PC game sales are listed as being to the tune of $950+ million. Console sales figures are often quoted as being $10.5 billion in sales. But wait, that is not console software sales. That is the total sales volume for the physical consoles themselves, hand-held consoles, peripherals, and software. The home console system and peripheral sales account for $2.5 billion of that total (that's including a launch year numbers for the XBOX 360). The hand-held market accounted for $1.6 billion. Home console software sales accounted for $4.7 billion (a drop of 12% from last year) while portable system software rose 42% to $1.4 billion. Total unit sales of portables and consoles combined were down 6.3% from last year.
So looking at the raw NPD data (some of which appears to be suspect) the best way to sum up PC sales is to say that they fell marginally sharper than console sales. Effectively we are saying the proportion of console to PC sales has remained nearly the same from 2004 to 2005. And that isn't counting revenue generated by subscription services (for either consoles or PC's) or direct digital sales (which consoles are just starting to get into and PC's got into in a big way last year).
On top of that realize that the PC platform is really the equivalent to a single console platform. To really make a 1 to 1 comparisson you have to compare PC game sales figures to PS2, XBOX, XBOX 360, and Gamecube sales figures. By that measuring stick, the PC is the second largest after the Playstation 2.
To sum up, the sky isn't falling, but the market is changing. Cling to the old ways and sales figures from channels becoming increasingly less relevant to your industry and you are going to make the wrong decisions and miss the next wave.
BTW Personal computer sales rose 15.6% by volume (worldwide) over last year to a staggering $202 billion while PC video card/chipset sales (for NVIDIA and ATI only) rose to $4 billion (up 12.9% over last year).
That's not a great comparison. Certainly something the electric vehicle community was concerned about, but so far those individuals able to invest in enough Li-Ion cells to power their vehicles have not encountered any such issues. The cycle life on Li-Ion is excellent and they hold up to deep discharge well. The issue right now is cost. Large Li-Ion cells are by no means cheap and even if they wind up lasting a decade udner daily driving conditions they will wind up being somewhat prohibitively expensive. If the larger battery packs designed for EV use become more common and the price decreases they could be a viable solution.
Agreed, though I would add chemical battery research to your research list. If we can get costs down on larger Li-Ion and Li-Polymer batteries (or find chemistries with similar energy density) electric vehicles would be the way to go. The "fuel" distribution system is already in place (no added infrastructure costs) and you can essentially upgrade an entire city (assuming they are all driving electrics) simply by improving the power plant(s) delivering the city's power. Much easier than trying to "upgrade" millions of independent, mobile, power plants (ICE vehicles).
Funny, my parents live in WI and they had no problem test driving and purchasing a Toyota Prius. Of course the popularity of the Prius had exceeded the demand and my folks had to wait 5 months before they could actually pick up their car from the dealer. In most areas the problem is not that dealers don't stock the hybrids, it's that they can't keep them in stock as they sell rather quickly. Particularly the Prius.
I own a 5-speed manual transmission 2000 Honda Insight.
Essentially, it's a CRX with the steel replaced by aluminum and the plastic replaced by carbon fiber. The CVT version supposedly feels rather sluggish and gets less MPG than the manual. I find the manual to be a fairly zippy little car. 0-60 in 10 seconds and the 1/4 mile in about 18. It'll do 73 mph in second gear and hit the governed 113mph in 3rd. To dispel the myth that hybrids are boring and tame I tend to sacrifice some gas mileage to do a little tire smoking burnout in it (which is a bit of a cheat since the tires are small and low rolling resistance).
Unlearning old stick shift habits is interesting. Leaving the car in gear as you slow (to make use of the regen) takes a little getting used to. As does putting the car in neutral on the highway periodically (the Insight will coast for miles and miles on a smooth flat surface).
I tend to drive rather aggressively by nature so I average about 50mpg in the city and 65-70 on the highway. I've done a few trips where my ~20 mile round trip average was over 100 mpg, but that takes driving like grandpa.
The handling is excellent. The electric power steering is extremely responsive and the car hugs the road better than most cheap sports cars I've driven. I'd like to see what it could do with a suspension upgrade and more road hugging tires. One word of caution here, though. While FWD, the Insight's rear end is narrower than the front and combined with the car's low weight it tends to want to over-steer at high speeds. It's no WRX.
The interior is fairly spartan, but clean. The dash is very well designed. The curve of the dash matches the arc of the MOMO racing wheel making everything very easy to read at a glace. The faux racing seats are comfortable. It has power locks, power windows, a somewhat wimpy stereo (by my standards anyway), a surprising amount of storage in the back, and a nice climate control system.
If you don't have a need to carrying more than two people (including yourself) and want something unique, fun to drive, and great on the pocketbook; go buy a new or used Insight.
If you favor performance, but don't want a 15 mpg sports car, get the Accord.
1 Neilsen point is approximately 1 million viewers. An expensive genre TV show (like Star Trek: TNG at 1.5 million an episode in the late 80's through mid 90's) averaged around 10 points per first run episode. Or approximately 10 million viewers. If those viewers all purchased your program at $1 a show you are talking about revenue on the order of 6.7 times the cost of the show. And a yearly haul of over 200 million (net).
According to a November 1992 issue of "California Business" article, Paramount's annual first-run TNG gross advertising revenues are about $90 million, with production costs in the $31.2-$36.4 million range. Net annual advertising profits are between $30 and $60 millionA, without even counting the $70 million+ in licensing and affiliate station fees.
This would suggest that if even half of the TNG audience had tuned in at $1 an episode Paramount would have made more than it did through traditional advertising revenue.
