Go read about the stock market just before the great depression. What you are seeing is the market makers doing "pump and dump" just like stocks In the 1920's. It was common to see large investors buy up some stock, start talking about how it was heading up (and having recent history to show) then as the small investor piled on, slowly sell their shares at huge profit. Once the big guys where all out, they'd start the cycle again on another stock and leave the small fish to take the risks. Eventually, the prices started to drop and everybody wanted to sell at once and you have the crash of October 29, 1929. Problem was that there was no *real* value in all these stocks, it had been a lot of hype, so the prices fell rapidly. Where many of the big fish got caught with their money in the market and lost too, nearly ALL of the little guys lost. Remember you make money on stocks by buying low and selling high.
I see much the same thing going on here with BTC, only without *any* regulation or controls. The question right now is who is trying to manipulate the market? Follow the money, not the BTC, but the REAL money...
Ahhh Yes.. Without an exchange willing to convert my bitcoin to some other currency, there are few retailers who will be accepting payment in bitcoin for much of anything. Once folks realize that bitcoin cannot be easily converted, they will become valueless.
Of course, they have huge value to those who engage in illegal trading exactly because there is no government backing, but is that the kind of thing I want to be indirectly involved in?
I wonder if this is an effort to shut down the currency or is it an effort to control the market? Either way, the little fish had better be wary. The big sharks are obviously on the move and this thing could go south quickly. (or not...)
And Gold. Fox news was the agent of a massive pump-up in the price of gold over the last couple years, looks like that bubble is now bursting too.
Pump and dump has been a common technique throughout history for those "in the know" to make money. Buy low, talk up what you own, unwary investors look at the price rise and jump on, you slowly sell at a profit. Don't be fooled, bitcoin is subject to the same manipulation as gold, silver, stocks and the like. Actually, Bitcoin is MORE subject to such because it is by definition unregulated.
Go ahead and trade in bitcoin if you want, just don't be fooling yourself into thinking it is somehow better than dollars, yen, euros or what ever. I would contend that bitcoin is actually MORE risky than just about any other national currency out there.
Dollars, euros and other fiat currency are just as vulnerable.
Not exactly, dollars, Euros, Yen etc are not as vulnerable as bitcoin for a number of very important reasons. They certainly can be mismanaged to the point where they become worthless, but due to the world wide market and trade in say dollars it would take some time for any of the major currencies to go to totally worthless. Bitcoin could do that literally overnight.
Bitcoin also suffers from being backed by nothing more than the willingness of folks to trade for them. All real currencies in circulation have government backing, have been traded for hundreds of years (or in the case of Euros, based in currency that had long histories) and would have at least *some* scrap value (coins as scrap metal, paper for recycling or fuel). Bitcoin has none of this. Some say that the lack of government backing is a plus, Some say being "new and virtual" is a plus too. Don't be fooled, there are benefits to being "real" and government backed if you are a currency.
Trade in Bitcoin is subject to unregulated manipulation and is by definition much more risky than trading in other currency. If you are aware of the risks and still want to invest in bitcoin, knock yourself out. I would suggest that bitcoin traders think long and hard about how the great depression got started and how stock trading by "big money" fleeced the little guys because bitcoin trade has many of the same features. Don't repeat history.
Owning a share of stock means you own a fraction of the company, the value of that share of Coke can be debated, but you do own *something* when you hold that share. That is simply not the same as a bitcoin, which is nothing but a block of digital data.
If you don't like Coca-Cola because you think shares are over valued, don't buy them. If you think their P/E ratio is at risk or they owe more than they are worth or can repay, don't invest (or sell short for profit if you are sure enough). A company's stock can become worthless, but don't fool yourself, shares in a company convey fractional ownership of something (even if it has no value) which is absolutely not true with bitcoin which intrinsically means you own nothing.
Like I've previously said. You want to trade in bitcoin, be my guest. Just be VERY wary because bitcoin is very risky by it's very nature and is subject to manipulation. Bitcoin could easily loose 100% of it's value instantly for any number of reasons. It could be taken over with enough resources, made illegal by world governments, exchanges disrupted (like we've seen of late) or fall out of public favor.
