Some payback calculations assume x rate of return as a comparison, others don't. Don't assume.
Also, remember that the life of solar is greater than 7 years, so after that it's all "gravy"...or, in other words, you get a dividend into perpetuity (or when you sell the house.) Because the payback time is less than 10 years, you know that the dividend is better than 10 percent/year, which is far more than one can expect from stocks. So, if necessary, you can extend the payback time a few years to account for a regular rate of return, but it still ends up positive.
Also, they are in inflation-proof investment, which is better than can be said for almost everything else right now.
That's even more expensive. Better to go with cheaper solutions, which also happen to be renewable, clean, and completely safe. (Even if you think nuke plants are safe, the potential for harm from workers who may decide they want to kill a lot of people is very, very high.)
Get rid of all the stupid lawsuits, and the capital costs drop to 1/10th of that. [Citation needed]
The cost of lawsuits is part of insurance and bond costs. And it's true that insurance companies won't get near the nuclear industry, for good reason. However, it is not reflected in capital costs. The reason capital costs are so high is because that's what it takes to build a "safe" reactor.
We don't have an infinite supply of uranium, or even close. And breeder reactors, while they postpone the endgame, do not eliminate it, not to mention they are even more expensive than what we're talking about today.
If the choice was between nuke and coal, it would be a different conversation.
I don't understand why people (especially tech people) are so averse to building a clean and sustainable energy future. Wind could be 20 percent of the grid tomorrow, if we'd just redirect the oil subsidies and nuclear subsides to renewables. Nuclear is interesting, but in the end is only best for research, submarines and aircraft carriers. And bombs.
Of course, if a major breakthrough does cause problems downstream...who cares? It's more attractive than the alternative. Just so long as those problems are far enough out.
No, what they really want to do is level the playing field between internet and traditional retailers. And make money.
Right now states with high sales tax (but no income tax) are losing out big time.
The federal government could come up with a workable and simple system to collect sales tax and distribute it to the states. And that system would be totally constitutional, because the federal government can regulate interstate commerce. I hope they do a good job. If it's bad, it'll be really bad.
How about the fact that federal receipts went up after the Bush tax cuts? It's called the Laffer curve.
Liar. Either that or grossly misinformed. The Laffer curve is right about one thing: at zero percent tax rate, the government collects no revenue. Other than that, it is a teaching tool for the law of diminishing returns. That's it. We don't know where the curve peaks, or even if it's a curve.
Ack. I hope you either don't vote, or educate yourself before your next chance.
Hopefully, they'll make it into a simple federal system, where business engaging in interstate commerce just send in a percentage of their sales to a central agency, which would then make payouts to the 50 states based on the average number of purchases that each state with sales tax makes.
The retailer would have the choice of charging sales tax depending on the ZIP code of the buyer, or, in the case of mom-and-pop organizations, could just charge everybody 5.5 percent (or whatever the magic number is.) It wouldn't be too hard to do.
To make it complete, exempt any company or individual that does less than $1,500/year from filing, so truly tiny business or shareware companies don't need to worry about crap like this.
And if you're running a company, and you are impressed by people go through superficial actions to try to impress you, then you are a fool, and your business will suffer.
We all know how the real world works. Most reasonable people think that they should be free from their employer's influence when they are off the clock. That's what that last sentence was getting at, and it's not controversial at all, among people most not working in management....i.e. people who have not made their life ambition to control others.
Not that all managers are that way: the best ones aren't. And you can tell when you're working for one, because everyone is more productive and happier, turnover is lower, and people actually dedicate more of their efforts and lives to the company, even when not on the clock. Also, these managers have trouble getting promoted, because they don't make getting promoted their all-encompassing goal.
Once companies discovers they have to fire the vast majority of their employees because there just aren't as many cookiecutter droids as HR had hoped, and society collapses. That sounds exactly right. I wish I could mod you up past +5. When I was doing research on drug testing in the late 90s, I found that certain industries stopped doing drug tests, bucking then-current trends. They did this when they figured out that it was impossible for them to find enough employees to continue to operate. There was one company, in the security field I think, that gave aprox. 850 employees random drug tests, and 780 of them failed....They never did another drug test.
P.S. Being in a position of "responsibility" at a company should not restrain someone from acting as irresponsible as they wish on their own time. It's legal in this country, and common...and sad. He wasn't drawing down CNN's reputation at all; at least, not until they fired him. He never even mentioned CNN on his blog until now. CNN is just doing what big corporations always do: try to control everything they can.
