A quick review of their website pretty much tells me they are trying to sell stuff, namely a book and some other things. They are looking to profit from this, which is not in itself bad, but needs to be taken into account. Remember, IF it really makes sense, industry would be building bigger band wagons so they all could get on, just like they are with burning NG for electricity generation. For now, renewables are not cost effective even with significant support from government and falling NG prices are making it even harder for renewables to compete.
Never said it doesn't, only that it is apparently easier to burn NG and meet your clean air standards than using coal, but we digress..
What's the issue? Are you opposed to *any* emissions when producing electricity? If so, I suggest you start talking to your friends call your local electric provider to get your meter pulled. We have got to go back to the 1700's to meet your requirements or what?
Electricity is here to stay, and we can cry about pollution created when we produce it all we want, but the fact remains that we are better off WITH it than without it. Sure, we need to be as careful as we can about the environment when we produce it, but we cannot be unaware of the social and economic impact of our choices and favor the environment over all else. As in all of life, there is a balance here, a balance that is sorely lacking in certain parts of this debate.
We do know for certain that if we don't release a bunch of CO2, we won't affect the composition of the atmosphere.
Yea, I love that one... It MIGHT happen folks, even though we don't know. We need to adopt some seriously expensive and inefficient rules that will end up lowering the standard of living for EVERYBODY (Including likely starvation, disease and death for many among the poorest among us) to avoid it. Don't believe me? Think about this mandate for having alcohol in our motor fuels. Why? Tell me what the side effect of this is? I'll give you a hint, we are taking large amounts of food (corn) and making it into fuel to burn in our cars. Who do you think suffers?
I"m telling you, follow the money and power. This Climate change thing is being used as a massive grab for both and fear of the unknown is the largest tactic they use..
Funny, when I watched Al Gore in his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" he seemed to be claiming that we had 10 years left, nearly 10 years ago. In fact, most of his predictions have turned out to be as accurate as my broken watch. Polar bears are still alive, we still have ice at the north and south poles and sea levels are not up as far as he indicated they would be. There have been a number of high profile predictions over the years, most have proven false.
In response to these predictions failing, the "Global warming" crowd has drastically scaled back their estimates and retooled their models to try and match the existing data. They now have even changed the name to "Climate Change" in an effort to deflect how wrong their theories have been.
Given the huge amounts of money and power this issue controls, I don't think it is wise to just accept what the proponents of this idea propose. It used to be that money and power thought that the earth was the center of the universe, but they where wrong. The Global Warming crowd has been wrong too.
Where does this fear of releasing C02 come from? Shesh...
10 year ago Al Gore was predicting the end of the polar bears and no more polar ice based on all this. Um, It's still frozen up north and polar bears still exist, all the while we have NOT slowed down on our C02 emissions. In fact, world wide they are still on the increase last I heard. I watched "An Inconvenient Truth" only it turned out to be not true.
Now I'm not going to sit here and claim there is nothing to look at, only that it's not as dire as many have been lead to believe. I'm also saying that we simply DON'T KNOW enough to be able to assert one way or the other what the effect of C02 emissions could be, while we rush head long into trying to "fix" something that may very well not be a problem.
Your mileage may very, but there is money and politics in claiming climate change is real... So be careful to follow the money and power.
Suffice it to say, I don't agree with his analysis. Renewable are NOT cheaper, even when looking at the long term.
What most of these snake oil sales men fail to account for is the recurring cost of maintenance and replacement of devices used to capture renewable energy. Solar panels have limited lifetimes measured in sub-decade number of years and operate at ever decreasing efficiencies. Eventually, they have to be replaced. How many folks understand the manufacturing process of taking silicon and making solar panels from it? Any idea how much waste that generates? Any idea how to recycle that solar array and how much energy *that* is going to take? Don't get me started on those huge windmills... Last time I drove though a wind farm, at least 20% of the windmills where not operating in a steady 20 MPH wind and I presume in need of repairs. Something tells me that there is a reliability issue and significant maintenance cost with these things. Who counts on this? Who discusses this?
Where the website you cite goes into conservation and efficiency, I'm all for that where it makes sense. But don't fool yourself, trying to generate power from the wind or solar is NOT cost effective. It is not cost effective in the short term and it is not cost effective in the long term, even with the significant subsidies we provide. It is similarly not all that environmentally friendly when you consider the total impact. In fact, without the tax advantages and government subsidies the use of renewables would be nearly non-existent in the solar and wind power worlds. That is enough to prove my point.