You are discussing the *future* value of a currency while I'm discussing the historical view. Dollars, Yen, etc can be mismanaged and be reduced to zero value, although there are serious curbs that would keep a major currency from becoming worthless. Bitcoin has never had any intrinsic value, most other currencies have at least some, if nothing else in the value of it's coinage as scrap metal or as tender to start a fire to keep warm by burning paper bills. Bitcoin could become instantly worthless for any number of reasons, and there is literally nothing you could do with them after that.
Like I said, you like bitcoin? Go for it, invest in the currency, trade for things you want. Just remember that you are in a pretty unregulated (for now) world subject to manipulation by those with more resources than you have. Please be careful and learn from history in similar situations, or you are a fool and will be quickly parted from your money.
Invest in bitcoins if you wish, but there is NOTHING of value in a bitcoin. It has no real value, nothing, not even as paper and you cannot trade bitcoin without a computer to record the transaction. PayPal, Visa and banks trade in currency that *has* value or is backed by something with value. They trade in government backed currency and securities, which have value, real value. PayPal, Visa, Banks, etc all trade in real currencies.
Now if you want to argue that modern currency (such as dollars) has nothing behind it either, I'm not going to agree with you. At the very least there is the "full faith and credit" of the USA for the US dollar. It is managed (or mismanaged if you prefer) by a government. Bitcoin is not managed or backed by any government. Dollars and Bitcoins are not the same thing. One is the traditional *reserve currency* of world trade, was issued with value and managed by a government and the other an imaginary virtual invention which had zero value when first issued and entitled the owner to exactly nothing of value. Initial holders of Dollars held something of real value (usually gold), now we hold "federal reserve notes".
Dollars may be worthless someday but they didn't start out worthless. Bitcoins started worthless, and only have value because there are folks who think they have value. In reality bitcoins never had or will have intrinsic value.
Bitcoin has always seemed to be subject to being controlled by market makers. The technique was a common way to make money in the stock market just before the great depression. Big money would buy up large blocks of stock, then start talking up how the price was going up. Rumors would circulate that some stock was "taking off" and the average investor would look at historical stock prices and pile on. In the mean time, the big investors would start slowly selling their holdings making huge profits and leaving the little guy holding worthless stock.
Bitcoin is subject to the same kind of thing. "Big" money can pump up the value of bitcoins by talking them up and the clueless look at the value increase caused by the big money buys and pile on the band wagon. In the mean time, the big money starts slowly selling, reaping profits. The stupid get fleeced and the fools are parted from their money. DON'T be a fool.
The problem here is that unlike stocks, there is absolutely ZERO value in a bitcoin. It represents exactly nothing of value. Stocks at least have a book value and a P/E Ratio of the company behind the stock. Bitcoins are backed by nothing.
HFCS is only in junk food? Um.. I think you need to read some labels. HFCS is in "junk" food almost universally, but it has made it's way into a whole lot of other stuff you will likely buy and unless you are reading the labels you are likely unaware of it.
and all the food i make at home has nothing from monsanto in it. no HFCS either
What he said is entirely possible.
But highly improbable. Just avoiding HFCS would be a neat trick and take a LOT of effort. I can not imagine trying to avoid Monsanto related ingredients at your local grocery store. There would literally not be but a handful of items you could purchase at even the best stocked grocery, and that stuff would make pretty poor eating overall. You would certainly have to grow a lot of your own food, and most of us don't have enough space to make much of a dent in a years worth of food.
There are a number of factors you forget to calculate in.
1. The amount of land around the equator is fairly limited, and you really cannot build solar arrays in the ocean. 70% of the earth is water, so that leaves 30% to build solar panels and windmills on. Maybe you could build in shallow water, so let's call it 35%.
2. The sun only shines during the day, so you will need to build extra capacity (by double).
3. Unless you are pointing your solar collection directly at the sun, they are not as efficient, so you have to build extra capacity (by double).
4. Rainy and cloudy days will drive production down in a lot of places around the equator by 30%, and in dry areas dust will kill off 20% of your capacity.