He never griped about CNN on his blog. That was a large part of the problem with CNN's decision, or at least why it gets such a reaction. A lot of people are really uncomfortable with being forced to conform to a narrow, "corporate" veneer both at work and at home. Most people give work 8-10 hours+ of their life every day. It's not too much to ask companies to stay away from the few free waking hours people have remaining.
This is why unions are a good idea. Bosses have too much power.
Keynesian economics would indeed prescribe low interest rates. However, John Maynard Keynes would roll in his grave if he heard that someone thought the Bush tax cuts were Keynesian. He believed that money should be redistributed to those at the bottom though public works and taxes, because those at the bottom were most likely to spend it.
Might I recommend you look at Western Europe, or South Korea, or Canada for that matter, and then report back once you know what you're talking about? Obama and Clinton would be considered center-right in most countries, if not right wing. Get some perspective, (wo)man.
Yes, but it's still a dead city. 2,800 Sq Km that is too dangerous to live in for any length of time. Why do you insist on minimizing this?
That would have happened even without the accident. Cancer is one of the leading causes of death today, Chernobyl or no Chernobyl. Cancer rates have been worse for several neighboring areas with not particularly clean chemical production facilities.
Forgive me, I assumed that you would understand that I meant "cancers that otherwise would not have happened." Obviously you can't tell the exact cause for most cancers, but, depending on which study you look at, a whole lot more than 60 people have died from that accident. (That study, from the WHO, has a lot more credibility for me than a study that comes from what is in effect a nuclear power lobby group)
She lacks credibility because she ignores, as you also choose to ignore, evidence (and, in the case of the dead zone, blindingly obvious facts) that contradict the point she tries to make.
To answer your question about green baseload replacements, try googling "pumped storage." Proven, simple and efficient. After that, think about (and google) tidal power and hydrogen generation/burning. There are others as well. The world is not as hopeless as the nuclear power industry wants you to believe.
And the cost of nuclear power is FAR more than what you claim. First, did you notice that your link points to a paper from an Australian uranium mining lobby group? Second, that study vastly underestimated the cost of commissioning new plants, which the study pegs at close to $1000/KW, is in reality always at least double that. A decent wikipedia discussion of this exists. See also the MIT study. (which, by the ways, puts the current lifecycle cost of nuke at 6.7 cents/KWh, which is far more then any mainstream power source)
I used to be very much for nuclear power, until I did research with an open mind. The truth is that it's very expensive, has a poor safety track record (and, in case you need something to keep you up at night, think about the dangers and potential for sabotage when we move all this radioactive material around), and is unnecessary. You can talk as much as you want about safeguards to the nuke process, but in the end either government (corrupt) or private industry (more corrupt) has to build and run these things. If we spent the money and energy that is currently going to nuke on developing and building truly green power, we'd all be much better off.
Freakin' ridiculous. She claims that about 60 people died from Chernobyl. She does not mention the dead city, and the thousands of people who died from cancers in surrounding areas. She has exactly zero credibility. She also doesn't mention the huge cost per MWh of nuke, and ignores methods (that do really exist!) for "green" replacement of baseload. You're right though, she is a StupidPerson. "Stupid person changes sides, now ignorantly advocates for something she does not understand" would be a better headline.
First of all, this is one of the worst "studies" I've ever seen. It was a survey, by an industry group, asking its members "are you costing American jobs?"
Of course everyone is going to answer "No, we didn't bleed any American jobs, we just added-on to current numbers." I would imagine that the companies that fired large numbers of American programmers just didn't respond. And of course a survey by an industry group is going to come to exactly the conclusion that the industry group wants to put forward: that we need more H1-B visas, rather then "companies need to spend more money on training."
Total rubbish.
I've used Opera and Firefox...neither work as well for me as Camino. Anyway, if I have to use an adblocker, It's not a welcoming community site. There's no place in my life for obtrusive ads, and I won't patronize the business of those who treat their customers in such a way.
I know this is off topic...but screw the Karma. I just had a video pop-up ad appear on the slashdot homepage. If this keeps happening, I won't ever come back.
Slashdot Mirror
Some payback calculations assume x rate of return as a comparison, others don't. Don't assume.
Also, remember that the life of solar is greater than 7 years, so after that it's all "gravy"...or, in other words, you get a dividend into perpetuity (or when you sell the house.) Because the payback time is less than 10 years, you know that the dividend is better than 10 percent/year, which is far more than one can expect from stocks. So, if necessary, you can extend the payback time a few years to account for a regular rate of return, but it still ends up positive.
Also, they are in inflation-proof investment, which is better than can be said for almost everything else right now.
