I appreciate the effort to put numbers to this, but you're a bit premature and I have to note that you're not really including lost economic impact, relocation and rebuilding expenses in this analysis, which could dwarf the cost of actually cleaning up the site itself.
I do take your point though. it wouldn't automatically rule out nuclear on a cost basis.
it is simply not true that we must choose between nuclear and coal.
the technology for conservation is far beyond what we are utilizing right now. to say nothing at all of the half a dozen clean and renewable energy sources that are within twice the cost of nuclear energy per KWH.
that's the twice the cost of nuclear energy with NO CATASTROPHES to clean up, that is. I would be interested in seeing what the final cost tally from fukushima would do to the expected cost per KWH were it all borne by TEPCO instead of the japanese government. Including relocation, rebuilding, etc.
yeah, nothing to fear. that's why dangerous levels of radiation are found in seaweed 40 miles away and tens of thousands of animals are being killed, because there is *nothing to fear*. I see.
See, that's the silly thing. You haven't "proven" anything. You just had one test of hypothesis that supported your supposition. That's like jumping the first hurdle in a race and declaring yourself the winner. Now, it's true that's one test more than anything religious requires, but this is science! So we're not done yet. Other people get to check your results and run the test themselves.
Unfortunately for you, it's easy for anyone to test this hypothesis. Hey, people a timezone away from you do not see the same results. Hey, sometimes your paperboy is a little late. Whups, guess that wasn't a very good model, huh?
That's the difference between science and religion: science has the tools to disprove quackery built right in... note, that's not a complete elimination of all quackery, but the TOOLS TO DISPROVE QUACKERY. Lots of the climate change deniers are attempting to do that right now. they sure don't seem to be having much luck though. How
Religion? Hey, God makes the sun rise and/or created the conditions which result in suns rising. Good luck testing that one.
there is more to your analysis than just a raw EJ number. You completely ignore efficiency improvements and conservation as even passingly possible to contribute to this situation, and you just assume energy usage will continue to double indefinitely, which seems a bit shortsighted. We can't keep doubling energy usage with ANY energy source indefinitely, why should renewables be held to that standard?
We can double energy efficiency for our cars simply by leaving internal combustion behind. building energy usage can be drastically reduced with current techniques and technology, today, without much economic impact.
I have a 3,000 sq ft office/shop, in a cold climate (Maine), with a cold climate heat pump heating and cooling the space year round. a 9kw PV array (that's just what would cover my roof) with rough back of the envelope calculations should provide 1/3rd of the total energy requirements of this shop, including heating, cooling, ventilation, five person computer workstations with servers, lights, hot water, nighttime illumination, etc. And we didn't even design for real passive solar benefits.
so with CURRENT technology, I can provide more power than an equivalent residence should need with 3x the footprint of the building in PV. Storage, of course, is an issue but that's an assailable technical hurdle, and no one says ALL our energy has to be JUST PV... still have hydro, wind, tidal out there for more kicks, plus biomass thermal energy for heating needs. If you want to add a couple of commuter cars to the mix, do the math, but I doubt that multiplies the panel area by an order of magnitude or anything like it.
so while we may not be completely PV soon... we could make a pretty serious dent with a combination of PV and a transition to more efficient technologies, now.
actually, it would make the legitimacy of many of our rules and laws, or their lack thereof very apparent very quickly. how could you, say, demonize a pot smoker when it becomes very apparently not only how many people do so responsibly, but how THAT VERY PERSON'S behavior is?
the rules that govern us would be utterly FORCED to change to rules that actually work very quickly.
you are correct if we assume that privacy still exists for the rulemakers.
If there truly is NO privacy though, then the advantage goes back to the "numbers"... i.e., the masses vs the rule makers. the "masses" cannot be outmaneuvered very easily in that case and any way in which they are would be temporary. Further, with NO privacy lies would be harder to propagate as everyone could just see what really happened trivially easily, and one could argue with access to actual reality on a very large scale instead of only filtered snippets of it, people would be forced to evolve their understanding of the world beyond their comfortable assumptions and to something that better aligns with actual reality.
