Do the math on solar, wind, and tidal and then get back to us with numbers. When I've done the numbers, they don't add up to the demand. Let us know if your calculations somehow do.
Remember for solar: 1kw/m^2 max potential (current solar panels are only 8-12% efficient), the sun doesn't always shine, and a lot of land is already used for other things like farming.
Remember for wind: Not all places have sufficient and consistent wind, and a lot of land is already used for other things.
Remember for tidal: Most life on the planet is on or near the coastlines. If you take sufficient amounts of energy from that system in order to generate electricity, you can adversely affect large ecosystems. These ecosystems also feed us.
A complex adaptive systems textbook may be informative and help toward optimization, but the findings cannot violate the physics textbook.
We don't all need to have hundreds of megawatts available to us, for most people a few tens of kilowatts of energy are sufficient for our daily needs.
You're right. In 2001 the US needed 3.7 million megawatts. That isn't going to come from solar panels sitting on a bunch of roofs. A few tens of kilowatts of energy are good enough for some individual homes. It doesn't do jack for industrial uses, pumping all of the water for agriculture, processing our sewage, or keeping the orange juice cold in the grocery store. What's your solution for all of these non-residential needs?
So what if a nuclear plant was designed that addressed these issues? Would you still be against it?
By the way, it was. The prototype was called the EBR-II. The reactor type is called an IFR (Integral Fast Reactor). Let's discuss...
Passive safety: safety systems that rely on properties of nature (like gravity) to function correctly rather than computers or complex machinery. Aside from the fact that a Chernobyl-like accident cannot happen in Western countries (the design was fundamentally different -- optimized for weapons production rather than power), Three Mile Island, a far less serious accident, cannot happen either. How can anyone say this with any conviction? Because they tested the Three-Mile scenario. What happened? The reactor quietly shut down.
So let's summarize safety in an IFR. If something went wrong (the heat exchanger pumps stopped working for example), the reactor is "scrammed", the control rods completely isolate the fuel rods. The control rods are suspended by electromagnet above the fuel rods. Cut the power the control rod suspension mechanism and they drop (gravity), stopping the reaction. But let's say the control rods couldn't drop for some reason. The heat would rise, but the sodium pool would distribute the heat so it wasn't simply localized at the fuel, preventing a meltdown of the fuel (incidentally, for those who get this confused, a meltdown means the fuel melted, not that the plant exploded). The fuel rods would expand gradually from the heat (hot things expand...natural property and all that), the density would descrease, and the chain reaction would reach a terminal point where it cannot sustain further reactions. But let's say that somehow failed. The fuel would need to penetrate the sodium pool to expose its radioactivity to the rest of the core facility (not the outside world, the core building). So let's say that the fuel actually got clear of the pool. It would be contained by the main structure. Let's assume that the fuel were working its way through the main concrete shell. More concrete could be poured to supplement any weak spots. And finally note that all of this highly unlikely scenario would take some time to occur. This would be more than enough time to evacuate anyone in the area.
-----
Re: Weapons use. "The IFR pyroprocess was designed to be 'proliferation resistant'. Simply put, this means that fuel recycled with IFR technology can't be easily used as material for nuclear weapons. Attempts to extract material to produce a nuclear weapon would require a huge, easily detectable, investment in the same type of facilities and equipment that would be required to produce the material directly from spent fuel from any type of reactor."
Only the material coming out of the IFR would have a much lower concentration of transuranics than that of current light water reactors. Which brings me to...
-----
Radioactive waste. The spent fuel of light water reactors and the nuclear material in nuclear warheads can be used for power generation in an IFR. You'll hear the boneheads at Greenpeace say things like "...the nuclear industry has failed to come up with a solution for what to do with nuclear waste." Utter bullshit. Here is a solution that reuses the spent fuel instead of dumping it in Yucca Mountain, uses it more efficiently so that the remaining isotopes are of types with substantially shorter halflives, and it gives a solution to the existing, decaying stockpiles of nuclear warheads.