And there is a middle ground between no advertisements and the deluge we are subjected to today. Use of lead in and out "sponsor" style advertising (like you see with more expensive PBS programming like NOVA nowadays) can still generate significant additional revenue.
I'm not belittling your opinion, but rather your determination to focus on a single article from ORNL. Not to mention your continual alteration and exaggeration of the emphasis of my statements. As I've stated before I am more than interested in any research materials you can direct me towards, but so far all you've pointed me to is EPRI. A site for an industry R&D and consulting firm which does not include any relavent articles or papers in its public sections (beyond marketing materials), but is actively promoting and assisting with the very nuclear power facilities that you decry. If you have knowledge on a subject, please do share it, but be sure to include direct links to reference materials that support your stance. It makes it much easier to have an intelligent debate.
"Yes, but the whole 'coal is radioactive too' argument is flawed and really quite stupid."
Case in point. The argument is not based around "coal is radioactive, too." Though, for the last time, it is more radioactive than regular background scatter, just not massively so. USGS data suggest a 1-5% increase in exposure when living near a coal plant; which is small, but noticeable. The original thrust of my argument was that the general public has a severely skewed opinion of nuclear power and ignores the impact of the types of power generation we have to resort to without nuclear power.
Oy vey. We're reduced to arguing semantics now, are we? Remove the word "laced" and prepend "trace" to the front of heavy metals. Is that better?
You really haven't read a single link outside of that one article from Oak Ridge National Laboratory have you? The majority of the publications I've pointed you to are those produced by government agencies and established universities. Some of the data regarding coal fly ash is directly referenced in materials from the coal industry itself. Hardly a group of crazy greenies or nuclear power lobbyists. I doubt the coal producers have a vested interest in attempting to destroy their own industry.
As I have stated repeatedly (and you seem to want to just ignore) I am not stating that coal burning plants are going to significantly harm your health under normal circumstances. Look, deny it all you want, but coal burning is a dirty way to generate power (even when taking into account more modern "clean" burning plants) that has a measureable impact on the environment. And trace heavy metal contamination is a part of it.
"Dust is filtered out, and you have to get a very hot fire to turn heavy elements into a gas - so the argument in irrelevant."
Which is pointed out in the USGS report that I linked to. In fact many of your points are addressed in that and other articles linked in previous posts. Particulate filtration in "clean" coal plants gets 99% of the large particulate matter out of the emissions, but they are not completely eliminated. And even with these emissions controls you have measureable contanimation of the surrounding area. The level of health risk is arguable, but to deny that there is an effect is ridiculous.
"a town of a few thousand people can easily consume 60 megawatts"
You point is taken regarding municpal consumption needs, but most of the details I've been able to dig up show power consumption of a small town falling somewhere in between our two numbers unless there is a large non-residential presence. Megawatt-hours are generally held to be the better measurement of consumption as it covers both peak and off peak consumption rates. The numbers we've both been quoting for plain old megawatts are peak usage numbers which only occur at certain points in the course of a day. Peak loads can be offset by power sharing with neighboring facilities as load is not uniform across all areas, while consumption over time dictates the number of plants that need to be built for a given area.
I was intentionally ignoring transmission line losses since the focus of the argument was generation versus consumption. If we get into transmission line losses as they effect usage and plant operation costs then we also have to start talking about the costs of mining, transportation, maintenance and other such factors not germaine to the original focus of the argument.
"Since the taxpayer will pay the waste disposal bill and I believe there are still other subsidies in place, that isn't hard."
Subsidies and protective industry legislation exist for all types of power generating technologies. Again that's getting a little off topic. I was referring to the flat out construction operation and disposal costs. Nuclear is higher up front and lower over time. The French transition to nuclear power has been largely successful. The recent backpedalling from nuclear energy comes mainly from environmental concerns and the "not in my backyard" waste material storage issue.
"Go to any unbiased source"
Unfortunately, the site you suggest is unreachable at the moment so I am unable to comment on it. As to the bias of various reports; I have given you links from a number of major univerities around the globe, the USGS, the US Department of Energy, the European Comission, and a number of others. My understanding and beliefs regarding nuclear power did not arise out of reading industrial propaganda, but rather from extensive research spurred by questions asked by other individuals for which I had no answers. When you dig passed all the hysteria, propaganda (from both sides of the debate), and political posturing you'll find that the scientific data tends to support the stance that I've taken.
"In comparison, the coal fly ash which should be radioactive according to the paper but isn't is used in the manufacture of cement, as a lightweight concrete agregate and in automotive putty."
Erm, as you pointed out in the past, it is radioactive, but not significantly so. And you are correct that heavy metal laced coal ash has been used in embankment construction, concrete, and a number of other substances. Studies there have shown that the composition of the materials that the fly ash is mixed with serve to prevent any serious leaching of heavy metals. In fact, if you had thoroughly read any of the other articles I linked to (aside from the one article you find so onerous) the usages of fly ash and studies as to its effects are clearly noted.
As I stated before, the crux of my argument is simple, nuclear power is not nearly as bad as the public has been led to believe and is, in fact, the best solution to energy production needs until the efficiency of cleaner renewable energy production can be improved.
"Go look up background radiation - it exists and using it to pretend that fly ash is nuclear waste is where that study shows that it is pure bullshit."
I'm not certain why you keep bringing up background radiation. Forgive me if I'm misintepreting, but it seems like you are attempting to insinuate that since there are many scattered sources of radioactive materials on the planet; concentrating substances that tend to have higher concentrations of radioactive and heavy metals and pumping them into the local atmosphere does not have a negative impact. Coal is an excellent filter and does a good job of capturing heavy metals (among other contaminents) regardless as to whether it is intentionally used for that purpose. Coal mined from areas that have higher concentrations of heavy metals absorbs a higher concentration of that particulate matter. Some forms of coal processing actually unintentionally enchance these concentrations further. When the coal is later burned to produce power the heavy metals are distrubted via the atmosphere to the surrounding area. This is not pseudo-science.