The real problem is if there IS privacy, just not for YOU. Then it's just a tool for control, usable by anyone who can seize the reins of the machinery.
You are assuming that all this infrastructure will last for ever. A wind turbine, for example, has a typical design life of twenty years so by 2050 you'd have to spend the cost twice. And you'd still be back where you started.
.... spending what you're spending now, but on clean and renewable energy instead of oil, and keeping the price of energy stable instead of erratic.
Hardly. When there is no god telling you that you SHOULD go killed those nasty people over there, then only insanity can tell you it's ok.
Sane people with any humanity in their hearts cannot conceive of such actions. Insane people are not stopped by the idea of an all powerful sky fairy that will punish them after they die: they believe they are on the SAME SIDE as that being.
Uh... progress for the sake of progress IS great, yes. Otherwise, it wouldn't be progress. It would be regressive or neutral.
Beating segregation was a great victory for progressives.
Eugenics, well, a quick trick to wikipedia notes that the first major org in the US to support it was an Immigration restriction league. Not exactly a progressive cause.
Teetotallers exist in both conservative and progressive stripes, but progressives generally support civil liberties.
See, we're saying progressives are liberals. not just anyone who claims that their route forward is "progress". You can't really call the GOP "Progressives", these days, for example.
We went through all this with blacks already. it's exactly the same fucking thing: having blacks in the military didn't make it illegal to make fun of anyone, and neither will this, despite all the hand wringing and "OMG I DUN WANNA BE PC" grunting.
It's not about people "taking offense". Of course, good manners is about that, but there is no law and never has been saying you have to have good manners. Unless you are in a position of power over someone else. Then you have to abide by professional rules of conduct, like not calling your underlings "bitches", "Niggers", or "fags". at least, once they get out of boot camp.
If someone shouts "faggot" in a firefight, I might cut them some slack. If they are hazing someone in a bunk, then they are a testosterone drunk frat boy with a gun and they need a lesson in discipline. You can wave it away all you like, but it's still bullshit and there is no reason to consider it acceptable behavior.
two gay men kissing each other does nothing whatsoever to target anyone in any way. Any discomfort felt is not for any reason you can rationally tie to their actions. They aren't threatening anyone.
If a gay man tries to kiss YOU, it's abusive and violent. It's not really that complicated.
Punishment in the military does not automagically mean prison. There are many levels of punishment below that. it's different than working at a company, but it's not that different in that respect and most of its differences would tell me I would want my military to be MORE professional, not less.
Systematic emotional abuse of people you don't like is violence. It does things like set up actual violence, and suicide.
A heated argument or something is one thing: messing around with people you know is another. Other than that, I don't think it's too much to ask for people in professional situations, such as professional military, to behave with a modicum of professionalism. If I work in a company and I slur or slander my co-workers, I get punished. The same should hold true whether you are gay, woman, minority or what have you in a military situation.
A neanderthal utopia isn't really my ideal definition of "freedom". Being "free" doesn't mean you are free to abuse everyone around you.
what part of "consenting adults" has anything to do with physical harm? That's entirely a mental construction. it's not about physical bodies, it's about mental development.
If my definition of freedom includes the right for you to exist as you wish, but your definition of freedom does not include that same right for me, then very simply, my definition of freedom is more free, and therefore superior, to yours.
If you wish to have LESS freedom, thinking that is superior for some reason, that's fine, but that's not more free or superior freedom. Then you have to start using other words. Because, you know, words mean stuff.
It happens a lot, actually. I don't think it's odd, either. If you don't struggle with homosexual thoughts or feelings, why in the world would it bother you so much to see it in others? Anyone comfortable with their sexuality, whatever it is, has no reason to be so obsessed with other people's.