Retail electric rates where I live have been steadily falling over the last decade. Of course, they've not fallen as much as NG prices, but I don't expect that.
So, I don't know where you live, but here in Texas I've seen the available electric rates continue to fall, and if you consider inflation, drop significantly over at least the last 5 years. It used to be that $0.20 kw/h was about the average rate, but now you can get $0.12 without trying hard and I've seen plans where they give you electricity for specific hours each day advertised. All in all, I pay significantly less now than 5 years ago, having seen my electric bills down by 20-30% (Not all due to prices BTW).
So don't give me this "retail electric rates" are going up Because they certainly are not where I live.
Fracking seems to promise a continued glut of domestic Natural gas supply into the next few decades. Fracking has been the greatest single downward impact on Natural Gas prices domestically over the last decade. Consumption of NG is going up rapidly for electric generation, but domestic production has out stripped consumption, which has drastically lowered NG prices.
Developing natural gas production takes years. Drilling wells, building pipelines, constructing processing plants all take multiple years to get in place before you can produce a single cubic foot of gas to sell. I don't think we have much more than scratched the surface of the possible production capacity, at least domestically. Because of this, I believe that the electric generation companies are wise to be switching to NG. It's going to be a cheap fuel for a long time.
Once prices do rise (and eventually you will be correct) this will lead to a renewed round of production. Recovery technology will also improve yields from existing NG production and rising prices will make many more areas financially viable for NG production. Right now, the cheap prices of NG are limiting the development of new resources. We are starting to see the cost of production getting very close to the market price. This is putting the breaks on development, big time, at least right now. A spike in price would simply release the breaks.
So, in short, there may be short spikes in NG prices, but for the next decade or two it will be the fuel of choice. It is domestically produced, abundant, fairly clean burning, and most of all CHEAP compared to other options.
Apparently not true. Natural gas prices have fallen to the point where it is lowering the cost of electric generation significantly. We are building natural gas plants and shuttering our existing coal, and apparently nuclear plants to take advantage of the drop in natural gas prices. The current view is that fracking will significantly impact gas prices going forward so we are building capacity to use the cheaper fuel. This is a cost effective move that make financial sense to electric producers who clearly believe that this is the best choice for them.
I think they are correct. Domestic natural gas supplies will continue to grow though fracking and prices will be downward trending (when inflation is taken out) for at least the next decade (barring any significant governmental regulation changes). In fact, I believe that we should be thinking of ways to leverage the glut of natural gas in this country for use as a motor fuel. CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) is clean burning and current gasoline engines are easily adapted to use it. You don't get as much mileage in the same space/weight as gasoline, but the difference is not that significant and refueling can be done fairly quickly.
Gas companies can still raise prices as high as they want.
No they can't. Free markets make it impossible for companies to just adjust prices at a whim. As long as you preserve the free market and healthy competition you will generally keep prices as low as possible because no one entity has the final say about what price will be charged.
Now if you are claiming that the government will somehow step in and raise prices... That's possible... But that's not the fault of the evil rich gas production companies..
Unfortunately we'll have released another few bazillion tons of CO2 by then.
And the problem is? Oh all that global warming theory stuff eh? That theory that has a serious "problem" because it's predictions of huge increases in temperature have been materially incorrect over the last 15 years.
How about we just go back to the 1800's? Everybody turn off their electricity, start driving horses and all that? We can turn back the clock on 2 centuries of public health improvements, do without refrigeration and cell phones right? Right... After all, environmentalists where protesting nuclear power, coal, gas, and all other forms of electric generation up until now.
How about we *think* about the implications of all this before we run off and condemn millions of folks to death...
Decentralized renewables are cheapest and safest, when all risks and external costs are factored in.