Most of the coal in the US has a very low concentration of heavy metals. There are a few actively utilized deposits with significantly higher concentrations, but the US has done a relatively good job of preventing an overabundance of heavy metals from being released from coal fired power plants. From a radioactive perspective individuals living within 1 km of a US coal burning plant suffer, at most, only a 1-5% increase in radiation dosage. Though it is worth noting that residents living within 1 km of a nuclear power plant do not receive any increased radiation dosage. This is not to suggest that the radiation dosage caused by living in close proximity to coal plant causes a significant adverse effect on one's health, but it does have an effect. Coal plants have been shown to increase heavy metal concetrations in the environment, however, and without improvements in filtering and disposal systems will continue to do so in many areas. Of particular concern are developing nations with large populations and histories of cutting corners when it comes to minimizing environmental impact.
"everything is radioactive, so nuclear power doesn't need to be treated with respect"
The paper is not suggesting that nuclear power not be treated with respect. No where does it suggest that the handling of such materials is "safe." The article merely points out that the most popular power generation method is equally if not more hazardous and more difficult to contain.
I am not insinuating that nuclear power is completely clean/safe technology. My frustration lies with the popular belief that nuclear power is somehow inherently more dangerous than power generation by traditional methods. This is simply not true. Nuclear power is safer than the general public believes and traditional power sources less so. Living next to a coal plant is not going to kill you or even signifcantly shorten your life, in general. Neither is living next to a nuclear power plant.
"a town of a few thousand people can easily consume 60 megawatts"
I'm not certain where you got those numbers, but they are way off. The average energy consumption of a US home is 1.02 kilowatts. Over the course of a year a US home will consume approximately 8,900 kilowatt-hours (8.9 megawatt-hours) of electricity.
A town of a few thousand residents would consume approximately 3 megawatts. Assuming a minor amount of light industrial and commercial usage in a town that small you might bump that figure up to 4 - 5 megawatts. Over the course of a year the town would consume approximately 35,600 megawatt-hours of electricity.
Yes, 100 years is relatively short lived. But the radiating materials that are most dangerous (in terms of radiation) are the beta emmiters and strong alpha emitters which tend to have half-lives on the order of minutes, seconds, and days.
The argument isn't "everything is radioactive in small amounts so atomic power is better because we keep it locked up." Nor is the radioactivity of waste products the real source of worry. It's the extreme toxicity of the heavy metals that is the biggest concern.
It's not pseudo-science bullshit that alpha emitters are relatively harmless unless ingested, breathed, or otherwise taken internally. You suggested that I peruse research on nuclear materials, background radiation, and carbon dating. I've already done so, have you? I'm not pushing some crazed "we all love atomic power, let's hug the ball of plutonium to our chest" 1950's propaganda. Read some medical and scientific journals regarding the subject. Yes, many of the materials used and produced in a standard light water reactors are extremely hazardous materials. That's why you use caution when handling them just like any of the hundreds of other hazardous materials used in manufacturing and other processes. And the nuclear power industry is a hell of a lot more responsible (and has more regulatory oversight).
"There could be one in service in North Korea or Iran - does it sound like such a good idea now? Fast breeders, like the one in Japan were shut down for military reasons."
You should clarify the "military reasons" that breeder reactors are not in use today. Mainly is has to do with the fact that their waste product includes military grade plutonium and there is concern over theft and nuclear weapons proliferation with breeder reactors in service. And your information regarding the Japanese breeder reactor is incorrect. It was not shutdown due to "military concerns" but rather the Monju reactor has been plagued by technical problems. Including at least one rather scary near chain reaction incident. Does that mean that breeder reactors should be abandoned? No. Just because something is dangerous and technically complex does not mean it should be abandoned. FBR designs are improving and are likely to continue to improve. With the growing demand for power around the world nuclear energy is the best solution for the time being.
"Carter cut back on Atomic power despite being an advocate for it because it was the best thing for the country at the time and the AEC knew they couldn't try to fool him on the issue - and you certainly couldn't blame the "greenies" for anything back then."
Carter's reduction of nuclear power plants was motivated by a number of factors. One was the exaggeration of the cost to power ratio of nuclear facilities (which was not as bad as was presented at the time and would be significantly better with a nearly 30 year improvement in technology). The other was a growing concern for the environment. Despite what you may believe the environmental movement did have an influence at the time. Which makes it all the more ironic that cutting back on nuclear reactors led directly to an increase in coal, oil, and natural gas burning plants that are far less efficient and more harmful to the environment. Not to mention producing and distributing large amounts of heavy metals and radioactive materials that wind up deposited throughout our major urban centers. Dissipation of the materials in the air may lessen the immediate effect, but it doesn't change the fact that the method of "disposal," if you will, places those materials in exactly the sort of conditions where they can do the most harm and in sufficient quantities to pose a health risk.
The current level of atomic power is that of 1950's white elephants and a promising little prototype in China that doesn't output enough power to run a town of a few thousand people.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that nuclear reactors are incapable of producing more than a few hundred thousand watts of power? And that nuclear science research was somehow frozen in the 1950's? Nuclear power is hardly a "white elephant." But don't listen to me, go
Obviously I needed to bold large in the sentence "Nuclear reactors do not produce large amounts of isotopes "hundreds of thousands of times more radioactive" than "natural" uranium. And if they did, the half-life for them would be extremely short."
