Which is why we shouldn't shut down the existing ones. Also, you can build them in parallel, thus building all would not cost more time than building one.
You misunderstood what you have read, it only pointed out that indefinite exponential growth in energy usage is impossible. You don't have to be afraid of the planet boiling away.
Nuclear power is the best intermediate solution. It's a finite resource, so the best we can do is to use it to buy some time until we develop effective renewable alternatives.
Yeah sure, solar panels have a limited lifetime -- about 25 years, by which time the next generation of them will make twice or more as many panels from the same amount of materials harvested by recycling them.
Current high-end panels can convert 20% of the sunlight to electricity so I'm curious about the ones in 2085 that will have an efficiency of 160%...
No. Advertising serves a very useful purpose in today's economy. As GP has pointed out, it's essentially an "ignorance tax", as gullible people will pay more for a better advertised product then they would without the marketing. And this "tax" is what funds radio, TV, Internet, sports and many other sponsored events like charities or festivals. Why shouldn't we let the dumb use their money for good? A huge chunk of IT profits come from advertising, and many of us here on/. wouldn't have jobs without it. Just think about, without advertising Google wouldn't even exist.
First of all, we should make a distinction between renewable and clean energy sources, as the article seems to treat them like they were the same. For example, biomass is renewable but not ecology-friendly, while nuclear power is clean but not reneweable.
The argument that building plants costs resources has little to do with long-term usage, as it is a one-time cost. And at the end of it's lifetime most building materials can be recycled would we ran out of them. That plants use water, yes it's true, but they don't make water disappear, they just turn it into vapor. The problem seems to be only local, as the area of the plant runs out of water. That's why most non-renewable plants are built next to rivers. The problem with some renewable sources is that they require optimal places to work effectively. This is a valid problem but one that has little to do with renewability. Yes, hydropower and especially biomass have severe ecological and social problems, which again has nothing to do with renewability.
Worrying about when will we run out of steel, concrete, rare earths or water is simply stupid.
I thought that the point of reading the meters was to ensure that they aren't tampered. If you just read them remotely you could just as well have them to send an SMS home with the data, there is no point in human reading.
Slashdot Mirror
...and thus kill the free software movement.
How would you sue a software developed by hundreds of anonymous people?
If we could get trams not to stop because of traffic that would be very good already.
Open source and zero-cost are different things.
The real reason is that a game dumbed down for console players won't sell well on PC.
Which is why we shouldn't shut down the existing ones. Also, you can build them in parallel, thus building all would not cost more time than building one.
You misunderstood what you have read, it only pointed out that indefinite exponential growth in energy usage is impossible. You don't have to be afraid of the planet boiling away.
Molten salt solar plants can store energy quite efficiently.
Not if we kill them first!
Nuclear power is the best intermediate solution. It's a finite resource, so the best we can do is to use it to buy some time until we develop effective renewable alternatives.
Yeah sure, solar panels have a limited lifetime -- about 25 years, by which time the next generation of them will make twice or more as many panels from the same amount of materials harvested by recycling them.
Current high-end panels can convert 20% of the sunlight to electricity so I'm curious about the ones in 2085 that will have an efficiency of 160%...
No. Advertising serves a very useful purpose in today's economy. As GP has pointed out, it's essentially an "ignorance tax", as gullible people will pay more for a better advertised product then they would without the marketing. And this "tax" is what funds radio, TV, Internet, sports and many other sponsored events like charities or festivals. Why shouldn't we let the dumb use their money for good? A huge chunk of IT profits come from advertising, and many of us here on /. wouldn't have jobs without it. Just think about, without advertising Google wouldn't even exist.
First of all, we should make a distinction between renewable and clean energy sources, as the article seems to treat them like they were the same. For example, biomass is renewable but not ecology-friendly, while nuclear power is clean but not reneweable.
The argument that building plants costs resources has little to do with long-term usage, as it is a one-time cost. And at the end of it's lifetime most building materials can be recycled would we ran out of them.
That plants use water, yes it's true, but they don't make water disappear, they just turn it into vapor. The problem seems to be only local, as the area of the plant runs out of water. That's why most non-renewable plants are built next to rivers. The problem with some renewable sources is that they require optimal places to work effectively. This is a valid problem but one that has little to do with renewability.
Yes, hydropower and especially biomass have severe ecological and social problems, which again has nothing to do with renewability.
Worrying about when will we run out of steel, concrete, rare earths or water is simply stupid.
I am quite sure that in other areas where I am less knowledgeable I am probably duped into paying more than I should
Which is why the Internet is a wonderful tool. Learn to use it instead of blaming advertisers.
A somewhat older but more detailed article.
I thought that the point of reading the meters was to ensure that they aren't tampered. If you just read them remotely you could just as well have them to send an SMS home with the data, there is no point in human reading.
Better yet, why not use the powerlines themselves.
This is one of the cases where you need reliability.
Or met at least once?
Just because a mathematical tool works in other fields does not mean they are related. You can describe many things with differential equations.
Well this tactic worked in Roswell, a lot of people still believe it was an UFO.
The three-letter passwords can withstand regular hackers, but noone could expect that the mighty cyberhackers were coming!
So what did you want to achieve by quoting the parts of the article I was asking about?
Could someone with expertise in the topic tell me:
Where is the news here?
Wow, if T-Mobile is the best you have there, then you Americans are in deep shit.