I explicitly used the contradiction 1 nuke many nukes. That's exactly the reasoning wind turbine opposers use about wind intermittency. if wind turbines can't be used because of intermittency, nuclear power plants can't be used and vice-versa.
and unplanned outages ? those are the things you need to consider for, and an outage for a nuke has much wider implications than a windturbine shutdown. The EU can produce 70% of its energy with wind at current technolgy with the same or lower costs; while wind turbines are still getting cheaper.
ANY power plant can fail due to technical reasons, so one nuclear power plant can not garantee base load. and that's exactly what's on that site : 'the ability to serve steady loads is a statistical attribute of all plants on the grid, not an operational requirement for one plant'
Please note, almost ALL other low and non-pollution energy generation does not generate base-load powe
wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_Power_Sources#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" Note, that nuclear is expensive, even at current state of technology, and nuclear is not CO2-free. furthermore: windpower is cheap, also when you take out the subsidies (ALL other forms of generation receive subsidies too).
Scientists are always trying to disprove. 'proving' a new theory is much harder than disproving the most widely adopted theories. see 'falsifiability' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
could be. but i think the media offers too little variation; the public doesn't come in contact with lots of fantastic stuff that's out there; the public would have a much more variying taste if they would be offered more; but that would be more work and less profit for the music companies - wouldn't it ?
I see a lot of themes/stories occurring in many different series, so it's probably not surprising references to a particular series is sometimes misinterpreted to be a reference to another series.
Should you be completely dismissed because you don't have a Ph.D.?
the problem is : no-one with a PhD. can effectively, on a scientific basis, crack AGW. so, on the one hand we have a lot of scientists claiming it is real, and showing the research backing it up, on the other hand a lot of scientists trying to 'break' AGW, and failing.
No, actions should have a economic positive effect on the long term: investing in efficiency, insulation,... taking NO actions is bound to have MUCH WORSE costs than those you envision to have of the cap-and-trade actions.
Slashdot Mirror
I explicitly used the contradiction 1 nuke many nukes.
That's exactly the reasoning wind turbine opposers use about wind intermittency. if wind turbines can't be used because of intermittency, nuclear power plants can't be used and vice-versa.
read http://www.claverton-energy.com/common-affordable-and-renewable-electricity-supply-for-europe-and-its-neighbourhood.html ...; oil will run out, ...)
100% renewable, with same or lower costs than current. (while nuclear power WILL become more expensive as demand increases
after 20 years, you can REUSE the materials of a windturbine. the same can not be said of a nuclear power plant.
and unplanned outages ? those are the things you need to consider for, and an outage for a nuke has much wider implications than a windturbine shutdown. The EU can produce 70% of its energy with wind at current technolgy with the same or lower costs; while wind turbines are still getting cheaper.
nuclear power plants do need nuclear fuel; and that is being mined with extensive damage to the environment, and a lot of CO2.
ANY power plant can fail due to technical reasons, so one nuclear power plant can not garantee base load. and that's exactly what's on that site : 'the ability to serve steady loads is a statistical attribute of all plants on the grid, not an operational requirement for one plant'
nuclear for base-load power generation
wrong again
http://nuclear-news.net/2009/11/10/examining-the-myth-of-nuclear-and-baseload-power/
Nuclear can NOT supply base-load.
Please note, almost ALL other low and non-pollution energy generation does not generate base-load powe
wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_Power_Sources#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"
Note, that nuclear is expensive, even at current state of technology, and nuclear is not CO2-free.
furthermore: windpower is cheap, also when you take out the subsidies (ALL other forms of generation receive subsidies too).
Scientists are always trying to disprove. 'proving' a new theory is much harder than disproving the most widely adopted theories. see 'falsifiability' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
It's funny the people warning us about one world (elected)government don't issue warnings about our (unelected)corporate overlords.
Plants don't evolve, they get changed by the touch of his noodly appendages
the concept of a 'nation' is seriously dated, and 99% artificial.
*foot*ball can only mean soccer.
Lots of people like mainstream media output,
could be. but i think the media offers too little variation; the public doesn't come in contact with lots of fantastic stuff that's out there; the public would have a much more variying taste if they would be offered more; but that would be more work and less profit for the music companies - wouldn't it ?
THEY LIKE IT
WRONG they buy it because
1/it's in the charts
2/because they are being brainwashed: the radio turning it 25000 times a day.(and the producers of those shows getting a cut).
optional railguns on the camera's ?
same here in belgium. Being 30+, I have never used cheques, only bank-cheques (for buying a house).
It isn't about limiting advertising. adverts could continue just fine, just not at an ear-destroying volume.
Income tax and mortgage lender subsidies
so how is it that those (democratic socialist) european states have had those for ages and are only affected by the american banks ?
I see a lot of themes/stories occurring in many different series, so it's probably not surprising references to a particular series is sometimes misinterpreted to be a reference to another series.
wrong ! that only occurs when we approach the Gnab Gib ! Red dwarf had a great documentary about that.
Should you be completely dismissed because you don't have a Ph.D.?
the problem is : no-one with a PhD. can effectively, on a scientific basis, crack AGW. so, on the one hand we have a lot of scientists claiming it is real, and showing the research backing it up, on the other hand a lot of scientists trying to 'break' AGW, and failing.
I still like cfl's better than incandescents: you don't get the full blast the first 2-3 seconds(less blinding ...), and the light is much relaxer.
the IPCC report amongst others. the scientific journals. a number of close friends in active scientific research.
No, actions should have a economic positive effect on the long term: investing in efficiency, insulation, ... taking NO actions is bound to have MUCH WORSE costs than those you envision to have of the cap-and-trade actions.
Continued employment depends on the results of their studies.
Then that also goes for all other scientific fields, but you single out climate science ?