Really? I submit you're not listening very closely then.
Last summer there was a raft of "will the heat in Texas finally convince the deniers?" kinds of stories on NPR. I know because I have to ilsten to it coming down my canyon every morning (can't pick up AM in the canyon) and some mornings that was literally all they talked about.
Fox on the other hand did a great job of presening the whole story. That's probably what Alarmists don't like.
A good way to start trying to convince people would be to stop insulting them because they disagree with you.
The term "denialist clowns" doesn't particularly make me want to take anything you say too awful serious. I might even toss back that you're an AGW cultist and then we're just calling each other names rather than listening to each other.
But you're taking one thing out of context. They have many flaws besides being anti nuclear, nor did I claim that not being perfect was a disqualifier of anything.
Qutie frankly they disqualified themselves from the conversation decades ago. Alarmists are always willing to throw Skeptics under the bus for the slightest mistake or undisclosed conflict, yet they make excuses when an organization like Greenpeace damages a world treasure or flat rejects a proven, sustainable, dense power source. They specifically are cowards unwilling to actually fight for their beliefs, preferring instead the power of regulation and to skulk around dragging banners across ancient archeological sites.
(And if it wasn't something that didn't represent the beliefs of most Alarmists, how come I never see Alarmists calling out such trash and apologizing for it when it happens? Skeptics sure seem to have to apologize for every nutter who doesn't believe in AGW.)
With all due respect, Greenpeace has its own issues. They damage one-of-a-kind national treasures (the Nazca lines), and are against the single biggest and best carbon-free energy source we've got (unclear).
Don't reckon listening to Greenpeace is high on the list, thanks.
You know, if that were all Alarmists wanted to do I'd support that totally. Heck I do support that already--I am 100% solar powered and 100% off-grid already.
But that's not where so many Alarmists stop. They want to ban beef because cows make methane. They want to force me to buy light bulbs that cost 10X as much as the ones I had because they use less energy (mox nix in my case since it's my power, but I use LEDs because it's my power). They want me to install showers that are even more low flow than the ones I have now, and it's been seriously proposed that I have to get rid of flush toilets completely in favor of stinky "dry toilets". Some of them want to ban the internal combustion engine, stop flying for pleasure (doesn't apply to their folks of course), cease cruise ships for the same reason, tear up roads in favor of bike paths everywhere.
Yeah. If they stopped at the power thing I'd be with them 100%. Go beyond that and they just get dismissed as seeking power over me. That may or may not be fair, but that's how it comes across.
That's a pretty dark view sir....."all they care about is how much they can make and how much power they have..."
As I recall the various statements Alarmists have made from Mann to Anan it's the AGW believers who have proposed throwing Skeptics into jail, fining them, firing them, etc. That sounds more like the power thing you're alluding to. Perhaps you're looking at the wrong group for where those who crave power over others reside.
Ha. No such technology exists, unless you don't count maintenance costs as additional costs.
This is untrue. My alma mater was the University of Missouri at Rolla (big tech school in Missouri) and it was a year before I realized that the tiny little building just off the library was an actual working nuclear reactor. Unless it's been relocated/moved it was about the size of two trailers more or less (though of concrete block construction) and I think three stories in all.
Right now we've got spent fuel sitting around on top of reactors just like at Fukushima, reactors which are in fact based on the same design as Fukushima.
It seems to me that Fukushima didn't have a design problem as much as it had a bad siting problem.
I loved my swamp cooler when I lived down in the flatter areas of Colorado...that sucker was cold.
Now I'm up at some altitude and in an ICF house, so my walls are very thick and I haven't felt the need for anything other than a couple of fans. Good construction of the house can very much make a difference, if that's an option (i.e. you're building from scratch).
You said "inexpensive". You didn't say "one time expense".
That said, you're basically arguing with the wrong person. As I said I'm 100% off-grid, love it totally, and wouldn't change it for the world. But it's not cheap, and that's what the original post was alleging to a degree I thought was too much.
