. You could simply place an auto-update on a number of general release games/DVDs. Somebody has a problem who isn't networked and doesn't buy new games or sony videos, simply mail them a patch disc.
Re:I were one of the cracking groups...
on
AACS Cracked Again
·
· Score: 1
I was assuming that the hackers/crackers have some private channels of communication, I was talking about the public general release stuff.
By keeping quiet about cracks, that's more discs covered by each crack, as they don't pull the key until it's cracked, thus more production.
If that's what it takes to stop you using , so be it:).
Agreed.
60hz refresh on a monitor drives me slowly insane.
sub 10 hz blinking text or repetitive graphics(like most web ads), drive me homicidal in under a minute.
I were one of the cracking groups...
on
AACS Cracked Again
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I'd try to crack the stuff from a number of different fronts, but keep quiet until I've cracked a few. With several cracks and exploits found, I'd be able to start working on higher level cracks, due to understanding the system.
Then I'd start releasing the cracks, starting with some of the simpler ones, only releasing another when they patch the exploit I released, resulting in an ongoing sense of futility as every time they fix the holes, I point out another.
Best exploit I think? Stealing or cracking the key to every code created for the discs. That way they'd have to throw the whole system out in order to achieve 'security' again. No current players would work. While a massive beowolf cluster cracking the whole thing would be neat and worthy of the NSA, I think that's unlikely. More possible but still pretty much 'mission impossible' would be a physical theft. If only the DVD Security Group protected those keys like government officials protect our information*...
hm...
*Yes, I'm still a bit irked about having my info stolen at least three times
The Victorian-elite argument was made by a historian, and I'm not completely convinced by it neither (at least, not as sole cause). It doesn't explain the vegetable oil-driven cars went away, for instance.
It was actually simple economics. Vegetable oil was/is more expensive. Gasoline ended up being the cheapest fuel for the performance. Electric couldn't handle the distances even a moderate tank afforded for a gasoline engine.
Even today, it takes a 500-1000 pounds of batteries to equal the energy of a gallon of gasoline. Even with lousy efficiency this gives gasoline engines far more range for the cost and weight. Energy Densities Gasoline: 46.9 MJ/kg (~3 kg/gallon) Lead Acid:.09-.11. This would require 426 kg(940 pounds) to have the energy of 1 kg of gasoline. Even if we divide by six for the extra efficiency of the electric motor*, that still means 213 kg to equal 1 gallon of gasoline. In exchange for nearly a ton of batteries you have ~60 miles of range. My car, with it's 10 gallon tank, holding 30 kg of gasoline, has 300 miles of range. NiMH:.22, for a given battery weight twice as good. Not bad. 120 miles of range, but in reality it'd be even more because it's safer to more completely discharge NiMH. Or you could keep the kw/h level and extend range moderatly because you've eliminated hundreds of pounds from your vehicle. Bad part: NiMH starts at around twice as expensive as lead acid per kw/h. LiIon:.54-.72. Call it three times as good as NiMH. But they also cost three times as much. Here you're at a 'mere' 50 to 1 weight disadvantage against gasoline. Combined with the greater efficiency of electric motors and the extra weight would be less than a car load of fatties. But enough lead-acid for decent range is enough to make me wince, and LiIon is going to be almost 10 times more for a given capacity. Oh, yeah, and it currently wears out faster than NiMH cells.
*That'd have the Gasoline engine be around 15% efficient
Set up a @home application to crack a few of the hardware device codes on the new discs. The PS3 would actually be a bad one to crack; You want a popular machine that's not easy to update.
You use of the phrase "whenever possible" pretty much gives you the right to make up what ever meaning you want, unless of course you personal communications with the framers.
Sometimes situations crop up that are really unusual, so interpretation is required. It's tough for me to say absolutes, as if there's even one exception it's no longer an absolute in my mind. For example, the whole 'people' thing. Back then you could sometimes translate it(by founder intent) as 'White Land-owning Men'. There are things that the founders never envisioned. Stuff like a nuclear bomb. Automatic weapons are easy; there were some works using multiple barrels even back then.
