I'm not arguing that panspermia necessarily explains life on earth, just that it isn't impossible.
But there are some things that panspermia is useful for. One being that as the age of life on earth gets pushed ever back, there is less and less time for life to have formed on an increasingly hostile early earth. The standard response is that, well, since we are here, it must have happened, we just happened to win the lottery ticket, and since we did, are here to be aware of it.
But panspermia exands both the time and surface area for life to have arisen by billions of years and stars.
It is a more complex explanation, certainly, but it helps quite a bit with the probabilities. It also expands the possible conditions under which life had formed. As the origins of life get pushed back, the possible environments on earth are more limited. But if panspermia is a possibility, that allows scientists to reasonably continue investigating conditions other than those on the very early earth.
There's been some effort to try and detect evidence of life in ancient rocks at 3.8 billion years back or earlier. That cuts the available time for *complex* life to form down to a mere ¾ of a billion years or less. One objection to this evidence has been the shortness of time and the hostile climate on earth at that time. So in this case, panspermia would help defeat that objection to possible geological evidence.
No need of a supernova, and no one has ever suggested that as a mechanism. There is the possibility of directed panspermia if you're into sci-fi, or just rocks flying free from their solar systems. http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=188
All you need is a lot of material, to have decent odds.
One meteor speed listed there is 300km/s - at that speed, it would take 4000 years to get to Alpha Centauri. If life can survive reasonably well for 30,000 years, that gets to quite a few stars nearby. You just need a lot of ejecta.
Universe is a messy place, and our earth's history has involved a lot of stuff banging about. I don't see why the theory should be rejected out of hand.
Well, there is that "recall" function that some e-mail clients honour.
Of course, some people seem to think it completely wipes all traces of the original e-mail, when it is more a "Hey! You know that e-mail I sent you that you'd ignored as spam? I really didn't mean to send it to you, it may have something embarrassing in it."
*shrug* I don't do much in PHP so wasn't aware of the function, was just agreeing with him and noting general stuff people forget to do. Initial comment about bind params was more based on PHP I'd read/seen exploits for anyway. Is something PHP is notorious for, but is fortunately avoidable now.
Heh, amusingly relevant screwup 'cause they just stripped out the tag. I just always forget that/. strips tags instead of escaping 'em unless I change my mode.
More readable than the string concatenation (especially if escapes and other functions are embedded). And much less painful if you need to copy the query out and run it elsewhere. Less to clean up.
And if the query is so long (like more than a half dozen bind variables) that you are seriously going to have trouble remembering that user_name = ? is matched to the variable user, then maybe you should add a few comments inside the query near those binds. Hopefully you are doing that long query on multiple lines anyway, and without line wrappers to complicate aforementioned copy n paste.
And even if for some reason you disagree on the readability (whatever, to each his own) there's still the safety and performance aspects.
Personally, when it comes to long lists, I tend to push them in a temp table. But then, the two times I've needed to do that, I needed to run a series of queries on them anyway, so a temp table was an easy choice.
Absolutely, or other exploits of your framework. All inputs are evil. I wasn't saying to ignore those, was just that many PHP developers seem to think that sanitising inputs is the way to write safe queries. Escaping isn't that easy, especially with unicode. Heck. Escaping is non-trivial with javascript too. Many common escape routines will be helpless if you're writing directly into JSON for use by JSON.parse (much less eval). And then there's silly code that tries to strip out tags, and forgets about
Wikipedia doesn't suggest it was clear cut as the ACLU makes out. Regardless, it is odd for the ACLU to take a position that an individual's freedoms in what they can own or do, especially in their own home, should be restricted to that extent, especially when there are good reasons to allow it, and reasonable interpretations of the bill of rights to support it.
In my opinion, although I can hardly prove it, it was a cowardly position merely to ensure they did not piss off certain donors.
Obviously the ACLU has the right to take this position, just as my friends and I had the right to stop supporting the ACLU, and find other organisations to give our money to.
Ah. Yeah. I signed up for that with our power company. When I was sold on it, I was told that the AC would be cut only for an hour or two at a time, even at the maximum "cycling" level.
