US windturbine firms are just late to the party, and they'll catch up. even so : the grants go back into the US economy, largely because transporting turbine parts is a [VERY] large part of the cost of a turbine, so producing them locally is important.
I think that even if they only last 10 years at the same price per surface-unit, they'll still be more economically viable, because payback-time gets a lot better.
Carrying a device that shouts(electromechanically) very loud your position, would destroy any notion of you caring for privacy I could guess. On the other hand : would those researchers REALLY care about your activities ?
Al gore is NOT a scientist. the people behind the IPCC are. And the latest IPCC report is clear: over 90% certainty. That's maximum 10% certainty for 'Not-AGW'. publish an article that debunks AGW, and you will win a Nobel prize, and billions of dollars.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ as a denier : you should work the rest out and prove that nothing is happening. Scientists are VERY clear: AGW is happening. if you can prove otherwise : go ahead; you can effectively win a nobel prize + 10 billion dollars from the oil-companies.
The problem with this debate is that one side has to prove their claims, while the other side just needs to create doubt by using unsubstantiated and even sometimes completely discredited claims. In this case, claiming that the other side is on the "gravy train" isn't supported by any evidence at all, and yet there is no way to disprove it either.
That's exactly my thought as well; and i would even go a bit further: 1/ the greenhouse effect is proven; without the Greenhouse-effect it would be nearly 20C colder on average, and CO2 is one of the gases responsible. 2/ CO2 levels has changed dramatically since the industrial revolution, in fact we can calculate how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere by looking at the amount of oil and gas sold. 3/ because of (1) and (2), 'NOT AGW' should be proven, because no further warming would mean a strange cut-off point for the greenhouse effect of CO2, and that would mean we need an extraordinary explanation for 'NOT-AGW'.
1/ the greenhouse effect is proven; without the Greenhouse-effect it would be nearly 20C colder on average, and CO2 is one of the gases responsible. 2/ CO2 levels has changed dramatically since the industrial revolution, in fact we can calculate how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere by looking at the amount of oil and gas sold. 3/ because of (1) and (2), 'NOT AGW' should be proven, because no further warming would mean a strange cut-off point for the greenhouse effect of CO2, and that would mean we need an extraordinary explanation for 'NOT-AGW'.
errr... riiiight. They are as much bought-in by the private sector as the republicans are.
And on a per-MWh basis we know that wind gets ~15 TIMES the subsidy of nuclear.
the subsidies will disappear in the next 10-20 years, but the nuclear subsidies will last forever. (well... until we run out of fuel in 50-70 years...)
from the article : >>At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power -- this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability.
basically: without the subsidies, there would not have been nuclear power; and TO THIS DAY, the TOTAL US yearly spending on nuclear power is as big as on wind !
And then that 600000 figure: that's provided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission... totally independent commission of course...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the mere existence of an "anti-nuclear group" precludes nuclear power from gaining ground.
and I think nuclear power is just expensive it just can't compete with wind power for example.
(and don't tell me wind power is not reliable: it is see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_power_source#European_super_grid)
do private insurers have better resume???
NO.
indeed, I have one that's already 3 years old. Still working fine. 10+ Hours of light with 1 set of batteries.
Just like kilobytes means 1000s of bytes
WRONG 'bytes' is NOT a SI unit, so the SI naming simply DOES NOT APPLY. a kilobyte is exactly 1024 bytes, not more, not less.
are you here to kill bill (gates) to prevent windows 9 from happening ?
here we go again with the base-load fallacy again. There is always wind. if not here, then a few hundred K's from here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_energy_source#European_super_grid
"indicates that the entire European power usage could come from renewables, with 70% total energy from wind at the same sort of costs or lower than at present."
here's another station:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Elisabeth_Base
http://www.antarcticstation.org/
not really. 40%+ of new electric power is wind, I predict that number will rise by 5% each year. the only new nuke in europe is PAINFULLY over budget.
maybe you should read this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_energy_source#European_super_grid
(10% per 100 km power loss is not that bad a number),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC
"losses are quoted as about 3% per 1,000 km"
nd wind fails almost simultaneously over distances sometimes as large as 500 k
SOURCE????