The internet, I'm sure they didn't have a clue, but I give it the same protection by the 1st as I give old manual printing presses.
Both are advances in technology.
Mind you that is also regardless of the fact that the founding fathers never use the term "regulated" to mean what you think it means anywhere else in the Constitution.
Ok, the 2nd grands the government the right to regulate the milita. Still doesn't allow it to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Nice leap there. You can't honestly tell me you are using a modern production black powder rifle as a measurement of 18th century unrifled flint/match lock muskets? The difference in Muzzle Velocity is staggeringly different.
No, actually it isn't. While mine is more a duplication of a civil war piece, but it's performance characteristics are the same. Percussion/flint/match locks are all just ignition methods. FFg and FFFg are Black powder, the same stuff as used back then. Heck, the ratings on powder granularity date from back then as well.
but the point that a 1700 musket or pistol is even remotely comparable to modern firearms is quit laughable.
They both propel a lead projectile. A modern firearm can indeed be more powerful; but a.32ACP pistol doesn't trump a.44cal flintlock pistol at 7 yards if the guy with the flintlock hits.
And since you obviously know what the original writers of the constitution thought then I am sure you know they never perceived people carrying around concealed hand guns capable of punching holes through inches of steel.
Now you're exaggerating again. 9mm &.45(two of the biggest carry calibers) barely dent 3/16" steel. The rounds that penetrate, I'll note, look a lot like rifle bullets. Small diameter for their length, necked cases. I'll also note that the very properties that allow them to penetrate steel also make them suboptimal for self defense. IE they aren't very deadly.
They'd have wondered what the big deal about concealing it. At least for the 'gentlemen', carrying something was pretty standard. Carrying openly was accepted. So wasn't carrying in a pocket of a coat for convienence. More knives than firearms, in many cases, but still. Why would they worry about the 'sheer' power? Gunshot wounds are more survivable today than they were back then. Lead Ball inflicts nasty wounds even compared to modern hollowpoints, though medical technology has made the real difference.
I would love to hear an example of a situation were at no point an solution not involving firearms was available. The problem I have with this statement is What do you consider solutions? What's acceptable? Sure, there are measures that might solve a situation given 20/20 foresight. "Honey, I'm not going to work today, otherwise I'll have to shoot the scumbag that's going to shoot the place up while robbing it." Otherwise, search some self-defense blogs. The biggest one I remember I don't have a link handy too, but involved a grandmother versus an extremely large escaped convict. She ended up shooting him, and he ended up expiring from his wounds, but he would have killed her otherwise, and almost did despite being shot six times.
And despite his non-violence, he still died 'by the sword'. Sure, there's the saying 'Those who live by the sword die by the sword', but many innocents die from the sword anyways in that context. I don't 'live by the sword', but stand ready to take it up against those who do. Nowhere in the second amendment of the US constitution does it say what type of "arms" only that the right to bear arms, if you read it this way, will not be infringed. Until the Government declares all possible weapons as being illegal the second amendment is still being upheld.
Kinda like how in Mexico it's gotten watered down to the point that the allowed 'arms' are jokes? Where corruption rules? No thanks. 'Shall not be infringed' is a whole lot stronger than a simple 'allowed with regulations'.
I raised in a family that frequently hunted but that does not give me the right to change the meaning of the amendments of the constitution to fit my current needs or to determine alone what is best for the citizens of the United States of America.
Yeah, but that very constitution gives me the right to attempt to have it changed, through my own words and actions.
In theory in a sentence of this structure you can take only the parts outside the commas to get the meaning of the sentence and those inside the commas are just supporting data. In this case you end up with "A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed." But I am not a linguist.
Neither am I, but I did have 12 years of english, some more in college, and was reading at college level in jr high. Cheer for excessive comma usage! Here's a hint: take the first and third commas as pauses. The part before the second comma is explanationary. It's one reason for the second part. The second part is the declatory part containing the actual instruction. 'The car's a wreck, don't buy it.'