What actually happened to 100,000+ people who signed up for it was during the hottest day of the year they completely disabled the AC for 9 or 10 hours. They said after that was accidental, they'd only intended 6 hours but there'd been switching issues. Then there was another report that they'd done a 6 hour emergency shutoff and then immediately shifted into another one. Of course the lines were completely jammed. Upshot, house in 90s and humid. Also, was even worse since I wasn't home and the people who were weren't aware that they had decided to completely cut off AC. And since it wasn't synched w/ cooling system, the upstairs intakes were sucking hot air through the house. Normally I block the upstairs vents and close the doors so minimal hot air is pulled in through that intake, I also increase the temperature on the inside thermostat into the mid 80s, so it kicks in pretty rarely, maybe once or twice during the day and still keeps humidity level moderate.
So the "smart" system ended up being less efficient and a whole lot more harmful. We cancelled our participation after. If the power bill depended on usage at certain times of day, I could decide for myself how much I was willing to pay. I already keep AC usage to a minimum anyway.
I'm confused. The link you provided (pcmag) lists 14.4% marketshare for Bing in the United States according to one stat service, and 14.64% in the United States according to a completely different service.
I don't see how you could get 30% from that unless you added the two together - that means if you find another two or 3 stat services you could get 110%. Whoopee!:)
In fact, seems that Bing as at 14-15% in the US - and this despite massive ad campaigns on all media, and setting it as the default browser in Internet Explorer, and in other browsers when running certain software installers.
And worldwide, the link shows it has fallen off even more, and is at around three and a half percent.
dnscachex can specify servers for arbitrary domains. If you want some stuff to be internal only and don't want to mess about with replication, just run a 2nd DNS server on a specified local interface (maybe an alias), and point dnscachex at that for that domain.
Or of course, you could just put your local records in your DNS, and not worry about it.
Much more efficient to use a local dns cache. I use tinydns/dnscachex locally, Apart from doing lookups for my domain, it relays everything to opendns except for domains or subdomains that are nosy bastards.
And you can always layer on a host file if necessary. But doing a *.doubleclick.net is much more efficient.
I also rely on davmail + thunderbird after struggling for years with evolution - both MAPI and webdav integration.
It never worked right, regardless of patches tested and protocol used. It corrupted messages, it crashed,it lost messages, calendaring was almost always non-functional save for a brief period before they upgraded Exchange then I lost it again.
DavMail works beautifully, including calendaring using Lightning.
Chrome's addons are much more limited in their hooks. They are closer to Jetpack addons for Firefox, or, prior to Jetpack, Greasemonkey.
Those scripts rarely are broken by releases in Firefox.
And of course, Firefox is now actively testing its (far larger) addon community and bumping revision numbers when addons are not broken by a release. Before they relied on the author to do this, which was not always that prompt.
If germany can't figure out to safely store caesium for 300 years (or even 100 or 200), they could perhaps pay the US to do so.
The USA have no storage for waste!!! They do it like everyone does. They pile it up in a desert hoping to find any time soon a suitable
storage....
And you do the stupid thing every american/. er does. I take a 1.5MW wind turbine and calculate 20% of it as "base yield"
Yeah... interesting...
A 1.5 MW wind turbine has a 1.5MW base yield, hence the terminology. It has a peak yield of 7 to 8 MW and under raw conditions 12MW.
Wrong. I take a 1.5MW capacity turbine and average its production over a year. Even if you assume 6MW turbines which require a larger spacing, you get average production in a good siting of 20-25% of capacity over the year. Nuclear is continuous. Nonetheless, you remarkably claim I was off by (2) orders of magnitued, a factor of 100 - if anything doesn't show your completely exaggerated opinion of wind effectiveness...
It'll be interesting to see what happens when Germany attempts to replace the quarter of its energy that comes from nuclear.
You overestimate the land usage for solar plants.
Arizona alone could produce 10 times the amount of power the whole world is needing. Without any special tricks or special technology.
Are you insane? I specifically said we wouldn't want to carpet an ecosystem with panels, not to mention the cost in production and continued maintenance in terms of waste. Or of course the problem of getting the power *from* Arizona to, oh, Germany. Note the blue areas on that lovely chart below. And certainly I'm aware of this. This is one of those obvious and oft-repeated facts. Here. I'll link you to this diagram. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_land_area.png Of course, that's not 10x - perhaps you are unclear as to the size of Arizona.
Your thoughts about electric vehicles again shows that you don't know much;D (not your fault, in your country there is likely not much
information available about energy production).
Electric vehicles wont require more power generation. In fact they will help in smart grids to level out power surplus and power needs.
EVs will be plugged in via smart meters, recognizing that they can get power very sheep at 1:00AM and start loading the accus (e.g.
because the few photo voltaic plants suddenly pump a power storm into the grid). And around 5:00 PM when for some reason there is a
power shortage a decent amount of smart grid connected EVs will decide to sell half of their accu load to the grid.