I agree the argument CAN be made in a subtley homophobic manner. which is why I was very careful to make sure my wording did not in any way construe a negative toward homosexuality, and I called out the true concern: that he deal with this issue before he hurts someone.
If HE takes it as an insult because he's a homophobe, well, so be it.
If you are uncomfortable with other's freedom, (again back to the consenting adult litmus) then you are a bigot... you are irrationally opposed to another person's equal rights on the basis of irrelevant or woefully misguided reasons.
It's pretty simple really. It's absolutely enough to call someone a bigot over "one issue". People were once afraid of blacks in the military too. well, fuck those people, I have no problem at all making them "uncomfortable" if it means another human being gets to actually live their own lives, as they choose, with EQUAL rights.
and fuck these people for being afraid of gays serving openly too, just as heartily.
I don't know why it is this way. All I know is it is freakishly common for ardent anti-homosexuals to end up being exposed as homosexuals. Probably because it's possible to hide being a homosexual.
I suppose they may also be incredibly insecure, small minded morons like woman haters, or black haters too. Flip a coin, then.
if he's got a virgin butt hole, it won't be for long. The only people who rage against homosexuality are those who struggle with their own homosexuality.
it's sad, really. I hope he finds some peace before he hurts someone.
If one person's freedom includes anothers, that person's freedom is superior, as far as freedom goes.
Homophobes lose on that basis. They are still free to be assholes in a society that refuses to codify their bigotry, but gays are not free to determine their own destiny in a society codified with homophobia.
the two are not equal.
You could extend this argument to pedophiles and others, of course. But then you fall on the "consenting adults of sound mind" clause, so let's not bother having that conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
I appreciate the effort to put numbers to this, but you're a bit premature and I have to note that you're not really including lost economic impact, relocation and rebuilding expenses in this analysis, which could dwarf the cost of actually cleaning up the site itself.
I do take your point though. it wouldn't automatically rule out nuclear on a cost basis.
take your pick: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Comparative_electrical_generation_costs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
and PV's still coming down...
it is simply not true that we must choose between nuclear and coal.
the technology for conservation is far beyond what we are utilizing right now. to say nothing at all of the half a dozen clean and renewable energy sources that are within twice the cost of nuclear energy per KWH.
that's the twice the cost of nuclear energy with NO CATASTROPHES to clean up, that is. I would be interested in seeing what the final cost tally from fukushima would do to the expected cost per KWH were it all borne by TEPCO instead of the japanese government. Including relocation, rebuilding, etc.
yeah, nothing to fear. that's why dangerous levels of radiation are found in seaweed 40 miles away and tens of thousands of animals are being killed, because there is *nothing to fear*. I see.
See, that's the silly thing. You haven't "proven" anything. You just had one test of hypothesis that supported your supposition. That's like jumping the first hurdle in a race and declaring yourself the winner. Now, it's true that's one test more than anything religious requires, but this is science! So we're not done yet. Other people get to check your results and run the test themselves.
Unfortunately for you, it's easy for anyone to test this hypothesis. Hey, people a timezone away from you do not see the same results. Hey, sometimes your paperboy is a little late. Whups, guess that wasn't a very good model, huh?
That's the difference between science and religion: science has the tools to disprove quackery built right in... note, that's not a complete elimination of all quackery, but the TOOLS TO DISPROVE QUACKERY. Lots of the climate change deniers are attempting to do that right now. they sure don't seem to be having much luck though. How
Religion? Hey, God makes the sun rise and/or created the conditions which result in suns rising. Good luck testing that one.
there is more to your analysis than just a raw EJ number. You completely ignore efficiency improvements and conservation as even passingly possible to contribute to this situation, and you just assume energy usage will continue to double indefinitely, which seems a bit shortsighted. We can't keep doubling energy usage with ANY energy source indefinitely, why should renewables be held to that standard?