-Daniel
That's even more expensive. Better to go with cheaper solutions, which also happen to be renewable, clean, and completely safe. (Even if you think nuke plants are safe, the potential for harm from workers who may decide they want to kill a lot of people is very, very high.)
Get rid of all the stupid lawsuits, and the capital costs drop to 1/10th of that. [Citation needed]
The cost of lawsuits is part of insurance and bond costs. And it's true that insurance companies won't get near the nuclear industry, for good reason. However, it is not reflected in capital costs. The reason capital costs are so high is because that's what it takes to build a "safe" reactor.
We don't have an infinite supply of uranium, or even close. And breeder reactors, while they postpone the endgame, do not eliminate it, not to mention they are even more expensive than what we're talking about today.
If the choice was between nuke and coal, it would be a different conversation.
I don't understand why people (especially tech people) are so averse to building a clean and sustainable energy future. Wind could be 20 percent of the grid tomorrow, if we'd just redirect the oil subsidies and nuclear subsides to renewables. Nuclear is interesting, but in the end is only best for research, submarines and aircraft carriers. And bombs.
Nuclear is less cost-effective than wind, especially when one takes into account total life cycle costs and interest on capital costs.
The MIT study is best, but I can't find it right now. This will have to do:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/13/11021/6597
Kennedy missed the vote because he has cancer.
I'm not sure what you were trying to imply there, actually.
Of course, if a major breakthrough does cause problems downstream...who cares? It's more attractive than the alternative. Just so long as those problems are far enough out.
I've seen a few people talk about these tax cuts. Does anyone have a reference to them? They seem to have escaped into my memory hole.
No, what they really want to do is level the playing field between internet and traditional retailers. And make money.
Right now states with high sales tax (but no income tax) are losing out big time.
The federal government could come up with a workable and simple system to collect sales tax and distribute it to the states. And that system would be totally constitutional, because the federal government can regulate interstate commerce. I hope they do a good job. If it's bad, it'll be really bad.
How about the fact that federal receipts went up after the Bush tax cuts? It's called the Laffer curve.
Liar. Either that or grossly misinformed. The Laffer curve is right about one thing: at zero percent tax rate, the government collects no revenue. Other than that, it is a teaching tool for the law of diminishing returns. That's it. We don't know where the curve peaks, or even if it's a curve.Ack. I hope you either don't vote, or educate yourself before your next chance.
-Daniel
Hopefully, they'll make it into a simple federal system, where business engaging in interstate commerce just send in a percentage of their sales to a central agency, which would then make payouts to the 50 states based on the average number of purchases that each state with sales tax makes.
The retailer would have the choice of charging sales tax depending on the ZIP code of the buyer, or, in the case of mom-and-pop organizations, could just charge everybody 5.5 percent (or whatever the magic number is.) It wouldn't be too hard to do.
To make it complete, exempt any company or individual that does less than $1,500/year from filing, so truly tiny business or shareware companies don't need to worry about crap like this.
What do you guys think?
-Daniel
Very interesting. Sounds like they're poorly built though...and I'm not sure if it's a good idea for a first-generation physical tech to be automated.
Still, good to know that the world is listening to my Slashdot posts.
The quickest way to load planes would be to put the aircraft door near the middle of the plane.
Many planes also have multiple sets of doors, so that would speed it up even more in exchange for a modest investment in jet ways.
This isn't rocket science, folks. High-tech solutions need not apply here.
And if you're running a company, and you are impressed by people go through superficial actions to try to impress you, then you are a fool, and your business will suffer.
Most of what you wrote is fine, but that last sentence lacks a reality-based perspective. Unless you assume that everyone is independently wealthy.
We all know how the real world works. Most reasonable people think that they should be free from their employer's influence when they are off the clock. That's what that last sentence was getting at, and it's not controversial at all, among people most not working in management....i.e. people who have not made their life ambition to control others.
Not that all managers are that way: the best ones aren't. And you can tell when you're working for one, because everyone is more productive and happier, turnover is lower, and people actually dedicate more of their efforts and lives to the company, even when not on the clock. Also, these managers have trouble getting promoted, because they don't make getting promoted their all-encompassing goal.
-Daniel
Once companies discovers they have to fire the vast majority of their employees because there just aren't as many cookiecutter droids as HR had hoped, and society collapses. That sounds exactly right. I wish I could mod you up past +5. When I was doing research on drug testing in the late 90s, I found that certain industries stopped doing drug tests, bucking then-current trends. They did this when they figured out that it was impossible for them to find enough employees to continue to operate. There was one company, in the security field I think, that gave aprox. 850 employees random drug tests, and 780 of them failed.