Dude. Of course they'll require more energy generation! They'll even require changes in our infrastructure to support the increased draw. The fact that the batteries could possibly be used for storage is also hardly new. It does NOT reduce the fact that FAR more energy will be required. Your discourse to this point is basically a depressing regurgitation of barely relevant talking points.
Now let's consider that straightdope article I doubt you read. He suggests a *CONSERVATIVE* *LOWBALL* energy consumption for 2050 of 28terawatts (that's continuous, not a yearly sum in TWh).
Since your regurgitated talking points suggest you barely skim what I type, or even run the numbers yourself, I doubt you'll think this through either, but...
Instead, Nocera conservatively pegs annual global energy usage circa 2050 at between 28 terawatts â" which assumes average consumption
Great. Now if you could just get past repeating "get a damn clue"
That was the amount of *caesium* waste, which you were focusing on. Since I had pointed out the majority of that "waste" could be reburnt.
It is: lets take the old rod out. Store it on the plant for a year or two. Reprocess it. Store the liquid waste in tanks, for a decade
or more. Mix the throw away waste into a chunk of molten glass and cask it into a block. Store the block of glass for a decade or two.
AND THEN: put everything (erm, how exactly do we handel the liquid waste.... ???) then put everything into its "endlager".
And I stand by points on reprocessing and reuse. Current procedures are far from efficient. Liquid waste is a vague term. Specify precisely what is in this liquid waste, and it would determine length of storage and processing.
If germany can't figure out to safely store caesium for 300 years (or even 100 or 200), they could perhaps pay the US to do so.
My figure for number of turbines was based on 20% efficiency for a 1.5 megawatt turbine.
Larger turbines are higher wattage, but there is no way in hell you are going to reduce it by even an order of magnitude, much less two.
150 megawatt turbines? lol? Windmill of the gods...
Solar has far far more environmental impact than wind - and most definitely you cannot "easily" replace all nuclear with it.
There simply is not enough land/sun, especially further north.
In the US, yes, you could, if you replaced the desert parkland with solar panels. Insane, environmentally unsound, and would generate huge amounts of pollution to generate all those panels and maintain them, but you could...
Of course, that doesn't provide you with base load for a country. There are schemes that allow some nighttime production, but not on that scale.
Germany, the poor fools, will end up buying their power from France and ramping up their coal production again. And of course buying more gas from Russia (good luck with that). At least coal is cleaner than it was in the past. Before scrubbing improved, coal dumped more radioactivity in the air than nuclear, and caused far more deaths.
You are happy to throw around terms like "confused" and "propaganda"
Of course, from my perspective, you are just the unfortunate by-product of years of relentless anti-nuclear propaganda which has caused an excessive dependance on fossil fuels while people have pie in the sky fantasy of providing base power from solar and wind.
Solar and wind - wonderful things. Geothermal, wonderful. But having the illusion that they have no impact, and that they can provide 100% of the 4000+ TWh the US consumes in electricity is fantasy. And that's before we even consider a move to electrical vehicles which we will need to do. Can you imagine transitioning (not destroying) the US economy from gas trucks and cars to electric without *significantly* increasing electrical production?
Again, to repeat the article I referenced twice. For a *stable* world we will need *every* source of power we can get. Wind, solar, wave, geothermal and, yes nuclear. A hell of a lot of nuclear. And in many places in the world you could transform lives and stabilise populations just by offering them one small micro reactor that could power all the neighbouring villages at first world levels for the next 40 years with no maintenance.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not arguing that panspermia necessarily explains life on earth, just that it isn't impossible.
But there are some things that panspermia is useful for.
One being that as the age of life on earth gets pushed ever back, there is less and less time for life to have formed on an increasingly hostile early earth. The standard response is that, well, since we are here, it must have happened, we just happened to win the lottery ticket, and since we did, are here to be aware of it.
But panspermia exands both the time and surface area for life to have arisen by billions of years and stars.
It is a more complex explanation, certainly, but it helps quite a bit with the probabilities.
It also expands the possible conditions under which life had formed. As the origins of life get pushed back, the possible environments on earth are more limited. But if panspermia is a possibility, that allows scientists to reasonably continue investigating conditions other than those on the very early earth.