Huh? Problem with renewables is that they are hugely expensive to field on industrial scale. Not to mention that their environmental impacts are usually way under estimated. Somebody declares some system "Green" and presto, it's somehow devoid of environmental impact? Nothing is further from the truth. Not to mention that renewables are usually not reliable. We don't know when the sun will shine or how fast the wind will blow, at least not with enough certainty to know how much power we can count on getting from that wind farm or solar array. Electricity is extremely difficult to store efficiently so we have to generate it the instant we use it. What happens when the wind stops or a cloud drifts over at the wrong time? (Can you say blackouts..) So you have to *overbuild* renewables by 1 or 2 times capacity, which adds to it's already too high costs and environmental impacts but you won't here proponents of "Green" technology talking about that little problem...
Green technologies still have environmental impact and significant costs over the long term. Most folks thinking they are "going green" don't get this and the folks taking your money don't offer the information. However, for most of these "green" power sources, when you include the costs of producing and maintaining the equipment and the environmental impact of all this activity, there are few renewable sources which are cost effective. Further it's not even close to being a positive ROI on just the money you spend. Further, many technologies are as destructive (or more so) to the environment they are supposed to protect.
One such example is the hybrid car. Over the long haul, if you consider the added costs of including the batteries and the environmental impact of producing and dealing with them as waste there is a negative benefit. Sure, you may burn less gasoline while you own it, but building and disposing of the thing creates a huge environmental mess over the non hybrid version of the same car. If it makes you feel better to spend more money over the life of the car, I guess that's up to you, but don't fool yourself into thinking you are being "green" by doing so. Don't count on the salesman to tell you all this, he just wants you to spend the extra $15-20K on the car.
Now if you want to go all electric, walk, bike or take public transportation, THEN you can pat yourself on the back for being Green, but how many *actually* would take a car only capable of going 50 miles between 6 hour charges or want to get on a buss?
Um.. Sorry, not true. Where the person leaking the information is going to be in trouble, if you knowingly trade on inside information the SEC may take exception to your activities in a criminal way.
But besides being illegal, it's STUPID to trade on supposed inside information anyway. First, you don't really KNOW it's true. You could be getting set up, or be involved in some pump/dump scheme by somebody who just wants to use your trades to move the stock price in their favor. Second, if it IS true and the source is really an insider, you both can share adjoining cells. Either way, you loose.
I don't take the chance. I don't trade in companies I work for and I don't waste my time and money on stock tips of unknown origin. I also don't make any investments I don't FULLY understand...
Shesh folks.. There are a number of unfenced airports out there. They generally don't carry commercial traffic and it would be easy to get a car on the runway. In fact, there is one not a mile from where I type that I could easily get onto the runway and not ever leave pavement or have to open a gate. Only single engine aircraft usually operate there and there is NO FENCE
Fairbanks International. Regular, commercial 737 flights. 737-used runway. See the problem?
Nope. I've been on the field at a UAL maintenance area inside of ORD fence in a civilian car watching 747's operate. I'd suggest hearing protection, but I don't see a conflict with having cars and trucks on airport grounds, IF they have a reason to be there and stick to the *roads* and not wonder out onto the taxiways and such.
This is ALASKA on a General Aviation ramp, located a LONG way from where 737's would frequent. So I really do not see a problem with having such access. Have you see the Gibraltar airport? They have a highway going ACROSS the only runway with not much more than a traffic light to stop traffic. That's really IS an international airport.
By the way, international only means that US customs and/or immigration has set up to process folks and cargo arriving at the airport from other countries. It does not imply that some kind of size or security requirement or minimum number of flights.
Why? So people cannot pull up to the aircraft to load/unload stuff on the ramp? This is Alaska we are talking about. Nearly everybody gets around by plane because maintaining roads over long distances is too expensive and difficult up there.
Besides, there are PLENTY of airports in the lower 48 where you can easily drive onto the ramp and thus the runway. They are not the large commercial airport operations like ORD, DFW or ATL, but one can easily drive onto the General Aviation ramp without so much as a speed bump or gate to open. Do you think the TSA does passenger screaming for the two guys getting into the C-150 heading out to do touch and goes? Of course they don't. Neither do all airports have 8ft fences with barbed wire on top running around them. Some have literally NOTHING around them but mowed grass (if that). Check out KFFA which is at the Kill Devil Hills, Wright Brothers Memorial. You can get on that airport ramp with your car without any problem and use the 3,000 Ft runway for drag racing if you wanted. Before the Bolivar MO airport got moved, the east west runway used to double as a ball field and I routinely had to buzz the field and wait for the players to clear out so I could land when the wind was going east/west.