I wasn't disagreeing about the production of highly radioactive and short lived isotopes, but the previous poster's assertion that the amounts produced are "large" is false.
The real problem with Yucca Mountain is the water table issue and the fact that most of these waste materials are extremely toxic. Nuclear reactors do not produce large amounts of isotopes "hundreds of thousands of times more radioactive" than "natural" uranium. And if they did, the half-life for them would be extremely short. The reason it takes millions of years for these waste materials to become functionally inert is because they are alpha emitters with very long half-lives. In other words, they do not produce large amounts of dangerous radiation. As they decay they will hit stages of greater radiation, but remember, alpha particles cannot even penetrate the layer of dead skin cells covering our bodies. A sheet of paper is strong enough shielding. Beta emmiters are somewhat more dangerous, but not significantly so. Additionally, while alpha particle radiation can still cause mutagenic aberrations if it can get passed your clothes and skin; the real danger is application to an open wound, inhalation, or ingestion of the radioactive materials. Not only does this allow the alpha particles to damage sensitive internal organ tissue, but the materials themselves are highly toxic. This is one of the reasons that radon (the end product of the uranium in the earth naturally decaying) in our basements is such a concern. Radon being gaseous enters our lungs where the alpha particles can actually do damage.
Chernobyl's problem was not the release of radiation into the atmosphere. That is disapated very rapidly by prevailing winds and does not affect the surrounding area significantly (not from a single event such as that). The problem with Chernobyl was that when the top blew chunks of radioactive debris like pieces of the graphite cooling system rained down over the surrounding countryside and got into the ground and the water supply.
Most of the deaths in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were caused by the shockwave and the subsequent fires, not the radiation. This is not to say that there weren't many people killed by radiation, there were. But those individuals dying of cancer caused by those blasts are the individuals that were present at the time of the attacks. Both areas are still thickly settled and do not have higher than normal cancer rates outside of the population of the bomb drop survivors.
Additionally, far larger amounts of the same materials used and produced in nuclear power production (including uranium 235, uranium 238, and thorium among others) are pumped into our atmosphere every day by coal burning plants. In fact, if we took all the radioactive materials we send into the air every year and put them in nuclear reactors, we'd be able to make more energy that the coal plants that put them into the atmosphere did during the same timeframe.
On top of that, if breeder and pellet based plutonium reactors were actual in service we could use the waste from standard light water reactors to feed breeder reactors whose waste would feed the pellet based reactors. Drastically reducing the amount and lethality of the nuclear waste that we'd ultimately have to store.
Maxis is very indicative. The described behaviour is classic EA. EA enters into a strongly worded publishing agreement with a small "hot" developer, then buys a portion of their company, then takes the company over, imposes their corporate culture on these smaller studios, bloats the studios management with EA managers, lays off entire teams, rehires many of the team members at lower salaries, works everyone to death, does another round of layoffs, and so on; until the studio is ultimately shutdown. Some studios hold out longer than others, but EA has done the same thing with nearly all the studios that they've absorbed including:
There are actually 3 variants of the GeForce 3. There is the GeForce 3 reference card which was the first one to market. Some time later they came out with the GeForce 3 Ti 200 which was slower than the reference card and the Ti 500 which was equivalent too or slight faster than the reference card.
The GeForce 4 MX actually has a GeForce 2 based core and is substantially slower than the rest of the GeForce 4 line (and much of the GeForce 3 line).
Actually, that sort of left to right switch is usually an intentional error created when the editor and/or director decides that the framing works better in a particular shot if the image is reversed. Sometimes the "errors" are corrected digitally, but most often they are left in as the cost of re-touching the footage outweighs what is arguably a minor detail that most people will miss.
What I find annoying is the number of nitpicky "film flubs" that get posted on sites like the one linked to in the news post that have more to do with the lack of imagination/suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer than anything else. There are generally a few interesting real errors listed in such places, but they get lost amongst all the chaffe.
Except that most people (not all) are driving vehicles that get between 15 and 25 mpg and gas is running between $1.85 and $2.00. Plus, a modern automobile requires regular oil changes ($20+ extra every 2-3 months), occasional radiator fluid replenishment, air filter changes, injector cleaning, etc.
An EV significantly reduces the amount of regular maintenance required to keep your vehicle healthy. And while the Sparrow has a modest 40 mile range, there are plenty of vehicles out there (including home-brew conversions of regular gas cars) that get better mileage. And if you are willing to pay through the nose for the batteries you can get ranges on the order of 300+ miles if you use a Lithium Ion pack in a lightweight chassis like the T-Zero does. Note that the specs listed on the linked page are for the Lead Acid version of the car the Lithium Ion version accelerates even faster and has nearly triple the range.
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect. Sales of home console hardware, portable console hardware, home console software and portable software combined set a new overall record.
Home console software sales were actually down 12% in 2005.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060115-5983 .html
PC game sales are listed as being to the tune of $950+ million. Console sales figures are often quoted as being $10.5 billion in sales. But wait, that is not console software sales. That is the total sales volume for the physical consoles themselves, hand-held consoles, peripherals, and software. The home console system and peripheral sales account for $2.5 billion of that total (that's including a launch year numbers for the XBOX 360). The hand-held market accounted for $1.6 billion. Home console software sales accounted for $4.7 billion (a drop of 12% from last year) while portable system software rose 42% to $1.4 billion. Total unit sales of portables and consoles combined were down 6.3% from last year.