100x seems... optimistic.
indeed. but only 2x or 3x means the end of the combustion engine, if the cost can be kept under control.
US windturbine firms are just late to the party, and they'll catch up.
even so : the grants go back into the US economy, largely because transporting turbine parts is a [VERY] large part of the cost of a turbine, so producing them locally is important.
from summary:
Instead, they memorize a series of buttons to press to
and from your:
To find the key combination, they must read the message.
I would combine those 2 : On your regular screens: change the order of the buttons/text on the buttons, so they HAVE to read them.
I think that even if they only last 10 years at the same price per surface-unit, they'll still be more economically viable, because payback-time gets a lot better.
and after so many years, so many people in the US have trouble paying bills, while working very hard and many hours.
Free market economies are able to go from child labor and sweatshops to banks
Examples ?
Carrying a device that shouts(electromechanically) very loud your position, would destroy any notion of you caring for privacy I could guess. On the other hand : would those researchers REALLY care about your activities ?
Al gore is NOT a scientist. the people behind the IPCC are. And the latest IPCC report is clear: over 90% certainty. That's maximum 10% certainty for 'Not-AGW'. publish an article that debunks AGW, and you will win a Nobel prize, and billions of dollars.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
as a denier : you should work the rest out and prove that nothing is happening. Scientists are VERY clear: AGW is happening. if you can prove otherwise : go ahead; you can effectively win a nobel prize + 10 billion dollars from the oil-companies.
The problem with this debate is that one side has to prove their claims, while the other side just needs to create doubt by using unsubstantiated and even sometimes completely discredited claims. In this case, claiming that the other side is on the "gravy train" isn't supported by any evidence at all, and yet there is no way to disprove it either.
That's exactly my thought as well; and i would even go a bit further:
1/ the greenhouse effect is proven; without the Greenhouse-effect it would be nearly 20C colder on average, and CO2 is one of the gases responsible.
2/ CO2 levels has changed dramatically since the industrial revolution, in fact we can calculate how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere by looking at the amount of oil and gas sold.
3/ because of (1) and (2), 'NOT AGW' should be proven, because no further warming would mean a strange cut-off point for the greenhouse effect of CO2, and that would mean we need an extraordinary explanation for 'NOT-AGW'.
some facts about nuclear energy.
1/Nuclear energy does not make economic sense. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50308 (translation: it is expensive)
2/Having to store waste for over 100000 years is not what someone with any common sense would call 'green'.
3/limited liability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act
4/fuel-dependency
Most of the greenhouse gasses are water vapour
most != ALL. ... how's that for 'not a problem'?
so still rising sea-levels
1/ the greenhouse effect is proven; without the Greenhouse-effect it would be nearly 20C colder on average, and CO2 is one of the gases responsible.
2/ CO2 levels has changed dramatically since the industrial revolution, in fact we can calculate how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere by looking at the amount of oil and gas sold.
3/ because of (1) and (2), 'NOT AGW' should be proven, because no further warming would mean a strange cut-off point for the greenhouse effect of CO2, and that would mean we need an extraordinary explanation for 'NOT-AGW'.
The system will regulate itself? HAH! yeah, keep voting for the big bucks ...
Democrats (no friends of nuclear)
errr ... riiiight. They are as much bought-in by the private sector as the republicans are.
And on a per-MWh basis we know that wind gets ~15 TIMES the subsidy of nuclear.
the subsidies will disappear in the next 10-20 years, but the nuclear subsidies will last forever. (well ... until we run out of fuel in 50-70 years ...)
from the article :
>>At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power -- this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability.
basically: without the subsidies, there would not have been nuclear power; and TO THIS DAY, the TOTAL US yearly spending on nuclear power is as big as on wind !
And then that 600000 figure: that's provided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ... totally independent commission of course ...