4. Nothing this big will be 100% working at any one time, so you will likely have to build out another 10% or more capacity to account for maintenance.
5. I'm not going to argue with your efficiency numbers, but I think they are a bit optimistic.
All in all, you need to multiply your estimates by about 430% and subtract that amount from the 30% useable land. That would be significant portion of the world's land and would be a HUGE environmental impact that would make global thermal nuclear war look like a walk in the park.
Germany replaced nuclear power plants with wind turbines and solar energy.
Better hope the wind doesn't stop blowing on a cloudy day in Germany then.... I'm calling you on this. Germany got 17% of it's electrical power from Nuclear in 2011 and although it *claims* to be on an 11 year track to be off nuclear power, I'm betting they won't make it onto solar and wind as a replacement. They are going to find that unless they have a boat load (actually many boat loads) of fossil fuels laying around and plants built to turn them into electrical power they will be running short of power generation capacity often. Maybe they can make that up by buying power from outside the country but that's not "replacing" their nuclear plants with wind and solar.
They have announced plans to do what you claim over 11 years, but they have not yet managed to actually DO what you claim. I for one, don't think they actually can just replace their nuclear plants with wind and solar, but will have to build out fossil fuel plants to take up the slack or keep at least some of their nuclear capacity.
It might surprise you to know that there is a resistance to Nuclear in many countries other than the US. But if you think nuclear is so great, why so skeptical of NK and Iran wanting to use it? They may be tyrants but their not morons.
Iran and North Korea want nuclear power for geopolitical reasons, not necessarily for power generation. Of course, power generation is a nice side benefit for them, it's just not their primary reason for going after the technology. They are really just trying to poke the US and its allies, so the willingly accept the sanctions that cripple their economies well beyond any possible benefit from a few megawatts of nuclear power.
They would not have built them, if they didn't make financial sense...
I take it that you were born after the cold war..
Um.. Actually, if you define the end of the cold war to be the fall of the Berlin wall and the start to be the end of WWII, I was born pretty close to the start.
That nuclear power is subsidized is debatable. If I was you I'd use the DOE's role in supplying fuel and their responsibility for disposal of spent fuel assemblies for your argument.
Ahh... The manage to quarter results problem.... Wonder why we regulate our publicly traded companies this way?
Seriously, somebody, somewhere really messed up that whole deal and I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that they will eventually pay civilly and or criminally for it. In the mean time, you can bet the consumer will PAY for the costs incurred, in one way or another. But, truth be told, nobody died because of this and the problem was found. Safe operation of the plant is still possible once the issue is fixed, so it will be fixed and safely operated.
You can also bet the NRC is going to be pretty unforgiving about even minor violations and question every engineering decision they make down to the smallest detail. So what might have been a short term gain, is going to turn into a long term cost. Plus, the plant will likely be pretty much the safest around in the process..
It can only increase demand for electric power, which is what the poster was saying.
Right now the fraction of electricity used for automobiles is vanishingly small and if millions of battery operated cars start getting hooked up to the grid each night for the next day's commute you can bet demand for electric power will increase. What we *might* hope for is that charging millions of cars could be accomplished during off peak hours so we don't have to continue building out peak generation capacity and can use cheaper (like nuclear) energy sources more.
At least until you factor in the cost of the bribes required to get enough politicians to tell the environmental lobby to take a hike long enough to get a plant approved and running... That has apparently killed the industry over the last decade or two here in the US. World wide though, it is pretty clear that nuclear power is the way to go for generating the base of an industrialized nation's electrical power.
They would not have built them, if they didn't make financial sense... With the possible exception of North Korea and Iran who are building them for other reasons...
If we're playing this game, the only way solar and wind are "good" are that they have less of an environmental impact than coal, etc. They're not impact-free.
Mod Parent UP!!!!
You are indeed correct. Our energy needs are ever increasing as our population grows. Electrical demand is projected to keep going up, and I expect we will not stop that trend *anytime* soon. We will be building more and more generation capacity into the foreseeable future and, baring any major population adjustments (war, pestilence, mass starvation etc) for the next few hundred years as well. There isn't enough real estate out there for solar or enough wind blowing for wind... And "renewable" sources have their impacts too.