-Daniel
"extremist and offensive"? Really?
Man, you've got to get out more often.
-Daniel
P.S. Being in a position of "responsibility" at a company should not restrain someone from acting as irresponsible as they wish on their own time. It's legal in this country, and common...and sad. He wasn't drawing down CNN's reputation at all; at least, not until they fired him. He never even mentioned CNN on his blog until now. CNN is just doing what big corporations always do: try to control everything they can.
He never griped about CNN on his blog. That was a large part of the problem with CNN's decision, or at least why it gets such a reaction. A lot of people are really uncomfortable with being forced to conform to a narrow, "corporate" veneer both at work and at home. Most people give work 8-10 hours+ of their life every day. It's not too much to ask companies to stay away from the few free waking hours people have remaining.
This is why unions are a good idea. Bosses have too much power.
-Daniel
Keynesian economics would indeed prescribe low interest rates. However, John Maynard Keynes would roll in his grave if he heard that someone thought the Bush tax cuts were Keynesian. He believed that money should be redistributed to those at the bottom though public works and taxes, because those at the bottom were most likely to spend it.
-Daniel
Might I recommend you look at Western Europe, or South Korea, or Canada for that matter, and then report back once you know what you're talking about? Obama and Clinton would be considered center-right in most countries, if not right wing. Get some perspective, (wo)man.
-Daniel
That still have people living around it.
Yes, but it's still a dead city. 2,800 Sq Km that is too dangerous to live in for any length of time. Why do you insist on minimizing this?
That would have happened even without the accident. Cancer is one of the leading causes of death today, Chernobyl or no Chernobyl. Cancer rates have been worse for several neighboring areas with not particularly clean chemical production facilities.
Forgive me, I assumed that you would understand that I meant "cancers that otherwise would not have happened." Obviously you can't tell the exact cause for most cancers, but, depending on which study you look at, a whole lot more than 60 people have died from that accident. (That study, from the WHO, has a lot more credibility for me than a study that comes from what is in effect a nuclear power lobby group)
She lacks credibility because she ignores, as you also choose to ignore, evidence (and, in the case of the dead zone, blindingly obvious facts) that contradict the point she tries to make.
To answer your question about green baseload replacements, try googling "pumped storage." Proven, simple and efficient. After that, think about (and google) tidal power and hydrogen generation/burning. There are others as well. The world is not as hopeless as the nuclear power industry wants you to believe.
And the cost of nuclear power is FAR more than what you claim. First, did you notice that your link points to a paper from an Australian uranium mining lobby group? Second, that study vastly underestimated the cost of commissioning new plants, which the study pegs at close to $1000/KW, is in reality always at least double that. A decent wikipedia discussion of this exists. See also the MIT study. (which, by the ways, puts the current lifecycle cost of nuke at 6.7 cents/KWh, which is far more then any mainstream power source)
I used to be very much for nuclear power, until I did research with an open mind. The truth is that it's very expensive, has a poor safety track record (and, in case you need something to keep you up at night, think about the dangers and potential for sabotage when we move all this radioactive material around), and is unnecessary. You can talk as much as you want about safeguards to the nuke process, but in the end either government (corrupt) or private industry (more corrupt) has to build and run these things. If we spent the money and energy that is currently going to nuke on developing and building truly green power, we'd all be much better off.
-Daniel
Freakin' ridiculous. She claims that about 60 people died from Chernobyl. She does not mention the dead city, and the thousands of people who died from cancers in surrounding areas. She has exactly zero credibility.
She also doesn't mention the huge cost per MWh of nuke, and ignores methods (that do really exist!) for "green" replacement of baseload.
You're right though, she is a StupidPerson. "Stupid person changes sides, now ignorantly advocates for something she does not understand" would be a better headline.
-Daniel
Of course everyone is going to answer "No, we didn't bleed any American jobs, we just added-on to current numbers." I would imagine that the companies that fired large numbers of American programmers just didn't respond. And of course a survey by an industry group is going to come to exactly the conclusion that the industry group wants to put forward: that we need more H1-B visas, rather then "companies need to spend more money on training." Total rubbish.
I've used Opera and Firefox...neither work as well for me as Camino. Anyway, if I have to use an adblocker, It's not a welcoming community site. There's no place in my life for obtrusive ads, and I won't patronize the business of those who treat their customers in such a way.
I know this is off topic...but screw the Karma. I just had a video pop-up ad appear on the slashdot homepage. If this keeps happening, I won't ever come back.
-Daniel