There's been some effort to try and detect evidence of life in ancient rocks at 3.8 billion years back or earlier. That cuts the available time for *complex* life to form down to a mere ¾ of a billion years or less. One objection to this evidence has been the shortness of time and the hostile climate on earth at that time. So in this case, panspermia would help defeat that objection to possible geological evidence.
No need of a supernova, and no one has ever suggested that as a mechanism. There is the possibility of directed panspermia if you're into sci-fi, or just rocks flying free from their solar systems.
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=188
All you need is a lot of material, to have decent odds.
One meteor speed listed there is 300km/s - at that speed, it would take 4000 years to get to Alpha Centauri. If life can survive reasonably well for 30,000 years, that gets to quite a few stars nearby. You just need a lot of ejecta.
Universe is a messy place, and our earth's history has involved a lot of stuff banging about. I don't see why the theory should be rejected out of hand.
Well, there is that "recall" function that some e-mail clients honour.
Of course, some people seem to think it completely wipes all traces of the original e-mail, when it is more a "Hey! You know that e-mail I sent you that you'd ignored as spam? I really didn't mean to send it to you, it may have something embarrassing in it."
*shrug* I don't do much in PHP so wasn't aware of the function, was just agreeing with him and noting general stuff people forget to do. Initial comment about bind params was more based on PHP I'd read/seen exploits for anyway. Is something PHP is notorious for, but is fortunately avoidable now.
Heh, amusingly relevant screwup 'cause they just stripped out the tag. I just always forget that /. strips tags instead of escaping 'em unless I change my mode.
That should have read:
forgets about <s0x00cript>
More readable than the string concatenation (especially if escapes and other functions are embedded). And much less painful if you need to copy the query out and run it elsewhere.
Less to clean up.
And if the query is so long (like more than a half dozen bind variables) that you are seriously going to have trouble remembering that user_name = ? is matched to the variable user, then maybe you should add a few comments inside the query near those binds.
Hopefully you are doing that long query on multiple lines anyway, and without line wrappers to complicate aforementioned copy n paste.
And even if for some reason you disagree on the readability (whatever, to each his own) there's still the safety and performance aspects.
Personally, when it comes to long lists, I tend to push them in a temp table.
But then, the two times I've needed to do that, I needed to run a series of queries on them anyway, so a temp table was an easy choice.
Absolutely, or other exploits of your framework. All inputs are evil.
I wasn't saying to ignore those, was just that many PHP developers seem to think that sanitising inputs is the way to write safe queries.
Escaping isn't that easy, especially with unicode.
Heck. Escaping is non-trivial with javascript too. Many common escape routines will be helpless if you're writing directly into JSON for use by JSON.parse (much less eval).
And then there's silly code that tries to strip out tags, and forgets about
While sanitising inputs is laudable, PHP programmers should be using bind variables.
PHP, MySQL and PostGreSQL all support them, now.
Prevents most SQL injection, improves performance, results in cleaner and more readable queries.
sudo sh -c "cat /dev/urandom > /dev/sda"
There you go.
That's also necessary in ubuntu 11.04 if you need to attach gdb to a running process...
sudo sh -c "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/yama/ptrace_scope"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller#Interpretations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_amendment#Meaning_of_.22the_right_of_the_People.22
Wikipedia doesn't suggest it was clear cut as the ACLU makes out.
Regardless, it is odd for the ACLU to take a position that an individual's freedoms in what they can own or do, especially in their own home, should be restricted to that extent, especially when there are good reasons to allow it, and reasonable interpretations of the bill of rights to support it.
In my opinion, although I can hardly prove it, it was a cowardly position merely to ensure they did not piss off certain donors.
The response on the ACLU blog was... emphatic.
http://www.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment
1361 responses, many from libertarians, civil or otherwise, who once advocated for the ACLU.
Obviously the ACLU has the right to take this position, just as my friends and I had the right to stop supporting the ACLU, and find other organisations to give our money to.
Ah. Yeah. I signed up for that with our power company.
When I was sold on it, I was told that the AC would be cut only for an hour or two at a time, even at the maximum "cycling" level.
What actually happened to 100,000+ people who signed up for it was during the hottest day of the year they completely disabled the AC for 9 or 10 hours.
They said after that was accidental, they'd only intended 6 hours but there'd been switching issues.
Then there was another report that they'd done a 6 hour emergency shutoff and then immediately shifted into another one. Of course the lines were completely jammed.
Upshot, house in 90s and humid. Also, was even worse since I wasn't home and the people who were weren't aware that they had decided to completely cut off AC.