We can double energy efficiency for our cars simply by leaving internal combustion behind. building energy usage can be drastically reduced with current techniques and technology, today, without much economic impact.
I have a 3,000 sq ft office/shop, in a cold climate (Maine), with a cold climate heat pump heating and cooling the space year round. a 9kw PV array (that's just what would cover my roof) with rough back of the envelope calculations should provide 1/3rd of the total energy requirements of this shop, including heating, cooling, ventilation, five person computer workstations with servers, lights, hot water, nighttime illumination, etc. And we didn't even design for real passive solar benefits.
so with CURRENT technology, I can provide more power than an equivalent residence should need with 3x the footprint of the building in PV. Storage, of course, is an issue but that's an assailable technical hurdle, and no one says ALL our energy has to be JUST PV... still have hydro, wind, tidal out there for more kicks, plus biomass thermal energy for heating needs. If you want to add a couple of commuter cars to the mix, do the math, but I doubt that multiplies the panel area by an order of magnitude or anything like it.
so while we may not be completely PV soon... we could make a pretty serious dent with a combination of PV and a transition to more efficient technologies, now.
actually, it would make the legitimacy of many of our rules and laws, or their lack thereof very apparent very quickly. how could you, say, demonize a pot smoker when it becomes very apparently not only how many people do so responsibly, but how THAT VERY PERSON'S behavior is?
the rules that govern us would be utterly FORCED to change to rules that actually work very quickly.
you are correct if we assume that privacy still exists for the rulemakers.
If there truly is NO privacy though, then the advantage goes back to the "numbers"... i.e., the masses vs the rule makers. the "masses" cannot be outmaneuvered very easily in that case and any way in which they are would be temporary. Further, with NO privacy lies would be harder to propagate as everyone could just see what really happened trivially easily, and one could argue with access to actual reality on a very large scale instead of only filtered snippets of it, people would be forced to evolve their understanding of the world beyond their comfortable assumptions and to something that better aligns with actual reality.
The real problem is if there IS privacy, just not for YOU. Then it's just a tool for control, usable by anyone who can seize the reins of the machinery.
You are assuming that all this infrastructure will last for ever. A wind turbine, for example, has a typical design life of twenty years so by 2050 you'd have to spend the cost twice. And you'd still be back where you started.
.... spending what you're spending now, but on clean and renewable energy instead of oil, and keeping the price of energy stable instead of erratic.
sounds like a pretty good deal to me
I'll take burning a koran in turkey over burning a flag in rural alabama.
Hardly. When there is no god telling you that you SHOULD go killed those nasty people over there, then only insanity can tell you it's ok.
Sane people with any humanity in their hearts cannot conceive of such actions. Insane people are not stopped by the idea of an all powerful sky fairy that will punish them after they die: they believe they are on the SAME SIDE as that being.
Uh... progress for the sake of progress IS great, yes. Otherwise, it wouldn't be progress. It would be regressive or neutral.
Beating segregation was a great victory for progressives.
Eugenics, well, a quick trick to wikipedia notes that the first major org in the US to support it was an Immigration restriction league. Not exactly a progressive cause.
Teetotallers exist in both conservative and progressive stripes, but progressives generally support civil liberties.
See, we're saying progressives are liberals. not just anyone who claims that their route forward is "progress". You can't really call the GOP "Progressives", these days, for example.
We went through all this with blacks already. it's exactly the same fucking thing: having blacks in the military didn't make it illegal to make fun of anyone, and neither will this, despite all the hand wringing and "OMG I DUN WANNA BE PC" grunting.
It's not about people "taking offense". Of course, good manners is about that, but there is no law and never has been saying you have to have good manners. Unless you are in a position of power over someone else. Then you have to abide by professional rules of conduct, like not calling your underlings "bitches", "Niggers", or "fags". at least, once they get out of boot camp.