So nuclear power kills less people than fossil fuels? I have to say I'm not surprised at all. Consider how dangerous it is to mine, transport and burn coal then add the environmental issues and there is NO DOUBT that nuclear power is safer.
I would add that nuclear power actually releases LESS RADIATION than a similar sized coal plant even if you consider the whole life cycle, from construction, operation though decommissioning. Burning coal efficiently requires that it be crushed, usually into fine powder that can be blown into the fire box. This grinding process releases a lot of radon gas (and other stuff) that produces radiation. The exposure levels can be quite high for people working around the crushing equipment.
Somebody will bring up the long term storage of spend fuel assemblies and claim these are high level waste that will produce radiation for thousands of years. While it is true, this ignores the fact that the problem here is regulatory and not with the technology. Much of the high level and long lasting radioactive components in light water reactor spent fuel could be reused and eliminated if reprocessing of fuel was allowed. Regulations and international agreements prevent us from reprocessing and burning down this high level waste even though the technology exists to eliminate a significant percentage of the radioactive materials (by size/bulk) and greatly reduce the amount of time the remaining material remains dangerous.
Congratulations on keeping your stuff in good running order.
I'm not saying it is impossible or unlikely to get a diesel started in cold weather, only that the physics of diesel engines make it more difficult than gasoline engines to engineer cold start capacity. Your VW was engineered to start in cold conditions, but as you indicate it is obviously closer to the edge of usability. Gasoline engines benefit from slightly different physics and are not as subject to cold starting issues as a result. So all I'm saying is diesel engines are harder to start (from an engineering view point) when it is cold, than their gasoline powered cousins.
I get your point, but if you really feel this way, go get the law changed.
Personally, being a pilot (albeit just for fun), I think it is a serious problem when somebody is stupid enough to shine a laser at an aircraft. Doing it multiple times is and should be criminal because it is seriously dangerous to blind a pilot even for a short time when they are "low and slow" and the margins for error are really slim. Eventually, somebody will die due to this if it's not happened already. Hopefully it won't be a plane full of passengers that gets balled up on short final.
Then there is no need for legalization of the primary source... Let pharma go out and get their drug approved for sale and if it is safe and effective you can bet doctors will prescribe it.
So what argument do you have left for legalization if somebody is producing a drug that will likely be safer and more effective?
Oh that's right.... You want to use it.... That's what this really boils down to in the end.
Then I assume you are investing in medical research and working to fund proper testing using proper scientific methods to *verify* your claims. No?
The problem here is that big Pharma is out literally beating the bushes looking all over the world for new drugs they can patent and profit from. If there is any significant medical uses here, you can bet they'd be out isolating the active agents so they can produce a useful drug to sell. Funny thing here is they are NOT doing anything with all this.. Could it be that there is not enough benefit to justify the development costs? Could that be because your claims are not exactly true, or perhaps of so little medical value as to be no more useful than sugar pills?
Oh that's right.... It's a conspiracy... They won't look into it because they don't want to let out the truth... I suppose that might make sense to someone who is not in right mind and under the influence of THC or in the self justifying mood who wants to justify something they want to do.
I'm not buying that logic. It is very clear that the medical benefits are indeed limited or doctors and big Pharma would be out in droves trying to make a buck on it. So far, nobody has any real science to support what you are contending, so I'm left with no choice but to not support this.
Illegal driving? Um.. Is illegal right? So if you get caught say speeding, running red lights or the like or if somebody dies because you broke the law, guess what? You could be defending yourself in both criminal and civil courts. That you broke the law will be a serious problem for you then.
So what's your point? That shinning a laser isn't that dangerous because nobody has died yet?
What would you say if this same kid got caught racing with his friends down a public street in excess of 100 MPH? Would that warrant a trip to jail? After all, he's just a kid and nobody died when he hit that house with his car.....
Slashdot Mirror
Shhhhh! I'm trying to talk this thing down right now....