But even if you interpretation is valid, why is it that it is ok to back date the word "regulated" but not "firearm." By your logic "firearm", as used in the constitution, refers to flint lock single shot rifles and low power single shot hand guns,
Where does the word 'firearm' appear in the text of the 2nd ammendment? A firearm is indeed an arm, but so isn't a bow, sword, knife, dirk, spear, axe, halberd, mace, and too many others to count. Going back to the original definition; 'Arms' were pretty much weapons for an individual soldier. So, keeping with my practice to, whenever possible, interpret the consitution using it's original meaning*, it would mean any weapon that's used by the individuals in an army. Back then it was certainly black powder, with a sprinkling of swords and pikes. Today, in the USA, it's some varient of an M16.
Quick definitions of what I consider important words: Regulated - Note definitions 3 though amendment 3 might suggest laws encouraging a functional militia would be allowed. Militia - Non-professional military; historically able bodied men, minus certain categories of unwilling due to religious reasons**. I personally modify this to all willing and able people; After all, back then only white men could vote, and we have a number of amendments expanding that right. Federal law right now has all 'able bodied' men between 17 and 45, as well as female national guard. People - Somewhat generic, but was frequently restricted to 'White men'. Today, I pretty much apply it to 'Anybody in the country' - With some concessions for incompetent or violently criminal people. Arms - Weapons, personal use. Not WMD, large bombs, etc... It has to be reasonably usable in a discriminate fashion. You can stuff a frag grenade into the definition, but not sarin gas. Keep & Bear - Own and carry/transport. Even use under the appropriate circumstances. infringed - 1st definition in the American Heritage Dictionary(2nd one down). As in, if it violates a person's ability to 'keep and bear', it's wrong.
which are basically weapons which produce less kenetic energy that many modern BB or Pellet guns. After all you even said that "regulated" means "adequate supply of ball & powder." I don't see alot of drive by shootings being done with black powder rifles.
Sure... Right... Look, I own a.50cal black power rifle. It's about the same size as many period
Slashdot Mirror
Information I'm seeing is ~4-6 cents a kw/h, and that's including paying for the plant over 40 years.
You can't have everything with Nuclear, you either get less efficient use of fuel, OR nuclear proliferation problems.
At this point in time, what with China, NKorea, and Iran, I'm a little less worried about proliferation in US plants. Besides, IFRs are designed to avoid the proliferation that traditonal breeders were known for. Besides, it's not like you have to pull the plutonium out of them much. It's safe in the reactor.
I also love how you go on about how solar and renewables have advanced - and seem to assume that Nuclear hasn't come forward any since the 1960's.
Next year solar will surpass new nuclear capacity, wind already did it 3 years ago. even with all of the hidden economic subsidies for nuclear.
Well duh, we haven't built a new nuke plant since the 80's. All increases in nuclear power during that time was increasing their rated capacity through upgrades. IE a plant rated for 750 megawatts in 1980 might be a gigawatt plant today.
Thing is, we need baseband power. Our choices are pretty much coal and nuclear for that. Heck, your nice PDF points out that almost half of the decentralized generation is natural gas. I've read projections showing that we're draining NG reserves faster than oil. I'd prefer nuclear for a number of reasons, for one it's non-polluting if you do it right. Nuclear power deaths are so low that any are generally reported world wide.
Heck, I saw a blurb about a garbage processing facility that produces power, a NG equivalent, and molten glass as a byproduct. The best part is that no sorting is required. I'd love to see that done, and if it actually makes economic sense like they're promising (cost is half that of what NYC is currently spending to dispose of it's garbage), I'd see them popping up all over.
Sure, economize when it makes sense. My house is about half CFL and half tube FL(even more efficent than CFLS). The two remaining incandescents in the house are in the closets (averge monthly run time: ~5 minutes, if that). I'll replace them with CFLs when they burn out.