Shesh folks.. There are a number of unfenced airports out there. They generally don't carry commercial traffic and it would be easy to get a car on the runway. In fact, there is one not a mile from where I type that I could easily get onto the runway and not ever leave pavement or have to open a gate. Only single engine aircraft usually operate there and there is NO FENCE.
Even commercial airports I've seen have limited security at the general aviation ramp. You could drive up to your aircraft to unload/load baggage without so much as a gate between the highway and the ramp. These where not big airports, but they had regularly scheduled service. Once you are on the ramp, the whole airport is a car ride away.
So this is NOT that unusual. I suspect that in Alaska things are even looser. If you have ever seen "Flying Wild Alaska" you'd quickly realize that getting a car, snowmobile or walking onto an airstrip is extremely easy and usually doesn't even involve having to go around, through or over anything.
Um.. this is NOT new. I used to work at a Naval Aviation Depot where they where making F-4's into radio controlled target drones way back in the 80's. The radio controls where a bit more basic, but the Navy still used them for target practice with live ammo. I remember that after the controls where fitted, some lucky test pilot would get to sit in the aircraft and watch while the guys on the ground tested things.
Where advancement in the Iranian nuclear industry is quick and puts your career on the fast track to the top, there are some serious issues. The least of which is any moral objection to what you are working on.
Over the last decade, nuclear scientists have been dying in droves in Iran. Consider it an occupational hazard. No they are not dying from dangerous research or risky experiments gone wrong, they are dying from what I call "High speed Lead Poisoning" and "Rapid dismembering due to proximity to large energy releases". (They are getting shot and blown up..)
His decision was more likely about not getting killed and less about any moral objection to what he would be doing. If he had a moral objection, I would think he would have chosen a different area to study.
Well... True in a way, but I thought we where discussing Linux based platforms..
I don't think you are going to install Linux on an Arduino, even the Due is going to be pretty limited given the memory available is measured in Kilo Bytes...
Slashdot Mirror
A quick review of their website pretty much tells me they are trying to sell stuff, namely a book and some other things. They are looking to profit from this, which is not in itself bad, but needs to be taken into account. Remember, IF it really makes sense, industry would be building bigger band wagons so they all could get on, just like they are with burning NG for electricity generation. For now, renewables are not cost effective even with significant support from government and falling NG prices are making it even harder for renewables to compete.
But you didn't follow the power... Try again, you are only partially right.
Never said it doesn't, only that it is apparently easier to burn NG and meet your clean air standards than using coal, but we digress..
What's the issue? Are you opposed to *any* emissions when producing electricity? If so, I suggest you start talking to your friends call your local electric provider to get your meter pulled. We have got to go back to the 1700's to meet your requirements or what?
Electricity is here to stay, and we can cry about pollution created when we produce it all we want, but the fact remains that we are better off WITH it than without it. Sure, we need to be as careful as we can about the environment when we produce it, but we cannot be unaware of the social and economic impact of our choices and favor the environment over all else. As in all of life, there is a balance here, a balance that is sorely lacking in certain parts of this debate.
We do know for certain that if we don't release a bunch of CO2, we won't affect the composition of the atmosphere.
Yea, I love that one... It MIGHT happen folks, even though we don't know. We need to adopt some seriously expensive and inefficient rules that will end up lowering the standard of living for EVERYBODY (Including likely starvation, disease and death for many among the poorest among us) to avoid it. Don't believe me? Think about this mandate for having alcohol in our motor fuels. Why? Tell me what the side effect of this is? I'll give you a hint, we are taking large amounts of food (corn) and making it into fuel to burn in our cars. Who do you think suffers?
I"m telling you, follow the money and power. This Climate change thing is being used as a massive grab for both and fear of the unknown is the largest tactic they use..
Funny, when I watched Al Gore in his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" he seemed to be claiming that we had 10 years left, nearly 10 years ago. In fact, most of his predictions have turned out to be as accurate as my broken watch. Polar bears are still alive, we still have ice at the north and south poles and sea levels are not up as far as he indicated they would be. There have been a number of high profile predictions over the years, most have proven false.
In response to these predictions failing, the "Global warming" crowd has drastically scaled back their estimates and retooled their models to try and match the existing data. They now have even changed the name to "Climate Change" in an effort to deflect how wrong their theories have been.