So looking at the raw NPD data (some of which appears to be suspect) the best way to sum up PC sales is to say that they fell marginally sharper than console sales. Effectively we are saying the proportion of console to PC sales has remained nearly the same from 2004 to 2005. And that isn't counting revenue generated by subscription services (for either consoles or PC's) or direct digital sales (which consoles are just starting to get into and PC's got into in a big way last year).
On top of that realize that the PC platform is really the equivalent to a single console platform. To really make a 1 to 1 comparisson you have to compare PC game sales figures to PS2, XBOX, XBOX 360, and Gamecube sales figures. By that measuring stick, the PC is the second largest after the Playstation 2.
To sum up, the sky isn't falling, but the market is changing. Cling to the old ways and sales figures from channels becoming increasingly less relevant to your industry and you are going to make the wrong decisions and miss the next wave.
BTW Personal computer sales rose 15.6% by volume (worldwide) over last year to a staggering $202 billion while PC video card/chipset sales (for NVIDIA and ATI only) rose to $4 billion (up 12.9% over last year).
Which makes it all the more fun for the electric vehicle racers when they blow your Corvette/Viper off the road. :P
Electric Mazda RX-7 vs Viper RT/10
Electric 1972 Datsun 1200 running a 12.15 1/4 mile.
That's not a great comparison. Certainly something the electric vehicle community was concerned about, but so far those individuals able to invest in enough Li-Ion cells to power their vehicles have not encountered any such issues. The cycle life on Li-Ion is excellent and they hold up to deep discharge well. The issue right now is cost. Large Li-Ion cells are by no means cheap and even if they wind up lasting a decade udner daily driving conditions they will wind up being somewhat prohibitively expensive. If the larger battery packs designed for EV use become more common and the price decreases they could be a viable solution.
Agreed, though I would add chemical battery research to your research list. If we can get costs down on larger Li-Ion and Li-Polymer batteries (or find chemistries with similar energy density) electric vehicles would be the way to go. The "fuel" distribution system is already in place (no added infrastructure costs) and you can essentially upgrade an entire city (assuming they are all driving electrics) simply by improving the power plant(s) delivering the city's power. Much easier than trying to "upgrade" millions of independent, mobile, power plants (ICE vehicles).
"exceeded the demand" should read "exceeded the supply"
Funny, my parents live in WI and they had no problem test driving and purchasing a Toyota Prius. Of course the popularity of the Prius had exceeded the demand and my folks had to wait 5 months before they could actually pick up their car from the dealer. In most areas the problem is not that dealers don't stock the hybrids, it's that they can't keep them in stock as they sell rather quickly. Particularly the Prius.
Yeah, 'cause electric cars are all solar challenge style carbon fiber coffins...oh wait, no they're not:
http://www.nedra.com/
http://www.plasmaboyracing.com/videos.php
I own a 5-speed manual transmission 2000 Honda Insight.
Essentially, it's a CRX with the steel replaced by aluminum and the plastic replaced by carbon fiber. The CVT version supposedly feels rather sluggish and gets less MPG than the manual. I find the manual to be a fairly zippy little car. 0-60 in 10 seconds and the 1/4 mile in about 18. It'll do 73 mph in second gear and hit the governed 113mph in 3rd. To dispel the myth that hybrids are boring and tame I tend to sacrifice some gas mileage to do a little tire smoking burnout in it (which is a bit of a cheat since the tires are small and low rolling resistance).
Unlearning old stick shift habits is interesting. Leaving the car in gear as you slow (to make use of the regen) takes a little getting used to. As does putting the car in neutral on the highway periodically (the Insight will coast for miles and miles on a smooth flat surface).
I tend to drive rather aggressively by nature so I average about 50mpg in the city and 65-70 on the highway. I've done a few trips where my ~20 mile round trip average was over 100 mpg, but that takes driving like grandpa.
The handling is excellent. The electric power steering is extremely responsive and the car hugs the road better than most cheap sports cars I've driven. I'd like to see what it could do with a suspension upgrade and more road hugging tires. One word of caution here, though. While FWD, the Insight's rear end is narrower than the front and combined with the car's low weight it tends to want to over-steer at high speeds. It's no WRX.
The interior is fairly spartan, but clean. The dash is very well designed. The curve of the dash matches the arc of the MOMO racing wheel making everything very easy to read at a glace. The faux racing seats are comfortable. It has power locks, power windows, a somewhat wimpy stereo (by my standards anyway), a surprising amount of storage in the back, and a nice climate control system.
If you don't have a need to carrying more than two people (including yourself) and want something unique, fun to drive, and great on the pocketbook; go buy a new or used Insight.
If you favor performance, but don't want a 15 mpg sports car, get the Accord.
They don't. Some are for 5, some are for 8, and a couple (like Samsung) gurantee no dead pixels what so ever.
You can go faster if you want.
9 second 1/4 mile Electric Drag Bike
1 Neilsen point is approximately 1 million viewers. An expensive genre TV show (like Star Trek: TNG at 1.5 million an episode in the late 80's through mid 90's) averaged around 10 points per first run episode. Or approximately 10 million viewers. If those viewers all purchased your program at $1 a show you are talking about revenue on the order of 6.7 times the cost of the show. And a yearly haul of over 200 million (net).
According to a November 1992 issue of "California Business" article, Paramount's annual first-run TNG gross advertising revenues are about $90 million, with production costs in the $31.2-$36.4 million range. Net annual advertising profits are between $30 and $60 millionA, without even counting the $70 million+ in licensing and affiliate station fees.
This would suggest that if even half of the TNG audience had tuned in at $1 an episode Paramount would have made more than it did through traditional advertising revenue.