And since it wasn't synched w/ cooling system, the upstairs intakes were sucking hot air through the house.
Normally I block the upstairs vents and close the doors so minimal hot air is pulled in through that intake, I also increase the temperature on the inside thermostat into the mid 80s, so it kicks in pretty rarely, maybe once or twice during the day and still keeps humidity level moderate.
So the "smart" system ended up being less efficient and a whole lot more harmful. We cancelled our participation after. If the power bill depended on usage at certain times of day, I could decide for myself how much I was willing to pay. I already keep AC usage to a minimum anyway.
I'm confused. The link you provided (pcmag) lists 14.4% marketshare for Bing in the United States according to one stat service, and 14.64% in the United States according to a completely different service.
I don't see how you could get 30% from that unless you added the two together - that means if you find another two or 3 stat services you could get 110%. Whoopee! :)
In fact, seems that Bing as at 14-15% in the US - and this despite massive ad campaigns on all media, and setting it as the default browser in Internet Explorer, and in other browsers when running certain software installers.
And worldwide, the link shows it has fallen off even more, and is at around three and a half percent.
I'd much rather restart key apps, one at a time, in a controlled fashion, than reboot.
Especially since, unless you like taking risks, you'd best be there in person when rebooting.
Oh. Huh.
I assumed by "goes to hell and never comes back" you meant "crashes or sends the terminal window off screen where I can't get it"
I'm using Classic too. No odd terminal behaviour.
Seems same as ever really.
Get out of unity ASAP.
Choose Classic or Classic w/o Effects.
Oh, and 255.255.255.255 works nicely. Resolve them to that and the lookups fail immediately with no delays.
dnscachex can specify servers for arbitrary domains. If you want some stuff to be internal only and don't want to mess about with replication, just run a 2nd DNS server on a specified local interface (maybe an alias), and point dnscachex at that for that domain.
Or of course, you could just put your local records in your DNS, and not worry about it.
Oh, and of course, that way it applies to all the local computers without the need for copying hosts files.
Much more efficient to use a local dns cache.
I use tinydns/dnscachex locally, Apart from doing lookups for my domain, it relays everything to opendns except for domains or subdomains that are nosy bastards.
And you can always layer on a host file if necessary. But doing a *.doubleclick.net is much more efficient.
I also rely on davmail + thunderbird after struggling for years with evolution - both MAPI and webdav integration.
It never worked right, regardless of patches tested and protocol used. It corrupted messages, it crashed,it lost messages, calendaring was almost always non-functional save for a brief period before they upgraded Exchange then I lost it again.
DavMail works beautifully, including calendaring using Lightning.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/gmail-conversation-view/
I'm also a big fan of this addon - gives it kinda that gmail feel we are more familiar with now.
Chrome's addons are much more limited in their hooks.
They are closer to Jetpack addons for Firefox, or, prior to Jetpack, Greasemonkey.
Those scripts rarely are broken by releases in Firefox.
And of course, Firefox is now actively testing its (far larger) addon community and bumping revision numbers when addons are not broken by a release. Before they relied on the author to do this, which was not always that prompt.
There's a difference between writing a port for a proprietary platform and incorporating it into your toolchain.
If germany can't figure out to safely store caesium for 300 years (or even 100 or 200), they could perhaps pay the US to do so.
The USA have no storage for waste!!! They do it like everyone does. They pile it up in a desert hoping to find any time soon a suitable ...
storage.
And you do the stupid thing every american /. er does. I take a 1.5MW wind turbine and calculate 20% of it as "base yield" ... interesting ...
Yeah
A 1.5 MW wind turbine has a 1.5MW base yield, hence the terminology. It has a peak yield of 7 to 8 MW and under raw conditions 12MW.
Wrong. I take a 1.5MW capacity turbine and average its production over a year. Even if you assume 6MW turbines which require a larger spacing, you get average production in a good siting of 20-25% of capacity over the year. Nuclear is continuous.
Nonetheless, you remarkably claim I was off by (2) orders of magnitued, a factor of 100 - if anything doesn't show your completely exaggerated opinion of wind effectiveness...
It'll be interesting to see what happens when Germany attempts to replace the quarter of its energy that comes from nuclear.
You overestimate the land usage for solar plants.
Arizona alone could produce 10 times the amount of power the whole world is needing. Without any special tricks or special technology.