FYI panels last around 20-ish years or so nowadays. They used to degrade roughly 1% a year but the newer ones don't....closer to.25% or so (haven't had mine long enough to really tell any difference at all).
No way I'd use a refurbished battery, but to each his own there.
I honestly don't know why you're being hostile....please explain how I'm to tell one AC from another?
As to answering an AC but thinking the conversation has gone too far without greater identification, you'll note I did engage the AC. Since I can't tell if further posts are him/her or if multiple people are involved I figured that was the end of it.
I did in fact explain precisely what my reasoning was (this is the post http://hardware.slashdot.org/c... if you need help). To my mind the question as asked and answered.
Really, the onus is on or more of the ACs to either say "thank you" for my explaining or to engage in further discussion. I would request the courtesy of an actual user ID however if they wish to continue.
I note I'm speaking to an AC in an AC thread here...but what the heck.
The original post did indeed read very much as if the OP was fobbing off most of the problems and costs to other people. This might not be what he/she intended of course, but he/she hasn't jumped back in to defend them either. I'm afraid I interpreted them virtually the same as the AC I agreed with did.
Having now had at least two and possibly three ACs in this conversation, I must insist on actual names for further conversation....
Slashdot Mirror
Well said sir. Captured it perfectly.
Ferret
Really? I submit you're not listening very closely then.
Last summer there was a raft of "will the heat in Texas finally convince the deniers?" kinds of stories on NPR. I know because I have to ilsten to it coming down my canyon every morning (can't pick up AM in the canyon) and some mornings that was literally all they talked about.
Fox on the other hand did a great job of presening the whole story. That's probably what Alarmists don't like.
Ferret
As Odin is my witness I swear we'll have a burst of "Atlanta is hot; proof of global warming at last" style headlines again this summer.
Alarmists like to continually claim "weather != climate" but seem to forget that readily enough once some city sets a heat record.
Ferret
> Not really. Most often one side or the other in an argument is actually correct.
I find this to rarely be the case.
Ferret
A good way to start trying to convince people would be to stop insulting them because they disagree with you.
The term "denialist clowns" doesn't particularly make me want to take anything you say too awful serious. I might even toss back that you're an AGW cultist and then we're just calling each other names rather than listening to each other.
Just a thought.
Ferret
But you're taking one thing out of context. They have many flaws besides being anti nuclear, nor did I claim that not being perfect was a disqualifier of anything.
Qutie frankly they disqualified themselves from the conversation decades ago. Alarmists are always willing to throw Skeptics under the bus for the slightest mistake or undisclosed conflict, yet they make excuses when an organization like Greenpeace damages a world treasure or flat rejects a proven, sustainable, dense power source. They specifically are cowards unwilling to actually fight for their beliefs, preferring instead the power of regulation and to skulk around dragging banners across ancient archeological sites.
Ferret
How so?
Ferret
This is true; thank you for that link.
(And if it wasn't something that didn't represent the beliefs of most Alarmists, how come I never see Alarmists calling out such trash and apologizing for it when it happens? Skeptics sure seem to have to apologize for every nutter who doesn't believe in AGW.)
Ferret
With all due respect, Greenpeace has its own issues. They damage one-of-a-kind national treasures (the Nazca lines), and are against the single biggest and best carbon-free energy source we've got (unclear).
Don't reckon listening to Greenpeace is high on the list, thanks.
Ferret
We can do it guys!
Ferret
I for one would welcome our dinosaur overlords.
Ferret
You know, if that were all Alarmists wanted to do I'd support that totally. Heck I do support that already--I am 100% solar powered and 100% off-grid already.
But that's not where so many Alarmists stop. They want to ban beef because cows make methane. They want to force me to buy light bulbs that cost 10X as much as the ones I had because they use less energy (mox nix in my case since it's my power, but I use LEDs because it's my power). They want me to install showers that are even more low flow than the ones I have now, and it's been seriously proposed that I have to get rid of flush toilets completely in favor of stinky "dry toilets". Some of them want to ban the internal combustion engine, stop flying for pleasure (doesn't apply to their folks of course), cease cruise ships for the same reason, tear up roads in favor of bike paths everywhere.