And there is a middle ground between no advertisements and the deluge we are subjected to today. Use of lead in and out "sponsor" style advertising (like you see with more expensive PBS programming like NOVA nowadays) can still generate significant additional revenue.
I'm not belittling your opinion, but rather your determination to focus on a single article from ORNL. Not to mention your continual alteration and exaggeration of the emphasis of my statements. As I've stated before I am more than interested in any research materials you can direct me towards, but so far all you've pointed me to is EPRI. A site for an industry R&D and consulting firm which does not include any relavent articles or papers in its public sections (beyond marketing materials), but is actively promoting and assisting with the very nuclear power facilities that you decry. If you have knowledge on a subject, please do share it, but be sure to include direct links to reference materials that support your stance. It makes it much easier to have an intelligent debate.
"Yes, but the whole 'coal is radioactive too' argument is flawed and really quite stupid."
Case in point. The argument is not based around "coal is radioactive, too." Though, for the last time, it is more radioactive than regular background scatter, just not massively so. USGS data suggest a 1-5% increase in exposure when living near a coal plant; which is small, but noticeable. The original thrust of my argument was that the general public has a severely skewed opinion of nuclear power and ignores the impact of the types of power generation we have to resort to without nuclear power.
Oy vey. We're reduced to arguing semantics now, are we? Remove the word "laced" and prepend "trace" to the front of heavy metals. Is that better?
You really haven't read a single link outside of that one article from Oak Ridge National Laboratory have you? The majority of the publications I've pointed you to are those produced by government agencies and established universities. Some of the data regarding coal fly ash is directly referenced in materials from the coal industry itself. Hardly a group of crazy greenies or nuclear power lobbyists. I doubt the coal producers have a vested interest in attempting to destroy their own industry.
As I have stated repeatedly (and you seem to want to just ignore) I am not stating that coal burning plants are going to significantly harm your health under normal circumstances. Look, deny it all you want, but coal burning is a dirty way to generate power (even when taking into account more modern "clean" burning plants) that has a measureable impact on the environment. And trace heavy metal contamination is a part of it.
"Dust is filtered out, and you have to get a very hot fire to turn heavy elements into a gas - so the argument in irrelevant."
Which is pointed out in the USGS report that I linked to. In fact many of your points are addressed in that and other articles linked in previous posts. Particulate filtration in "clean" coal plants gets 99% of the large particulate matter out of the emissions, but they are not completely eliminated. And even with these emissions controls you have measureable contanimation of the surrounding area. The level of health risk is arguable, but to deny that there is an effect is ridiculous.
"a town of a few thousand people can easily consume 60 megawatts"
You point is taken regarding municpal consumption needs, but most of the details I've been able to dig up show power consumption of a small town falling somewhere in between our two numbers unless there is a large non-residential presence. Megawatt-hours are generally held to be the better measurement of consumption as it covers both peak and off peak consumption rates. The numbers we've both been quoting for plain old megawatts are peak usage numbers which only occur at certain points in the course of a day. Peak loads can be offset by power sharing with neighboring facilities as load is not uniform across all areas, while consumption over time dictates the number of plants that need to be built for a given area.
I was intentionally ignoring transmission line losses since the focus of the argument was generation versus consumption. If we get into transmission line losses as they effect usage and plant operation costs then we also have to start talking about the costs of mining, transportation, maintenance and other such factors not germaine to the original focus of the argument.
"Since the taxpayer will pay the waste disposal bill and I believe there are still other subsidies in place, that isn't hard."
Subsidies and protective industry legislation exist for all types of power generating technologies. Again that's getting a little off topic. I was referring to the flat out construction operation and disposal costs. Nuclear is higher up front and lower over time. The French transition to nuclear power has been largely successful. The recent backpedalling from nuclear energy comes mainly from environmental concerns and the "not in my backyard" waste material storage issue.
"Go to any unbiased source"
Unfortunately, the site you suggest is unreachable at the moment so I am unable to comment on it. As to the bias of various reports; I have given you links from a number of major univerities around the globe, the USGS, the US Department of Energy, the European Comission, and a number of others. My understanding and beliefs regarding nuclear power did not arise out of reading industrial propaganda, but rather from extensive research spurred by questions asked by other individuals for which I had no answers. When you dig passed all the hysteria, propaganda (from both sides of the debate), and political posturing you'll find that the scientific data tends to support the stance that I've taken.
"In comparison, the coal fly ash which should be radioactive according to the paper but isn't is used in the manufacture of cement, as a lightweight concrete agregate and in automotive putty."
Erm, as you pointed out in the past, it is radioactive, but not significantly so. And you are correct that heavy metal laced coal ash has been used in embankment construction, concrete, and a number of other substances. Studies there have shown that the composition of the materials that the fly ash is mixed with serve to prevent any serious leaching of heavy metals. In fact, if you had thoroughly read any of the other articles I linked to (aside from the one article you find so onerous) the usages of fly ash and studies as to its effects are clearly noted.
As I stated before, the crux of my argument is simple, nuclear power is not nearly as bad as the public has been led to believe and is, in fact, the best solution to energy production needs until the efficiency of cleaner renewable energy production can be improved.
"Go look up background radiation - it exists and using it to pretend that fly ash is nuclear waste is where that study shows that it is pure bullshit."
I'm not certain why you keep bringing up background radiation. Forgive me if I'm misintepreting, but it seems like you are attempting to insinuate that since there are many scattered sources of radioactive materials on the planet; concentrating substances that tend to have higher concentrations of radioactive and heavy metals and pumping them into the local atmosphere does not have a negative impact. Coal is an excellent filter and does a good job of capturing heavy metals (among other contaminents) regardless as to whether it is intentionally used for that purpose. Coal mined from areas that have higher concentrations of heavy metals absorbs a higher concentration of that particulate matter. Some forms of coal processing actually unintentionally enchance these concentrations further. When the coal is later burned to produce power the heavy metals are distrubted via the atmosphere to the surrounding area. This is not pseudo-science.