I'm researching getting a heat pump, but it'd have to be geo-thermal and I have some other issues with the house(it's old) to sort out before I do that. Let's just say that I'm far enough north for sizing to be an issue; and I'll probably end up keeping the propane furnace to help with the sizing. Don't need much cooling; need a good bit of heat even with nearly a yard of insulation in the attic.
Please note that I mentioned industrial processes that take large amounts of electricity to function. If they find a better way, great. But until then, we can best advance in QOL by going ahead and producing the electricity.
We'll need the grid for a while. At least until we get some sort of electrical storage capability far better than what we have now.
As for the developing countries, not to mention just remote areas in the united states, I agree with you. It doesn't help that theft is a problem, the metal's valuable, and can't be guarded like a house.
Still, after a point the grid does end up being cheaper. Even for a small village, they've developed a micro-reactor that can power a first world villages energy needs with power to spare. It's more expensive than for a large plant, but doesn't require any maintenance of the nuclear components for decades.
You have to understand, my vision of the future includes *more* electrical demands. We're not just talking homes and offices here, we're talking about stuff aluminum smelting plants, titanium refining, galvinization, etc... A hospital goes through a lot more power than it could get through it's roof and sides. It needs massive amounts of power even at night. There's all sorts of processes that cheaper power could assist with, but I HATE coal power.
For replacing the car, I'd love to see PRT systems installed. Faster, safer, cheaper, what's not to love? Design the system right, it could double as a power distribution grid and using line power for the motors eliminates the need for anything other than UPS level battery systems. In case of a power loss, the car has enough juice to get you to the next station.
Solar is currently economically feasible in many markets, even with inefficient labor/installation. With electricity at 18+ cents/kWh in the northeast and California, solar looks very good. Now add to that large-scale installation by "virtual" utilities (instead of an installer who does 8 installs a year, a utility scale company doing thousands a year). Labor cost impact would bring system costs very close to equipment costs (10-15% extra for labor, instead of 40%).
.95*. Solar panels can't break 50%, a google search came up with 10% for fixed panels in England. Even if we assume 40%, a watt of solar capacity is half as effective as a watt of nuclear capacity.
Sure, where they've messed up the system, it makes sense. Meanwhile I enjoy 8 cents/kwh power including fuel charge. Nuclear power is around 2 cents/kwh at wholesale. It actually beats all the hydrocarbon ones as long as the power plant isn't essentially situated next to the mine.
Efficiency is not an issue. Nobody is waiting for it to go up. Current efficiencies are 15-20% for Si, 30-40% for multi layer, and 8-10% for thin films. If 10% efficiency thin films can be produced dirt cheap, it will win the marketplace. Efficiency is generally only important if it give an economic advantage.
It was a general statement. A thin film that's 15% efficient for the same price would make for some deals. Same general thing. I'll agree that the cost per watt is the main obstacle remaining.
Yes the nuclear question. I didn't check your numbers, but here is a comparison. On a small "large" project I had (30 kW), I negotiated $3.50/watt for PV. For $2 Trillion, we can get 570 million kilowatts of PV. Not quite the same amount but close - but it has no fuel, maintenance, security costs, subsidized loans externalities, insurance backdoor externalities, centralized grid cost externalities, nuclear waste, nuclear proliferation, etc, etc, etc. Still for $ 2 trillion I'd hope we could negotiate better rates!
I was figuring $2/watt construction cost. There are new proposals at $1/watt, assuming 'type' certification. For the kw/h comparison, I went to CIA.gov to find the annual electricity usage, and assumed a 24x365, with a factor of
As for the better rates - the first nuclear plant for a type certification costs $1.40/watt capacity, subsequent at $1/watt.
As for the waste - build breeder and integral fast reactors. They're more expensive to build, but cheaper to run, as their fuel can be all the 'waste' fuel rods sitting around. Eliminate two birds with one stone.
*What percentage of the plant's maximum wattage it averages. US nuclear reactors average something around 98-99%.