Average sunlight is 1.36 if memory serves, but your rule of thumb is easier to work with. So with 8-12%, you are looking at closer to 16-24kw max. Multiply this by 6 (number of hours of usable sunlight on a roof -- I'm not going to calculate that unless all of your roof uniformly faces the sun, you will get substantial loss) and you get 96-144kw/hours. This is of course best case scenario. Better keep those panels clean. Dirt and dead leaves do not make good photovoltaics. And you need to account for degradation -- 2-5% every year for the life of the solar cells. So after ten years, you are only at 80% of what you were originally...in the best case scenario.
Everyone should immediately bulldoze their house and build up a brand new solar home, eb? You obviously aren't a homeowner with a family and mortgage payments are you? And I hope you can reuse those building materials or else you will be cutting down a lot more trees. Oh, I guess you can use alternative building materials...which require energy to render it for building quality. I also hope your home gets direct sunlight. Many homes in urban and rural areas are not so lucky.
Perhaps you should do a little research. "Sunlight provides about 1.36 kilowatts per square meter, and most solar cells are between 8 and 12 percent efficient." - Wikipedia
With recent advances in solar cell efficiency (in the lab at least), this could definitely take a huge dent out of the residential power grid. But what about industry? What about farming? What about things like the phone companies and hospitals? What about the grand hydrogen economy? U.S. power usage in 2001 was 3.7 million megawatts according to the Department of Energy. Where's is the power for that? Hint: it ain't in solar.
It's not personal. It's just the numbers, and the numbers just don't add up with solar.
First off, let me state clearly that I advocate the increased usage of wind, solar, micro-tidal, and geothermal energy sources. In addition, all facts and figures cited here are for the United States.
"Sunlight provides about 1.36 kilowatts per square meter, and most solar cells are between 8 and 12 percent efficient." - Wikipedia
As an exercise, find out how many square meters there are in the U.S. (or the country you live in). Now subtract the areas that are currently occupied like farmland -- which is already using the sunlight for other purposes. Don't forget that you can't just willy nilly go covering large tracts of land. Cutting off sunlight from large tracts of land could have local ecological issues: reduced heat, retarded photosynthesis, etc. Therefore, you have to spread them out in most cases therefore further reducing your energy collection/conversion potential. Also remember that solar cells have about eight hours per day of useful energy collection assuming you have a tracker. Subtract for cloudy/rainy/snowy days. Also keep in mind that most cells out there today are 8-12% efficient. In order to get widespread adoption of the 50% Berkeley lab version, you have to replace all existing panels. Don't forget that you have to keep them clean -- dirt is not a good photovoltaic. And finally, remember to calculate into all of this that solar cells degrade by 2-5% every year; In the best case scenario, a ten year old cell is only working at 80% of its original capacity. (Now is your chance folks! A perfect example where integrals can be used for a real world calculation. Calc 2 wasn't a waste of time for non-physicists after all!)
Compare the number you get with >3.7 million megawatt/hours, the amount used by the US in 2001 (according to the Department of Energy). Do the numbers add up? No. If you cut the used electricity in half, would the numbers match up? No. Will people voluntarily cut energy usage substantially? No. Do energy usage trends indicate a future increase? Yes. It's not personal, it's just what the numbers say.
It's not even a question of more research into solar cells. "1.36 kilowatts" is the average of a hard limit. No cell will ever convert more energy than it receives. The whole "energy is neither created nor destroyed; It merely changes form." The solar cell debate has never been about if they can produce energy but rather if it produces enough energy. For a single home that doesn't waste much electricity? Usually. For the whole residential, rural, and industrial U.S.? Not even close.