Yeah. If they stopped at the power thing I'd be with them 100%. Go beyond that and they just get dismissed as seeking power over me. That may or may not be fair, but that's how it comes across.
Ferret
The Alarmists hate it when you throw their own predictions back at them!
(I liked it mind you. Good list.)
Ferret
That's a pretty dark view sir....."all they care about is how much they can make and how much power they have..."
As I recall the various statements Alarmists have made from Mann to Anan it's the AGW believers who have proposed throwing Skeptics into jail, fining them, firing them, etc. That sounds more like the power thing you're alluding to. Perhaps you're looking at the wrong group for where those who crave power over others reside.
Ferret
Now I don't care who you are that's funny.
Ferret
I don't think calling out the design is exactly fair when compared to modern standards. We've learned a lot since then.
Ferret
Ha. No such technology exists, unless you don't count maintenance costs as additional costs.
This is untrue. My alma mater was the University of Missouri at Rolla (big tech school in Missouri) and it was a year before I realized that the tiny little building just off the library was an actual working nuclear reactor. Unless it's been relocated/moved it was about the size of two trailers more or less (though of concrete block construction) and I think three stories in all.
Ferret
Right now we've got spent fuel sitting around on top of reactors just like at Fukushima, reactors which are in fact based on the same design as Fukushima.
It seems to me that Fukushima didn't have a design problem as much as it had a bad siting problem.
Ferret
I know of no right winger--or any winger for that matter--who wants what you seem to think. And I pretty much go to all the meetings too.
I do know of a bunch of hardcore leftists who make up strawmans like that though.
Guess where I think you are?
Ferret
I loved my swamp cooler when I lived down in the flatter areas of Colorado...that sucker was cold.
Now I'm up at some altitude and in an ICF house, so my walls are very thick and I haven't felt the need for anything other than a couple of fans. Good construction of the house can very much make a difference, if that's an option (i.e. you're building from scratch).
Ferret
No, you're comparing highly-overpriced lithium-ion batteries to the low-ball-not-making-a-cent Tesla price.
Show me an actual chart of actual renewable system batteries and then you've got something. Until then you don't.
Ferret
Electric cars have limited range and some have problems in cold weather.
I can easily see a lot of folks having tried it and then...ah well, it was a noble experiment.
Ferret
You said "inexpensive". You didn't say "one time expense".
.25% or so (haven't had mine long enough to really tell any difference at all).
That said, you're basically arguing with the wrong person. As I said I'm 100% off-grid, love it totally, and wouldn't change it for the world. But it's not cheap, and that's what the original post was alleging to a degree I thought was too much.
FYI panels last around 20-ish years or so nowadays. They used to degrade roughly 1% a year but the newer ones don't....closer to
No way I'd use a refurbished battery, but to each his own there.
Ferret
I honestly don't know why you're being hostile....please explain how I'm to tell one AC from another?
As to answering an AC but thinking the conversation has gone too far without greater identification, you'll note I did engage the AC. Since I can't tell if further posts are him/her or if multiple people are involved I figured that was the end of it.
I did in fact explain precisely what my reasoning was (this is the post http://hardware.slashdot.org/c... if you need help). To my mind the question as asked and answered.
Really, the onus is on or more of the ACs to either say "thank you" for my explaining or to engage in further discussion. I would request the courtesy of an actual user ID however if they wish to continue.
Ferret
I note I'm speaking to an AC in an AC thread here...but what the heck.
The original post did indeed read very much as if the OP was fobbing off most of the problems and costs to other people. This might not be what he/she intended of course, but he/she hasn't jumped back in to defend them either. I'm afraid I interpreted them virtually the same as the AC I agreed with did.
Having now had at least two and possibly three ACs in this conversation, I must insist on actual names for further conversation....
Ferret