You do have an excellent point... The proper strategy could be profitable here.. Does anybody sell BTC futures yet?
Go read about the stock market just before the great depression. What you are seeing is the market makers doing "pump and dump" just like stocks In the 1920's. It was common to see large investors buy up some stock, start talking about how it was heading up (and having recent history to show) then as the small investor piled on, slowly sell their shares at huge profit. Once the big guys where all out, they'd start the cycle again on another stock and leave the small fish to take the risks. Eventually, the prices started to drop and everybody wanted to sell at once and you have the crash of October 29, 1929. Problem was that there was no *real* value in all these stocks, it had been a lot of hype, so the prices fell rapidly. Where many of the big fish got caught with their money in the market and lost too, nearly ALL of the little guys lost. Remember you make money on stocks by buying low and selling high.
I see much the same thing going on here with BTC, only without *any* regulation or controls. The question right now is who is trying to manipulate the market? Follow the money, not the BTC, but the REAL money...
Ahhh Yes.. Without an exchange willing to convert my bitcoin to some other currency, there are few retailers who will be accepting payment in bitcoin for much of anything. Once folks realize that bitcoin cannot be easily converted, they will become valueless.
Of course, they have huge value to those who engage in illegal trading exactly because there is no government backing, but is that the kind of thing I want to be indirectly involved in?
I wonder if this is an effort to shut down the currency or is it an effort to control the market? Either way, the little fish had better be wary. The big sharks are obviously on the move and this thing could go south quickly. (or not...)
And Gold. Fox news was the agent of a massive pump-up in the price of gold over the last couple years, looks like that bubble is now bursting too.
Pump and dump has been a common technique throughout history for those "in the know" to make money. Buy low, talk up what you own, unwary investors look at the price rise and jump on, you slowly sell at a profit. Don't be fooled, bitcoin is subject to the same manipulation as gold, silver, stocks and the like. Actually, Bitcoin is MORE subject to such because it is by definition unregulated.
Go ahead and trade in bitcoin if you want, just don't be fooling yourself into thinking it is somehow better than dollars, yen, euros or what ever. I would contend that bitcoin is actually MORE risky than just about any other national currency out there.
Dollars, euros and other fiat currency are just as vulnerable.
Not exactly, dollars, Euros, Yen etc are not as vulnerable as bitcoin for a number of very important reasons. They certainly can be mismanaged to the point where they become worthless, but due to the world wide market and trade in say dollars it would take some time for any of the major currencies to go to totally worthless. Bitcoin could do that literally overnight.
Bitcoin also suffers from being backed by nothing more than the willingness of folks to trade for them. All real currencies in circulation have government backing, have been traded for hundreds of years (or in the case of Euros, based in currency that had long histories) and would have at least *some* scrap value (coins as scrap metal, paper for recycling or fuel). Bitcoin has none of this. Some say that the lack of government backing is a plus, Some say being "new and virtual" is a plus too. Don't be fooled, there are benefits to being "real" and government backed if you are a currency.
Trade in Bitcoin is subject to unregulated manipulation and is by definition much more risky than trading in other currency. If you are aware of the risks and still want to invest in bitcoin, knock yourself out. I would suggest that bitcoin traders think long and hard about how the great depression got started and how stock trading by "big money" fleeced the little guys because bitcoin trade has many of the same features. Don't repeat history.
Owning a share of stock means you own a fraction of the company, the value of that share of Coke can be debated, but you do own *something* when you hold that share. That is simply not the same as a bitcoin, which is nothing but a block of digital data.
If you don't like Coca-Cola because you think shares are over valued, don't buy them. If you think their P/E ratio is at risk or they owe more than they are worth or can repay, don't invest (or sell short for profit if you are sure enough). A company's stock can become worthless, but don't fool yourself, shares in a company convey fractional ownership of something (even if it has no value) which is absolutely not true with bitcoin which intrinsically means you own nothing.
Like I've previously said. You want to trade in bitcoin, be my guest. Just be VERY wary because bitcoin is very risky by it's very nature and is subject to manipulation. Bitcoin could easily loose 100% of it's value instantly for any number of reasons. It could be taken over with enough resources, made illegal by world governments, exchanges disrupted (like we've seen of late) or fall out of public favor.