1. Sure it's a different issue. Solar cells aren't physically logical if they have a negative energy return. Still, it's the same situation as with electric cars right now. They're feasable physically, but cost so much that they're substantially behind other alternatives; making them economically unfeasable in most situations.
2&3. Welcome to the reality of economics. Should be worth it to set up as a solar panel manufacters right now, right? But by economics supply should catch up as more manufacturers enter the field and current ones expand to grab more of the market. For the parent, I'd recommend waiting the said five years for costs to go down and efficiency to go up.
5. Sure, for the same $2 trillion we could build a billion kilowatts of nuclear capacity, producing 8.3 trillion kw/hs annually, or about DOUBLE our annual consumption. And the electricity wouldn't be free, as there'd still be infrastructure maintenance costs and the solar panels have an unknown(but long) effective life. Nuclear requires more maintenance, but I'm sure we could only build half as many plants and spend the extra money on that as well as recycling/eliminating the waste. Also, as you noted, you couldn't physically buy $2 trillion in panels today even if you bought every single one. You'd have to built the infrastructure to do it as well, and that'd increase the price.
The whole middle east thing is a false lead in this case.
Electricity generation in most of the world is Coal, Nuclear, and Hydro. Minor producers are natural gas, geothermal, wind, solar, etc... Oil usage in power production is insignificant. Especially since battery costs per mile for a usable electric vehicle are generally more than the cost of gasoline, rendering the price of electricity more or less moot.
It's also complicated by the fact that pacifying the middle east* would have many benefits. I'm firmly of the belief that the more people we raise out of 2nd and 3rd world standards to 1st world ones the better. In many cases all that's hold people back are intercine conflicts.
As for the subsidies; that 'helps' for now, but you have to know they'd go away when/if solar arrays become cheap enough to make it worth it to exploit the subsidy. It's uneconomical to pay more than 4X the going rate of power.
*Assuming, of course, that we're actually doing it. Short and Long term trends; diplomatic and developmental decisions altered by our presence there are all very hard to assess. I'm afraid that our withdrawel will be seen as another Vietnam or Mogadishu. IE make the war last long enough or kill enough troops and you'll win by making us go away, and you can then control the country without interference. That's why I'd prefer an Iraqi/Afghanistan government based withdrawal strategy. As they're capable of taking over duties, withdraw the US troops covering those areas. We can't just withdraw right now or the government would most likely collapse, resulting in another Afghanistan-Taliban or Iran-Mullah type regime.
Stupid math error - I used $100/month instead of $200/month. The $100/month comes from assuming a very conservative estimate of the power produced by the array.
Point still stands, though. Assuming he's competent enough not to be oversizing the array, he's better off staying on utility electricity for now. Since he mentioned running a ranch, he's probably lighting a barn, running some pumps, etc... So his power demands could indeed be higher than the average household.
He might of figured cost of capital in there, along with inflation.
.08 kw/h).
Present money is worth more than future money.
Previously I figured his power bill at ~$200/month. (I used
That'd be $1,200/year. By your figuring, he'd use 20k kw/h, for a cost of $2k/year
$80k * 5% = $4,000/year
He'd make more money investing it in conservative mutual funds, stocks, or bonds, to the tune of two thousand or more dollers per year. That's enough over to keep up with inflation.
you obviously have never used magnifying glasses on poor helpless insects...
You've never messed with fire ants? Trust me, they're hardly helpless.
11kw would be about 90 amps of 120volt, or 45 amps of 240.
Minimum service install for homes today is 100 amps, my service is currently 60 amps, which I'll upgrade sometime to 200, which is what it looks like they're going to be requiring in the future.
Given that that's probably the systems maximum production capability, not an average, he'll likely only average a third of that. ~2,640 kw/h a month. Or $211 dollars of electricity at my local rate. 20% average and it'd be 1584 kw/h, $127. Still enough to run pretty much all electic, including stuff frequently done by gas, such as heating and cooking.
Yep, he's using a lot of electricity.