Given the huge amounts of money and power this issue controls, I don't think it is wise to just accept what the proponents of this idea propose. It used to be that money and power thought that the earth was the center of the universe, but they where wrong. The Global Warming crowd has been wrong too.
Where does this fear of releasing C02 come from? Shesh...
10 year ago Al Gore was predicting the end of the polar bears and no more polar ice based on all this. Um, It's still frozen up north and polar bears still exist, all the while we have NOT slowed down on our C02 emissions. In fact, world wide they are still on the increase last I heard. I watched "An Inconvenient Truth" only it turned out to be not true.
Now I'm not going to sit here and claim there is nothing to look at, only that it's not as dire as many have been lead to believe. I'm also saying that we simply DON'T KNOW enough to be able to assert one way or the other what the effect of C02 emissions could be, while we rush head long into trying to "fix" something that may very well not be a problem.
Your mileage may very, but there is money and politics in claiming climate change is real... So be careful to follow the money and power.
What waste? Burning Natural gas produces no ash or radioactive wastes so where are you going with this? (Here it comes.... Global Warming.. Right?)
Suffice it to say, I don't agree with his analysis. Renewable are NOT cheaper, even when looking at the long term.
What most of these snake oil sales men fail to account for is the recurring cost of maintenance and replacement of devices used to capture renewable energy. Solar panels have limited lifetimes measured in sub-decade number of years and operate at ever decreasing efficiencies. Eventually, they have to be replaced. How many folks understand the manufacturing process of taking silicon and making solar panels from it? Any idea how much waste that generates? Any idea how to recycle that solar array and how much energy *that* is going to take? Don't get me started on those huge windmills... Last time I drove though a wind farm, at least 20% of the windmills where not operating in a steady 20 MPH wind and I presume in need of repairs. Something tells me that there is a reliability issue and significant maintenance cost with these things. Who counts on this? Who discusses this?
Where the website you cite goes into conservation and efficiency, I'm all for that where it makes sense. But don't fool yourself, trying to generate power from the wind or solar is NOT cost effective. It is not cost effective in the short term and it is not cost effective in the long term, even with the significant subsidies we provide. It is similarly not all that environmentally friendly when you consider the total impact. In fact, without the tax advantages and government subsidies the use of renewables would be nearly non-existent in the solar and wind power worlds. That is enough to prove my point.
Retail electric rates where I live have been steadily falling over the last decade. Of course, they've not fallen as much as NG prices, but I don't expect that.
So, I don't know where you live, but here in Texas I've seen the available electric rates continue to fall, and if you consider inflation, drop significantly over at least the last 5 years. It used to be that $0.20 kw/h was about the average rate, but now you can get $0.12 without trying hard and I've seen plans where they give you electricity for specific hours each day advertised. All in all, I pay significantly less now than 5 years ago, having seen my electric bills down by 20-30% (Not all due to prices BTW).
So don't give me this "retail electric rates" are going up Because they certainly are not where I live.
Fracking seems to promise a continued glut of domestic Natural gas supply into the next few decades. Fracking has been the greatest single downward impact on Natural Gas prices domestically over the last decade. Consumption of NG is going up rapidly for electric generation, but domestic production has out stripped consumption, which has drastically lowered NG prices.
Developing natural gas production takes years. Drilling wells, building pipelines, constructing processing plants all take multiple years to get in place before you can produce a single cubic foot of gas to sell. I don't think we have much more than scratched the surface of the possible production capacity, at least domestically. Because of this, I believe that the electric generation companies are wise to be switching to NG. It's going to be a cheap fuel for a long time.
Once prices do rise (and eventually you will be correct) this will lead to a renewed round of production. Recovery technology will also improve yields from existing NG production and rising prices will make many more areas financially viable for NG production. Right now, the cheap prices of NG are limiting the development of new resources. We are starting to see the cost of production getting very close to the market price. This is putting the breaks on development, big time, at least right now. A spike in price would simply release the breaks.
So, in short, there may be short spikes in NG prices, but for the next decade or two it will be the fuel of choice. It is domestically produced, abundant, fairly clean burning, and most of all CHEAP compared to other options.