You are discussing the *future* value of a currency while I'm discussing the historical view. Dollars, Yen, etc can be mismanaged and be reduced to zero value, although there are serious curbs that would keep a major currency from becoming worthless. Bitcoin has never had any intrinsic value, most other currencies have at least some, if nothing else in the value of it's coinage as scrap metal or as tender to start a fire to keep warm by burning paper bills. Bitcoin could become instantly worthless for any number of reasons, and there is literally nothing you could do with them after that.
Like I said, you like bitcoin? Go for it, invest in the currency, trade for things you want. Just remember that you are in a pretty unregulated (for now) world subject to manipulation by those with more resources than you have. Please be careful and learn from history in similar situations, or you are a fool and will be quickly parted from your money.
Invest in bitcoins if you wish, but there is NOTHING of value in a bitcoin. It has no real value, nothing, not even as paper and you cannot trade bitcoin without a computer to record the transaction. PayPal, Visa and banks trade in currency that *has* value or is backed by something with value. They trade in government backed currency and securities, which have value, real value. PayPal, Visa, Banks, etc all trade in real currencies.
Now if you want to argue that modern currency (such as dollars) has nothing behind it either, I'm not going to agree with you. At the very least there is the "full faith and credit" of the USA for the US dollar. It is managed (or mismanaged if you prefer) by a government. Bitcoin is not managed or backed by any government. Dollars and Bitcoins are not the same thing. One is the traditional *reserve currency* of world trade, was issued with value and managed by a government and the other an imaginary virtual invention which had zero value when first issued and entitled the owner to exactly nothing of value. Initial holders of Dollars held something of real value (usually gold), now we hold "federal reserve notes".
Dollars may be worthless someday but they didn't start out worthless. Bitcoins started worthless, and only have value because there are folks who think they have value. In reality bitcoins never had or will have intrinsic value.
Bitcoin has always seemed to be subject to being controlled by market makers. The technique was a common way to make money in the stock market just before the great depression. Big money would buy up large blocks of stock, then start talking up how the price was going up. Rumors would circulate that some stock was "taking off" and the average investor would look at historical stock prices and pile on. In the mean time, the big investors would start slowly selling their holdings making huge profits and leaving the little guy holding worthless stock.
Bitcoin is subject to the same kind of thing. "Big" money can pump up the value of bitcoins by talking them up and the clueless look at the value increase caused by the big money buys and pile on the band wagon. In the mean time, the big money starts slowly selling, reaping profits. The stupid get fleeced and the fools are parted from their money. DON'T be a fool.
The problem here is that unlike stocks, there is absolutely ZERO value in a bitcoin. It represents exactly nothing of value. Stocks at least have a book value and a P/E Ratio of the company behind the stock. Bitcoins are backed by nothing.
HFCS is only in junk food? Um.. I think you need to read some labels. HFCS is in "junk" food almost universally, but it has made it's way into a whole lot of other stuff you will likely buy and unless you are reading the labels you are likely unaware of it.
and all the food i make at home has nothing from monsanto in it. no HFCS either
What he said is entirely possible.
But highly improbable. Just avoiding HFCS would be a neat trick and take a LOT of effort. I can not imagine trying to avoid Monsanto related ingredients at your local grocery store. There would literally not be but a handful of items you could purchase at even the best stocked grocery, and that stuff would make pretty poor eating overall. You would certainly have to grow a lot of your own food, and most of us don't have enough space to make much of a dent in a years worth of food.
There are a number of factors you forget to calculate in.
1. The amount of land around the equator is fairly limited, and you really cannot build solar arrays in the ocean. 70% of the earth is water, so that leaves 30% to build solar panels and windmills on. Maybe you could build in shallow water, so let's call it 35%.
2. The sun only shines during the day, so you will need to build extra capacity (by double).
3. Unless you are pointing your solar collection directly at the sun, they are not as efficient, so you have to build extra capacity (by double).