This stuff should be fairly well known, what with all the asphalt we've laid over the years.
Low efficiency wouldn't be that bad, since it'd simply reflect most of the light. Cool a hot region off a little.
Pretty much what Sir Talon said.
Media shifting is the major one for me. The ability to strip annoying advertisements and those annoying 'don't copy me!' when I bought the bloody thing is another.
Another nice thing is to be able to grab screenshots and clips for various reasons (fair art).
Why do you think I said it was unlikely? Heck the snarky 'Worthy of the NSA'?
Imagine the phisher's server as a type of proxy server. It's not linking you to the image on the bank's site, which is likely dynamic anyways, it's passing stuff you enter along to the login site and caching/manipulating the information to feed it back to you.
The modifications might entail stuff like changing links to keep you on the phisher site.
You enter information into the phisher site, the phisher server feeds this information(while capturing it) to the real site. The real site responds, giving the information to the phisher site, which the phisher site then sends to you.
The user doesn't have a clue. At most he might think his browser's being slow.
One way that it might make it more secure for you would be if you have a set of three or more 'secondary' passwords.
Maiden's Mother, pet, highschool, etc...
That way the phisher, even if he gets your primary password still has to hope he gets enough of the secondaries to get the one that pops up when he tries to access the system.
Sometimes in the military we have a set of 'challange phrases' and 'response phrases' that have to match up or alarms happen. That way somebody trying to fool the system can't just listen to the guy before him to get the correct answer, because it's different each time.
It's not a matter of one cracked key being easy, and another being hard. The fact of the matter is that once you crack a device, it's wide open, there is no more cracking left to be done on that device. It also means that once you crack one device, you have access to all the movies published to date, so cracking another device doesn't gain you anything.
I figure that some devices are harder than others. Simple fact. I was simply talking about not releasing a crack while another one's still 'active' IE the security group hasn't revoked the key yet.
By not releasing that they've cracked the XBox before the WinDVD's keys were revoked, that means that they can't patch both sets and revoke the keys at once.
XBox isn't the greatest to crack in my mind, it's still too easy to update. You could simply place an auto-update on a number of general release games/DVDs. Somebody has a problem who isn't networked and doesn't buy new games or sony videos, simply mail them a patch disc.
I was assuming that the hackers/crackers have some private channels of communication, I was talking about the public general release stuff.
By keeping quiet about cracks, that's more discs covered by each crack, as they don't pull the key until it's cracked, thus more production.
If that's what it takes to stop you using , so be it :).
Agreed.
60hz refresh on a monitor drives me slowly insane.
sub 10 hz blinking text or repetitive graphics(like most web ads), drive me homicidal in under a minute.
I'd try to crack the stuff from a number of different fronts, but keep quiet until I've cracked a few. With several cracks and exploits found, I'd be able to start working on higher level cracks, due to understanding the system.
Then I'd start releasing the cracks, starting with some of the simpler ones, only releasing another when they patch the exploit I released, resulting in an ongoing sense of futility as every time they fix the holes, I point out another.
Best exploit I think? Stealing or cracking the key to every code created for the discs. That way they'd have to throw the whole system out in order to achieve 'security' again. No current players would work. While a massive beowolf cluster cracking the whole thing would be neat and worthy of the NSA, I think that's unlikely. More possible but still pretty much 'mission impossible' would be a physical theft. If only the DVD Security Group protected those keys like government officials protect our information*...
hm...
*Yes, I'm still a bit irked about having my info stolen at least three times
The Victorian-elite argument was made by a historian, and I'm not completely convinced by it neither (at least, not as sole cause). It doesn't explain the vegetable oil-driven cars went away, for instance.