Apparently not true. Natural gas prices have fallen to the point where it is lowering the cost of electric generation significantly. We are building natural gas plants and shuttering our existing coal, and apparently nuclear plants to take advantage of the drop in natural gas prices. The current view is that fracking will significantly impact gas prices going forward so we are building capacity to use the cheaper fuel. This is a cost effective move that make financial sense to electric producers who clearly believe that this is the best choice for them.
I think they are correct. Domestic natural gas supplies will continue to grow though fracking and prices will be downward trending (when inflation is taken out) for at least the next decade (barring any significant governmental regulation changes). In fact, I believe that we should be thinking of ways to leverage the glut of natural gas in this country for use as a motor fuel. CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) is clean burning and current gasoline engines are easily adapted to use it. You don't get as much mileage in the same space/weight as gasoline, but the difference is not that significant and refueling can be done fairly quickly.
Gas companies can still raise prices as high as they want.
No they can't. Free markets make it impossible for companies to just adjust prices at a whim. As long as you preserve the free market and healthy competition you will generally keep prices as low as possible because no one entity has the final say about what price will be charged.
Now if you are claiming that the government will somehow step in and raise prices... That's possible... But that's not the fault of the evil rich gas production companies..
Unfortunately we'll have released another few bazillion tons of CO2 by then.
And the problem is? Oh all that global warming theory stuff eh? That theory that has a serious "problem" because it's predictions of huge increases in temperature have been materially incorrect over the last 15 years.
How about we just go back to the 1800's? Everybody turn off their electricity, start driving horses and all that? We can turn back the clock on 2 centuries of public health improvements, do without refrigeration and cell phones right? Right... After all, environmentalists where protesting nuclear power, coal, gas, and all other forms of electric generation up until now.
How about we *think* about the implications of all this before we run off and condemn millions of folks to death...
Decentralized renewables are cheapest and safest, when all risks and external costs are factored in.
Huh? Problem with renewables is that they are hugely expensive to field on industrial scale. Not to mention that their environmental impacts are usually way under estimated. Somebody declares some system "Green" and presto, it's somehow devoid of environmental impact? Nothing is further from the truth. Not to mention that renewables are usually not reliable. We don't know when the sun will shine or how fast the wind will blow, at least not with enough certainty to know how much power we can count on getting from that wind farm or solar array. Electricity is extremely difficult to store efficiently so we have to generate it the instant we use it. What happens when the wind stops or a cloud drifts over at the wrong time? (Can you say blackouts..) So you have to *overbuild* renewables by 1 or 2 times capacity, which adds to it's already too high costs and environmental impacts but you won't here proponents of "Green" technology talking about that little problem...
Green technologies still have environmental impact and significant costs over the long term. Most folks thinking they are "going green" don't get this and the folks taking your money don't offer the information. However, for most of these "green" power sources, when you include the costs of producing and maintaining the equipment and the environmental impact of all this activity, there are few renewable sources which are cost effective. Further it's not even close to being a positive ROI on just the money you spend. Further, many technologies are as destructive (or more so) to the environment they are supposed to protect.
One such example is the hybrid car. Over the long haul, if you consider the added costs of including the batteries and the environmental impact of producing and dealing with them as waste there is a negative benefit. Sure, you may burn less gasoline while you own it, but building and disposing of the thing creates a huge environmental mess over the non hybrid version of the same car. If it makes you feel better to spend more money over the life of the car, I guess that's up to you, but don't fool yourself into thinking you are being "green" by doing so. Don't count on the salesman to tell you all this, he just wants you to spend the extra $15-20K on the car.
Now if you want to go all electric, walk, bike or take public transportation, THEN you can pat yourself on the back for being Green, but how many *actually* would take a car only capable of going 50 miles between 6 hour charges or want to get on a buss?
Is that you Eddie?
Um.. Sorry, not true. Where the person leaking the information is going to be in trouble, if you knowingly trade on inside information the SEC may take exception to your activities in a criminal way.
But besides being illegal, it's STUPID to trade on supposed inside information anyway. First, you don't really KNOW it's true. You could be getting set up, or be involved in some pump/dump scheme by somebody who just wants to use your trades to move the stock price in their favor. Second, if it IS true and the source is really an insider, you both can share adjoining cells. Either way, you loose.
I don't take the chance. I don't trade in companies I work for and I don't waste my time and money on stock tips of unknown origin. I also don't make any investments I don't FULLY understand...