4. Rainy and cloudy days will drive production down in a lot of places around the equator by 30%, and in dry areas dust will kill off 20% of your capacity.
4. Nothing this big will be 100% working at any one time, so you will likely have to build out another 10% or more capacity to account for maintenance.
5. I'm not going to argue with your efficiency numbers, but I think they are a bit optimistic.
All in all, you need to multiply your estimates by about 430% and subtract that amount from the 30% useable land. That would be significant portion of the world's land and would be a HUGE environmental impact that would make global thermal nuclear war look like a walk in the park.
Germany replaced nuclear power plants with wind turbines and solar energy.
Better hope the wind doesn't stop blowing on a cloudy day in Germany then.... I'm calling you on this. Germany got 17% of it's electrical power from Nuclear in 2011 and although it *claims* to be on an 11 year track to be off nuclear power, I'm betting they won't make it onto solar and wind as a replacement. They are going to find that unless they have a boat load (actually many boat loads) of fossil fuels laying around and plants built to turn them into electrical power they will be running short of power generation capacity often. Maybe they can make that up by buying power from outside the country but that's not "replacing" their nuclear plants with wind and solar.
They have announced plans to do what you claim over 11 years, but they have not yet managed to actually DO what you claim. I for one, don't think they actually can just replace their nuclear plants with wind and solar, but will have to build out fossil fuel plants to take up the slack or keep at least some of their nuclear capacity.
It might surprise you to know that there is a resistance to Nuclear in many countries other than the US. But if you think nuclear is so great, why so skeptical of NK and Iran wanting to use it? They may be tyrants but their not morons.
Iran and North Korea want nuclear power for geopolitical reasons, not necessarily for power generation. Of course, power generation is a nice side benefit for them, it's just not their primary reason for going after the technology. They are really just trying to poke the US and its allies, so the willingly accept the sanctions that cripple their economies well beyond any possible benefit from a few megawatts of nuclear power.
I take it that you were born after the cold war..
Um.. Actually, if you define the end of the cold war to be the fall of the Berlin wall and the start to be the end of WWII, I was born pretty close to the start.
That nuclear power is subsidized is debatable. If I was you I'd use the DOE's role in supplying fuel and their responsibility for disposal of spent fuel assemblies for your argument.
Ahh... The manage to quarter results problem.... Wonder why we regulate our publicly traded companies this way?
Seriously, somebody, somewhere really messed up that whole deal and I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that they will eventually pay civilly and or criminally for it. In the mean time, you can bet the consumer will PAY for the costs incurred, in one way or another. But, truth be told, nobody died because of this and the problem was found. Safe operation of the plant is still possible once the issue is fixed, so it will be fixed and safely operated.
You can also bet the NRC is going to be pretty unforgiving about even minor violations and question every engineering decision they make down to the smallest detail. So what might have been a short term gain, is going to turn into a long term cost. Plus, the plant will likely be pretty much the safest around in the process..
It can only increase demand for electric power, which is what the poster was saying.
Right now the fraction of electricity used for automobiles is vanishingly small and if millions of battery operated cars start getting hooked up to the grid each night for the next day's commute you can bet demand for electric power will increase. What we *might* hope for is that charging millions of cars could be accomplished during off peak hours so we don't have to continue building out peak generation capacity and can use cheaper (like nuclear) energy sources more.
Nuclear wins... Hands down.
At least until you factor in the cost of the bribes required to get enough politicians to tell the environmental lobby to take a hike long enough to get a plant approved and running... That has apparently killed the industry over the last decade or two here in the US. World wide though, it is pretty clear that nuclear power is the way to go for generating the base of an industrialized nation's electrical power.
They would not have built them, if they didn't make financial sense... With the possible exception of North Korea and Iran who are building them for other reasons...
>
If we're playing this game, the only way solar and wind are "good" are that they have less of an environmental impact than coal, etc. They're not impact-free.
Mod Parent UP!!!!