.09-.11. This would require 426 kg(940 pounds) to have the energy of 1 kg of gasoline. Even if we divide by six for the extra efficiency of the electric motor*, that still means 213 kg to equal 1 gallon of gasoline. In exchange for nearly a ton of batteries you have ~60 miles of range. My car, with it's 10 gallon tank, holding 30 kg of gasoline, has 300 miles of range. .22, for a given battery weight twice as good. Not bad. 120 miles of range, but in reality it'd be even more because it's safer to more completely discharge NiMH. Or you could keep the kw/h level and extend range moderatly because you've eliminated hundreds of pounds from your vehicle. Bad part: NiMH starts at around twice as expensive as lead acid per kw/h. .54-.72. Call it three times as good as NiMH. But they also cost three times as much. Here you're at a 'mere' 50 to 1 weight disadvantage against gasoline. Combined with the greater efficiency of electric motors and the extra weight would be less than a car load of fatties. But enough lead-acid for decent range is enough to make me wince, and LiIon is going to be almost 10 times more for a given capacity. Oh, yeah, and it currently wears out faster than NiMH cells.
It was actually simple economics. Vegetable oil was/is more expensive. Gasoline ended up being the cheapest fuel for the performance. Electric couldn't handle the distances even a moderate tank afforded for a gasoline engine.
Even today, it takes a 500-1000 pounds of batteries to equal the energy of a gallon of gasoline. Even with lousy efficiency this gives gasoline engines far more range for the cost and weight.
Energy Densities
Gasoline: 46.9 MJ/kg (~3 kg/gallon)
Lead Acid:
NiMH:
LiIon:
*That'd have the Gasoline engine be around 15% efficient
The really professional pirates have access to the same mastering facilities that the legit companies do.
About what I was thinking...
Set up a @home application to crack a few of the hardware device codes on the new discs. The PS3 would actually be a bad one to crack; You want a popular machine that's not easy to update.
You use of the phrase "whenever possible" pretty much gives you the right to make up what ever meaning you want, unless of course you personal communications with the framers.
.32ACP pistol doesn't trump a .44cal flintlock pistol at 7 yards if the guy with the flintlock hits.
.45(two of the biggest carry calibers) barely dent 3/16" steel. The rounds that penetrate, I'll note, look a lot like rifle bullets. Small diameter for their length, necked cases. I'll also note that the very properties that allow them to penetrate steel also make them suboptimal for self defense. IE they aren't very deadly.
Sometimes situations crop up that are really unusual, so interpretation is required. It's tough for me to say absolutes, as if there's even one exception it's no longer an absolute in my mind. For example, the whole 'people' thing. Back then you could sometimes translate it(by founder intent) as 'White Land-owning Men'. There are things that the founders never envisioned. Stuff like a nuclear bomb. Automatic weapons are easy; there were some works using multiple barrels even back then.
The internet, I'm sure they didn't have a clue, but I give it the same protection by the 1st as I give old manual printing presses.
Both are advances in technology.
Mind you that is also regardless of the fact that the founding fathers never use the term "regulated" to mean what you think it means anywhere else in the Constitution.
Ok, the 2nd grands the government the right to regulate the milita. Still doesn't allow it to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Nice leap there. You can't honestly tell me you are using a modern production black powder rifle as a measurement of 18th century unrifled flint/match lock muskets? The difference in Muzzle Velocity is staggeringly different.
No, actually it isn't. While mine is more a duplication of a civil war piece, but it's performance characteristics are the same. Percussion/flint/match locks are all just ignition methods. FFg and FFFg are Black powder, the same stuff as used back then. Heck, the ratings on powder granularity date from back then as well.
but the point that a 1700 musket or pistol is even remotely comparable to modern firearms is quit laughable.
They both propel a lead projectile. A modern firearm can indeed be more powerful; but a
And since you obviously know what the original writers of the constitution thought then I am sure you know they never perceived people carrying around concealed hand guns capable of punching holes through inches of steel.
Now you're exaggerating again. 9mm &
They'd have wondered what the big deal about concealing it. At least for the 'gentlemen', carrying something was pretty standard. Carrying openly was accepted. So wasn't carrying in a pocket of a coat for convienence. More knives than firearms, in many cases, but still. Why would they worry about the 'sheer' power? Gunshot wounds are more survivable today than they were back then. Lead Ball inflicts nasty wounds even compared to modern hollowpoints, though medical technology has made the real difference.