Are you insane? I specifically said we wouldn't want to carpet an ecosystem with panels, not to mention the cost in production and continued maintenance in terms of waste. Or of course the problem of getting the power *from* Arizona to, oh, Germany. Note the blue areas on that lovely chart below.
And certainly I'm aware of this. This is one of those obvious and oft-repeated facts. Here. I'll link you to this diagram.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_land_area.png
Of course, that's not 10x - perhaps you are unclear as to the size of Arizona.
Your thoughts about electric vehicles again shows that you don't know much ;D (not your fault, in your country there is likely not much
information available about energy production).
Electric vehicles wont require more power generation. In fact they will help in smart grids to level out power surplus and power needs.
EVs will be plugged in via smart meters, recognizing that they can get power very sheep at 1:00AM and start loading the accus (e.g.
because the few photo voltaic plants suddenly pump a power storm into the grid). And around 5:00 PM when for some reason there is a
power shortage a decent amount of smart grid connected EVs will decide to sell half of their accu load to the grid.
Dude. Of course they'll require more energy generation! They'll even require changes in our infrastructure to support the increased draw.
The fact that the batteries could possibly be used for storage is also hardly new. It does NOT reduce the fact that FAR more energy will be required. Your discourse to this point is basically a depressing regurgitation of barely relevant talking points.
Now let's consider that straightdope article I doubt you read. He suggests a *CONSERVATIVE* *LOWBALL* energy consumption for 2050 of 28terawatts (that's continuous, not a yearly sum in TWh).
Since your regurgitated talking points suggest you barely skim what I type, or even run the numbers yourself, I doubt you'll think this through either, but...
Instead, Nocera conservatively pegs annual global energy usage circa 2050 at between 28 terawatts â" which assumes average consumption
Great. Now if you could just get past repeating "get a damn clue"
That was the amount of *caesium* waste, which you were focusing on.
Since I had pointed out the majority of that "waste" could be reburnt.
It is: lets take the old rod out. Store it on the plant for a year or two. Reprocess it. Store the liquid waste in tanks, for a decade .... ???) then put everything into its "endlager".
or more. Mix the throw away waste into a chunk of molten glass and cask it into a block. Store the block of glass for a decade or two.
AND THEN: put everything (erm, how exactly do we handel the liquid waste
And I stand by points on reprocessing and reuse. Current procedures are far from efficient.
Liquid waste is a vague term. Specify precisely what is in this liquid waste, and it would determine length of storage and processing.
If germany can't figure out to safely store caesium for 300 years (or even 100 or 200), they could perhaps pay the US to do so.
My figure for number of turbines was based on 20% efficiency for a 1.5 megawatt turbine.
Larger turbines are higher wattage, but there is no way in hell you are going to reduce it by even an order of magnitude, much less two.
150 megawatt turbines? lol? Windmill of the gods...
Solar has far far more environmental impact than wind - and most definitely you cannot "easily" replace all nuclear with it.
There simply is not enough land/sun, especially further north.
In the US, yes, you could, if you replaced the desert parkland with solar panels. Insane, environmentally unsound, and would generate huge amounts of pollution to generate all those panels and maintain them, but you could...
Of course, that doesn't provide you with base load for a country. There are schemes that allow some nighttime production, but not on that scale.
Germany, the poor fools, will end up buying their power from France and ramping up their coal production again. And of course buying more gas from Russia (good luck with that).
At least coal is cleaner than it was in the past. Before scrubbing improved, coal dumped more radioactivity in the air than nuclear, and caused far more deaths.
You are happy to throw around terms like "confused" and "propaganda"
Of course, from my perspective, you are just the unfortunate by-product of years of relentless anti-nuclear propaganda which has caused an excessive dependance on fossil fuels while people have pie in the sky fantasy of providing base power from solar and wind.
Solar and wind - wonderful things. Geothermal, wonderful. But having the illusion that they have no impact, and that they can provide 100% of the 4000+ TWh the US consumes in electricity is fantasy.
And that's before we even consider a move to electrical vehicles which we will need to do. Can you imagine transitioning (not destroying) the US economy from gas trucks and cars to electric without *significantly* increasing electrical production?
Again, to repeat the article I referenced twice. For a *stable* world we will need *every* source of power we can get.
Wind, solar, wave, geothermal and, yes nuclear. A hell of a lot of nuclear. And in many places in the world you could transform lives and stabilise populations just by offering them one small micro reactor that could power all the neighbouring villages at first world levels for the next 40 years with no maintenance.