You are indeed correct. Our energy needs are ever increasing as our population grows. Electrical demand is projected to keep going up, and I expect we will not stop that trend *anytime* soon. We will be building more and more generation capacity into the foreseeable future and, baring any major population adjustments (war, pestilence, mass starvation etc) for the next few hundred years as well. There isn't enough real estate out there for solar or enough wind blowing for wind... And "renewable" sources have their impacts too.
So nuclear power kills less people than fossil fuels? I have to say I'm not surprised at all. Consider how dangerous it is to mine, transport and burn coal then add the environmental issues and there is NO DOUBT that nuclear power is safer.
I would add that nuclear power actually releases LESS RADIATION than a similar sized coal plant even if you consider the whole life cycle, from construction, operation though decommissioning. Burning coal efficiently requires that it be crushed, usually into fine powder that can be blown into the fire box. This grinding process releases a lot of radon gas (and other stuff) that produces radiation. The exposure levels can be quite high for people working around the crushing equipment.
Somebody will bring up the long term storage of spend fuel assemblies and claim these are high level waste that will produce radiation for thousands of years. While it is true, this ignores the fact that the problem here is regulatory and not with the technology. Much of the high level and long lasting radioactive components in light water reactor spent fuel could be reused and eliminated if reprocessing of fuel was allowed. Regulations and international agreements prevent us from reprocessing and burning down this high level waste even though the technology exists to eliminate a significant percentage of the radioactive materials (by size/bulk) and greatly reduce the amount of time the remaining material remains dangerous.
Congratulations on keeping your stuff in good running order.
I'm not saying it is impossible or unlikely to get a diesel started in cold weather, only that the physics of diesel engines make it more difficult than gasoline engines to engineer cold start capacity. Your VW was engineered to start in cold conditions, but as you indicate it is obviously closer to the edge of usability. Gasoline engines benefit from slightly different physics and are not as subject to cold starting issues as a result. So all I'm saying is diesel engines are harder to start (from an engineering view point) when it is cold, than their gasoline powered cousins.
I get your point, but if you really feel this way, go get the law changed.
Personally, being a pilot (albeit just for fun), I think it is a serious problem when somebody is stupid enough to shine a laser at an aircraft. Doing it multiple times is and should be criminal because it is seriously dangerous to blind a pilot even for a short time when they are "low and slow" and the margins for error are really slim. Eventually, somebody will die due to this if it's not happened already. Hopefully it won't be a plane full of passengers that gets balled up on short final.
Then there is no need for legalization of the primary source... Let pharma go out and get their drug approved for sale and if it is safe and effective you can bet doctors will prescribe it.
So what argument do you have left for legalization if somebody is producing a drug that will likely be safer and more effective?
Oh that's right.... You want to use it.... That's what this really boils down to in the end.
Then I assume you are investing in medical research and working to fund proper testing using proper scientific methods to *verify* your claims. No?
The problem here is that big Pharma is out literally beating the bushes looking all over the world for new drugs they can patent and profit from. If there is any significant medical uses here, you can bet they'd be out isolating the active agents so they can produce a useful drug to sell. Funny thing here is they are NOT doing anything with all this.. Could it be that there is not enough benefit to justify the development costs? Could that be because your claims are not exactly true, or perhaps of so little medical value as to be no more useful than sugar pills?
Oh that's right.... It's a conspiracy... They won't look into it because they don't want to let out the truth... I suppose that might make sense to someone who is not in right mind and under the influence of THC or in the self justifying mood who wants to justify something they want to do.
I'm not buying that logic. It is very clear that the medical benefits are indeed limited or doctors and big Pharma would be out in droves trying to make a buck on it. So far, nobody has any real science to support what you are contending, so I'm left with no choice but to not support this.
Illegal driving? Um.. Is illegal right? So if you get caught say speeding, running red lights or the like or if somebody dies because you broke the law, guess what? You could be defending yourself in both criminal and civil courts. That you broke the law will be a serious problem for you then.
So what's your point? That shinning a laser isn't that dangerous because nobody has died yet?
What would you say if this same kid got caught racing with his friends down a public street in excess of 100 MPH? Would that warrant a trip to jail? After all, he's just a kid and nobody died when he hit that house with his car.....