I would love to hear an example of a situation were at no point an solution not involving firearms was available.
The problem I have with this statement is What do you consider solutions? What's acceptable? Sure, there are measures that might solve a situation given 20/20 foresight. "Honey, I'm not going to work today, otherwise I'll have to shoot the scumbag that's going to shoot the place up while robbing it."
Otherwise, search some self-defense blogs. The biggest one I remember I don't have a link handy too, but involved a grandmother versus an extremely large escaped convict. She ended up shooting him, and he ended up expiring from his wounds, but he would have killed her otherwise, and almost did despite being shot six times.
Ghandi was instrumental in the changing of entire societies and the may never once took violent action and he lived through far worse times than anyone in the US born after Vietnam has ever had to live through.
Ah.. You mentioned Gandhi... I love the guy, and some quotes of his:
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest
And despite his non-violence, he still died 'by the sword'. Sure, there's the saying 'Those who live by the sword die by the sword', but many innocents die from the sword anyways in that context. I don't 'live by the sword', but stand ready to take it up against those who do.
Nowhere in the second amendment of the US constitution does it say what type of "arms" only that the right to bear arms, if you read it this way, will not be infringed. Until the Government declares all possible weapons as being illegal the second amendment is still being upheld.
Kinda like how in Mexico it's gotten watered down to the point that the allowed 'arms' are jokes? Where corruption rules? No thanks. 'Shall not be infringed' is a whole lot stronger than a simple 'allowed with regulations'.
I raised in a family that frequently hunted but that does not give me the right to change the meaning of the amendments of the constitution to fit my current needs or to determine alone what is best for the citizens of the United States of America.
Yeah, but that very constitution gives me the right to attempt to have it changed, through my own words and actions.
Are you sure about that? It seems that the scribe might of added some commas while writing up the final document. A bit of history on comma usage as regards the 2nd(and therefore the rest of the constitution).(Wiki link, but elucid).
Neither am I, but I did have 12 years of english, some more in college, and was reading at college level in jr high. Cheer for excessive comma usage! Here's a hint: take the first and third commas as pauses. The part before the second comma is explanationary. It's one reason for the second part. The second part is the declatory part containing the actual instruction. 'The car's a wreck, don't buy it.'
Where does the word 'firearm' appear in the text of the 2nd ammendment? A firearm is indeed an arm, but so isn't a bow, sword, knife, dirk, spear, axe, halberd, mace, and too many others to count. Going back to the original definition; 'Arms' were pretty much weapons for an individual soldier. So, keeping with my practice to, whenever possible, interpret the consitution using it's original meaning*, it would mean any weapon that's used by the individuals in an army. Back then it was certainly black powder, with a sprinkling of swords and pikes. Today, in the USA, it's some varient of an M16.
Quick definitions of what I consider important words:
Regulated - Note definitions 3 though amendment 3 might suggest laws encouraging a functional militia would be allowed.
Militia - Non-professional military; historically able bodied men, minus certain categories of unwilling due to religious reasons**. I personally modify this to all willing and able people; After all, back then only white men could vote, and we have a number of amendments expanding that right. Federal law right now has all 'able bodied' men between 17 and 45, as well as female national guard.
People - Somewhat generic, but was frequently restricted to 'White men'. Today, I pretty much apply it to 'Anybody in the country' - With some concessions for incompetent or violently criminal people.
Arms - Weapons, personal use. Not WMD, large bombs, etc... It has to be reasonably usable in a discriminate fashion. You can stuff a frag grenade into the definition, but not sarin gas.
Keep & Bear - Own and carry/transport. Even use under the appropriate circumstances.
infringed - 1st definition in the American Heritage Dictionary(2nd one down). As in, if it violates a person's ability to 'keep and bear', it's wrong.
Sure... Right... Look, I own a .50cal black power rifle. It's about the same size as many period