Is that you Eddie?
Eddie is that you?
Shesh folks.. There are a number of unfenced airports out there. They generally don't carry commercial traffic and it would be easy to get a car on the runway. In fact, there is one not a mile from where I type that I could easily get onto the runway and not ever leave pavement or have to open a gate. Only single engine aircraft usually operate there and there is NO FENCE
Fairbanks International. Regular, commercial 737 flights. 737-used runway. See the problem?
Nope. I've been on the field at a UAL maintenance area inside of ORD fence in a civilian car watching 747's operate. I'd suggest hearing protection, but I don't see a conflict with having cars and trucks on airport grounds, IF they have a reason to be there and stick to the *roads* and not wonder out onto the taxiways and such.
This is ALASKA on a General Aviation ramp, located a LONG way from where 737's would frequent. So I really do not see a problem with having such access. Have you see the Gibraltar airport? They have a highway going ACROSS the only runway with not much more than a traffic light to stop traffic. That's really IS an international airport.
By the way, international only means that US customs and/or immigration has set up to process folks and cargo arriving at the airport from other countries. It does not imply that some kind of size or security requirement or minimum number of flights.
Why? So people cannot pull up to the aircraft to load/unload stuff on the ramp? This is Alaska we are talking about. Nearly everybody gets around by plane because maintaining roads over long distances is too expensive and difficult up there.
Besides, there are PLENTY of airports in the lower 48 where you can easily drive onto the ramp and thus the runway. They are not the large commercial airport operations like ORD, DFW or ATL, but one can easily drive onto the General Aviation ramp without so much as a speed bump or gate to open. Do you think the TSA does passenger screaming for the two guys getting into the C-150 heading out to do touch and goes? Of course they don't. Neither do all airports have 8ft fences with barbed wire on top running around them. Some have literally NOTHING around them but mowed grass (if that). Check out KFFA which is at the Kill Devil Hills, Wright Brothers Memorial. You can get on that airport ramp with your car without any problem and use the 3,000 Ft runway for drag racing if you wanted. Before the Bolivar MO airport got moved, the east west runway used to double as a ball field and I routinely had to buzz the field and wait for the players to clear out so I could land when the wind was going east/west.
Shesh folks.. There are a number of unfenced airports out there. They generally don't carry commercial traffic and it would be easy to get a car on the runway. In fact, there is one not a mile from where I type that I could easily get onto the runway and not ever leave pavement or have to open a gate. Only single engine aircraft usually operate there and there is NO FENCE.
Even commercial airports I've seen have limited security at the general aviation ramp. You could drive up to your aircraft to unload/load baggage without so much as a gate between the highway and the ramp. These where not big airports, but they had regularly scheduled service. Once you are on the ramp, the whole airport is a car ride away.
So this is NOT that unusual. I suspect that in Alaska things are even looser. If you have ever seen "Flying Wild Alaska" you'd quickly realize that getting a car, snowmobile or walking onto an airstrip is extremely easy and usually doesn't even involve having to go around, through or over anything.
Um.. this is NOT new. I used to work at a Naval Aviation Depot where they where making F-4's into radio controlled target drones way back in the 80's. The radio controls where a bit more basic, but the Navy still used them for target practice with live ammo. I remember that after the controls where fitted, some lucky test pilot would get to sit in the aircraft and watch while the guys on the ground tested things.
So, been there, done that.... Have a T-Shirt.
Where advancement in the Iranian nuclear industry is quick and puts your career on the fast track to the top, there are some serious issues. The least of which is any moral objection to what you are working on.
Over the last decade, nuclear scientists have been dying in droves in Iran. Consider it an occupational hazard. No they are not dying from dangerous research or risky experiments gone wrong, they are dying from what I call "High speed Lead Poisoning" and "Rapid dismembering due to proximity to large energy releases". (They are getting shot and blown up..)
His decision was more likely about not getting killed and less about any moral objection to what he would be doing. If he had a moral objection, I would think he would have chosen a different area to study.
Well... True in a way, but I thought we where discussing Linux based platforms..
I don't think you are going to install Linux on an Arduino, even the Due is going to be pretty limited given the memory available is measured in Kilo Bytes...
Same situation with the PI if I remember correctly...