If someone shouts "faggot" in a firefight, I might cut them some slack. If they are hazing someone in a bunk, then they are a testosterone drunk frat boy with a gun and they need a lesson in discipline. You can wave it away all you like, but it's still bullshit and there is no reason to consider it acceptable behavior.
two gay men kissing each other does nothing whatsoever to target anyone in any way. Any discomfort felt is not for any reason you can rationally tie to their actions. They aren't threatening anyone.
If a gay man tries to kiss YOU, it's abusive and violent. It's not really that complicated.
Punishment in the military does not automagically mean prison. There are many levels of punishment below that. it's different than working at a company, but it's not that different in that respect and most of its differences would tell me I would want my military to be MORE professional, not less.
Systematic emotional abuse of people you don't like is violence. It does things like set up actual violence, and suicide.
A heated argument or something is one thing: messing around with people you know is another. Other than that, I don't think it's too much to ask for people in professional situations, such as professional military, to behave with a modicum of professionalism. If I work in a company and I slur or slander my co-workers, I get punished. The same should hold true whether you are gay, woman, minority or what have you in a military situation.
A neanderthal utopia isn't really my ideal definition of "freedom". Being "free" doesn't mean you are free to abuse everyone around you.
If we didn't see another new high profile example of it about once a month, I might think it weird too. Now I simply accept it.
what part of "consenting adults" has anything to do with physical harm? That's entirely a mental construction. it's not about physical bodies, it's about mental development.
you completely failed to comprehend my statement.
If my definition of freedom includes the right for you to exist as you wish, but your definition of freedom does not include that same right for me, then very simply, my definition of freedom is more free, and therefore superior, to yours.
If you wish to have LESS freedom, thinking that is superior for some reason, that's fine, but that's not more free or superior freedom. Then you have to start using other words. Because, you know, words mean stuff.
of course it's not a perfect predictor. but I bet it's better than 50/50.
It happens a lot, actually. I don't think it's odd, either. If you don't struggle with homosexual thoughts or feelings, why in the world would it bother you so much to see it in others? Anyone comfortable with their sexuality, whatever it is, has no reason to be so obsessed with other people's.
I agree the argument CAN be made in a subtley homophobic manner. which is why I was very careful to make sure my wording did not in any way construe a negative toward homosexuality, and I called out the true concern: that he deal with this issue before he hurts someone.
If HE takes it as an insult because he's a homophobe, well, so be it.
Freedom trumps discomfort, every single time.
If you are uncomfortable with other's freedom, (again back to the consenting adult litmus) then you are a bigot... you are irrationally opposed to another person's equal rights on the basis of irrelevant or woefully misguided reasons.
It's pretty simple really. It's absolutely enough to call someone a bigot over "one issue". People were once afraid of blacks in the military too. well, fuck those people, I have no problem at all making them "uncomfortable" if it means another human being gets to actually live their own lives, as they choose, with EQUAL rights.
and fuck these people for being afraid of gays serving openly too, just as heartily.
I don't know why it is this way. All I know is it is freakishly common for ardent anti-homosexuals to end up being exposed as homosexuals. Probably because it's possible to hide being a homosexual.
I suppose they may also be incredibly insecure, small minded morons like woman haters, or black haters too. Flip a coin, then.
you mean we get to strike a blow against predjudice, put bigots out of work AND slash the size of our military?
fuck yeah!!! this is the mother lode!!
if he's got a virgin butt hole, it won't be for long. The only people who rage against homosexuality are those who struggle with their own homosexuality.
it's sad, really. I hope he finds some peace before he hurts someone.
If one person's freedom includes anothers, that person's freedom is superior, as far as freedom goes.
Homophobes lose on that basis. They are still free to be assholes in a society that refuses to codify their bigotry, but gays are not free to determine their own destiny in a society codified with homophobia.
the two are not equal.
You could extend this argument to pedophiles and others, of course. But then you fall on the "consenting adults of sound mind" clause, so let's not bother having that conversation.