Most of the coal in the US has a very low concentration of heavy metals. There are a few actively utilized deposits with significantly higher concentrations, but the US has done a relatively good job of preventing an overabundance of heavy metals from being released from coal fired power plants. From a radioactive perspective individuals living within 1 km of a US coal burning plant suffer, at most, only a 1-5% increase in radiation dosage. Though it is worth noting that residents living within 1 km of a nuclear power plant do not receive any increased radiation dosage. This is not to suggest that the radiation dosage caused by living in close proximity to coal plant causes a significant adverse effect on one's health, but it does have an effect. Coal plants have been shown to increase heavy metal concetrations in the environment, however, and without improvements in filtering and disposal systems will continue to do so in many areas. Of particular concern are developing nations with large populations and histories of cutting corners when it comes to minimizing environmental impact.
"everything is radioactive, so nuclear power doesn't need to be treated with respect"
The paper is not suggesting that nuclear power not be treated with respect. No where does it suggest that the handling of such materials is "safe." The article merely points out that the most popular power generation method is equally if not more hazardous and more difficult to contain.
I am not insinuating that nuclear power is completely clean/safe technology. My frustration lies with the popular belief that nuclear power is somehow inherently more dangerous than power generation by traditional methods. This is simply not true. Nuclear power is safer than the general public believes and traditional power sources less so. Living next to a coal plant is not going to kill you or even signifcantly shorten your life, in general. Neither is living next to a nuclear power plant.
"a town of a few thousand people can easily consume 60 megawatts"
I'm not certain where you got those numbers, but they are way off. The average energy consumption of a US home is 1.02 kilowatts. Over the course of a year a US home will consume approximately 8,900 kilowatt-hours (8.9 megawatt-hours) of electricity.
A town of a few thousand residents would consume approximately 3 megawatts. Assuming a minor amount of light industrial and commercial usage in a town that small you might bump that figure up to 4 - 5 megawatts. Over the course of a year the town would consume approximately 35,600 megawatt-hours of electricity.
The Point Beach reactor in Wisconsin (a state I used to l
Yes, 100 years is relatively short lived. But the radiating materials that are most dangerous (in terms of radiation) are the beta emmiters and strong alpha emitters which tend to have half-lives on the order of minutes, seconds, and days.
The argument isn't "everything is radioactive in small amounts so atomic power is better because we keep it locked up." Nor is the radioactivity of waste products the real source of worry. It's the extreme toxicity of the heavy metals that is the biggest concern.
It's not pseudo-science bullshit that alpha emitters are relatively harmless unless ingested, breathed, or otherwise taken internally. You suggested that I peruse research on nuclear materials, background radiation, and carbon dating. I've already done so, have you? I'm not pushing some crazed "we all love atomic power, let's hug the ball of plutonium to our chest" 1950's propaganda. Read some medical and scientific journals regarding the subject. Yes, many of the materials used and produced in a standard light water reactors are extremely hazardous materials. That's why you use caution when handling them just like any of the hundreds of other hazardous materials used in manufacturing and other processes. And the nuclear power industry is a hell of a lot more responsible (and has more regulatory oversight).
"There could be one in service in North Korea or Iran - does it sound like such a good idea now? Fast breeders, like the one in Japan were shut down for military reasons."
You should clarify the "military reasons" that breeder reactors are not in use today. Mainly is has to do with the fact that their waste product includes military grade plutonium and there is concern over theft and nuclear weapons proliferation with breeder reactors in service. And your information regarding the Japanese breeder reactor is incorrect. It was not shutdown due to "military concerns" but rather the Monju reactor has been plagued by technical problems. Including at least one rather scary near chain reaction incident. Does that mean that breeder reactors should be abandoned? No. Just because something is dangerous and technically complex does not mean it should be abandoned. FBR designs are improving and are likely to continue to improve. With the growing demand for power around the world nuclear energy is the best solution for the time being.
"Carter cut back on Atomic power despite being an advocate for it because it was the best thing for the country at the time and the AEC knew they couldn't try to fool him on the issue - and you certainly couldn't blame the "greenies" for anything back then."
Carter's reduction of nuclear power plants was motivated by a number of factors. One was the exaggeration of the cost to power ratio of nuclear facilities (which was not as bad as was presented at the time and would be significantly better with a nearly 30 year improvement in technology). The other was a growing concern for the environment. Despite what you may believe the environmental movement did have an influence at the time. Which makes it all the more ironic that cutting back on nuclear reactors led directly to an increase in coal, oil, and natural gas burning plants that are far less efficient and more harmful to the environment. Not to mention producing and distributing large amounts of heavy metals and radioactive materials that wind up deposited throughout our major urban centers. Dissipation of the materials in the air may lessen the immediate effect, but it doesn't change the fact that the method of "disposal," if you will, places those materials in exactly the sort of conditions where they can do the most harm and in sufficient quantities to pose a health risk.
The current level of atomic power is that of 1950's white elephants and a promising little prototype in China that doesn't output enough power to run a town of a few thousand people.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that nuclear reactors are incapable of producing more than a few hundred thousand watts of power? And that nuclear science research was somehow frozen in the 1950's? Nuclear power is hardly a "white elephant." But don't listen to me, go
Obviously I needed to bold large in the sentence "Nuclear reactors do not produce large amounts of isotopes "hundreds of thousands of times more radioactive" than "natural" uranium. And if they did, the half-life for them would be extremely short."
I wasn't disagreeing about the production of highly radioactive and short lived isotopes, but the previous poster's assertion that the amounts produced are "large" is false.
Aw, but blasting huge chunks of the earth off into space with warring grasers would be fun!
The real problem with Yucca Mountain is the water table issue and the fact that most of these waste materials are extremely toxic. Nuclear reactors do not produce large amounts of isotopes "hundreds of thousands of times more radioactive" than "natural" uranium. And if they did, the half-life for them would be extremely short. The reason it takes millions of years for these waste materials to become functionally inert is because they are alpha emitters with very long half-lives. In other words, they do not produce large amounts of dangerous radiation. As they decay they will hit stages of greater radiation, but remember, alpha particles cannot even penetrate the layer of dead skin cells covering our bodies. A sheet of paper is strong enough shielding. Beta emmiters are somewhat more dangerous, but not significantly so. Additionally, while alpha particle radiation can still cause mutagenic aberrations if it can get passed your clothes and skin; the real danger is application to an open wound, inhalation, or ingestion of the radioactive materials. Not only does this allow the alpha particles to damage sensitive internal organ tissue, but the materials themselves are highly toxic. This is one of the reasons that radon (the end product of the uranium in the earth naturally decaying) in our basements is such a concern. Radon being gaseous enters our lungs where the alpha particles can actually do damage.
Chernobyl's problem was not the release of radiation into the atmosphere. That is disapated very rapidly by prevailing winds and does not affect the surrounding area significantly (not from a single event such as that). The problem with Chernobyl was that when the top blew chunks of radioactive debris like pieces of the graphite cooling system rained down over the surrounding countryside and got into the ground and the water supply.
Most of the deaths in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were caused by the shockwave and the subsequent fires, not the radiation. This is not to say that there weren't many people killed by radiation, there were. But those individuals dying of cancer caused by those blasts are the individuals that were present at the time of the attacks. Both areas are still thickly settled and do not have higher than normal cancer rates outside of the population of the bomb drop survivors.
Additionally, far larger amounts of the same materials used and produced in nuclear power production (including uranium 235, uranium 238, and thorium among others) are pumped into our atmosphere every day by coal burning plants. In fact, if we took all the radioactive materials we send into the air every year and put them in nuclear reactors, we'd be able to make more energy that the coal plants that put them into the atmosphere did during the same timeframe.
On top of that, if breeder and pellet based plutonium reactors were actual in service we could use the waste from standard light water reactors to feed breeder reactors whose waste would feed the pellet based reactors. Drastically reducing the amount and lethality of the nuclear waste that we'd ultimately have to store.
Uranium-238 Decay Series
Nuclide Half-Life Radiation
U-238 4.468 109 years alpha
Th-234 24.1 days beta
Pa-234m 1.17 minutes beta
U-234 244,500 years alpha
Th-230 77,000 years alpha
Ra-226 1,600 years alpha
Rn-222 3.8235 days alpha
Po-218 3.05 minutes alpha
Pb-214 26.8 minutes beta
Bi-214 19.9 minutes beta
Po-214 63.7 microseconds alpha
Pb-210 22.26 years beta
Bi-210 5.013 days beta
Po-210 138.378 days alpha
Pb-206 stable
Maxis is very indicative. The described behaviour is classic EA. EA enters into a strongly worded publishing agreement with a small "hot" developer, then buys a portion of their company, then takes the company over, imposes their corporate culture on these smaller studios, bloats the studios management with EA managers, lays off entire teams, rehires many of the team members at lower salaries, works everyone to death, does another round of layoffs, and so on; until the studio is ultimately shutdown. Some studios hold out longer than others, but EA has done the same thing with nearly all the studios that they've absorbed including:
Bullfrog
Origin
Westwood
Maxis
Kesmai
etc
There are actually 3 variants of the GeForce 3. There is the GeForce 3 reference card which was the first one to market. Some time later they came out with the GeForce 3 Ti 200 which was slower than the reference card and the Ti 500 which was equivalent too or slight faster than the reference card.
The GeForce 4 MX actually has a GeForce 2 based core and is substantially slower than the rest of the GeForce 4 line (and much of the GeForce 3 line).
Actually, that sort of left to right switch is usually an intentional error created when the editor and/or director decides that the framing works better in a particular shot if the image is reversed. Sometimes the "errors" are corrected digitally, but most often they are left in as the cost of re-touching the footage outweighs what is arguably a minor detail that most people will miss.
What I find annoying is the number of nitpicky "film flubs" that get posted on sites like the one linked to in the news post that have more to do with the lack of imagination/suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer than anything else. There are generally a few interesting real errors listed in such places, but they get lost amongst all the chaffe.
Except that most people (not all) are driving vehicles that get between 15 and 25 mpg and gas is running between $1.85 and $2.00. Plus, a modern automobile requires regular oil changes ($20+ extra every 2-3 months), occasional radiator fluid replenishment, air filter changes, injector cleaning, etc.
An EV significantly reduces the amount of regular maintenance required to keep your vehicle healthy. And while the Sparrow has a modest 40 mile range, there are plenty of vehicles out there (including home-brew conversions of regular gas cars) that get better mileage. And if you are willing to pay through the nose for the batteries you can get ranges on the order of 300+ miles if you use a Lithium Ion pack in a lightweight chassis like the T-Zero does. Note that the specs listed on the linked page are for the Lead Acid version of the car the Lithium Ion version accelerates even faster and has nearly triple the range.