-----
Now what about wind...because I know someone's going to bring it up. Allow me to direct you to The Earth Policy Institute, an organization with a decidedly alternative/renewable energy bias. (Not a bad thing, just making it clear that it has no reason to artificially lower their numbers to make wind look bad.) Their examination of wind power is quite optimistic. Pay special attention to their expectations: gathering hydrogen for fuel in cars, halting coal usage, etc. Now let's look at the data they used for that. They cite a total U.S. potential (not current, but potential) of 1,221,191 megawatts. Now let's assume that this number is constant and not a maximum output. Remember, watts are an instantaneous measurement, not over time. This is why our energy meters read in kilowatt hours. Let's look back at the total U.S. power usage of 3.7 million megawatts. Wind is short by a third; It can't even replace coal (52% of all U.S. power production) let alone meet EPW's expectations that "Wind power can meet not only all U.S. electricity needs, but all U.S. energy needs."
But what about wind along with solar? Well, you'd need to make sure the solar cells weren't shadowed by the windmills. Then y
Bush: The bulldog will of Winston Churchil combined with the tactical imagination and ability of Neville Chamberlain.
"According to Stephen Mansfield's sympathetic account in The Faith of George W. Bush, he then calls his friend, the Charismatic preacher James Robison, host of the TV show Life Today, and tells him, 'I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president.'"
Now I come to think of the old quote that said, "Religion is what the common people see as true, the wise people see as false, and the rulers see as useful."
...Bush is either an incompetent fool who has no idea what he is doing, or that he is devious and calculating. Which is it?
Hmmm... Miata: two door, two-seater (the rear of that car doesn't really count as an extra seat in my opinion) and gets 37MPG. Prius: four door, five-seater and gets 40-50MPG. (I get closer to 50 than 40, but whatever.)
Emissions and mileage are two distinct things -- even for the EPA. When testing, they put gasoline in, they drive it for a given distance, and then they see how much gasoline is left. It has absolutely nothing to do with emissions.
Emissions are a separate designation. This is the LEV (Low Emissions Vehicle), ULEV (Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle), SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle), and PZEV (Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle). Each is something like a factor of five of each other. For point of reference, the original Civic is a LEV, the hybrid Civic is a ULEV, the original Prius is a SULEV, and the new Prius is a PZEV. It is in these designations that the EPA depicts vehicle emissions.
They have nothing to do with mileage. The sticker on my 2001 Prius says something like 52/47MPG. And you know what? After calculating how far I go relative to how much gas I put in, that's about right.
Except that I actually have a hybrid -- a 2001 Toyota Prius. I get much better than 31.5MPG even on my worst average tanks. Then again, I don't gun the engine after a stop, I start braking earlier before the stop sign than most, I don't usually accelerate uphill (I can, it's just horrible for mileage), and I usually don't go 90 on the highway.
Lo and behold, my average mileage is closer to 48MPG. And this isn't from the in-dash mileage indicator. This is from watching how much gas goes in versus how far I go per tank. Going from Santa Cruz, CA to Seattle is a little over 1,000 miles (not as the crow flies, of course). I did it in two tanks. (I didn't speed while I was in Oregon as California plates seem to be a "please ticket me" sign.) Since the Prius doesn't have a 16-gallon fuel tank, I'm left with the result that I'm getting noticeably better than 31.5MPG.
I don't know about the Civic, but the Prius ain't far off the mark for advertised mileage. The newer models are even better. They are more efficient. They do have lower emissions. They are not wasted.
The Prius has batteries, four cylinders, medium torque for a car its size, and low roll-resistance tires. I think that 100MPG+ is a bit overly optimistic. Could it be done? Sure, but you'd end up with a car that has trouble carrying five adults or anything heavy in the trunk.
The Honda Insight was in that model. It only(!) got about 60-70MPG though. And it is a two-seater, three-cylinder, no trunk space, horrible acoustic, commuter vehicle.
I have a first generation Prius, 2001 model year. I constantly check mileage. I constantly get 45-52MPG averaged over the course of a fuel tank. If I'm constantly making short runs to the grocery store and it's cold, I'll see 38-42MPG. The only times I see 35MPG are when I've been going 85MPH on the highway for extended distances (although, it's usually closer to 40MPG), or when I'm going up long, moderate inclines.
Sure, if you gun the engine, try to accelerate to 75MPH as fast as you can, slam on the gas pedal after every stop sign, wait until the last minute to hit the brakes before coming to a light, you will get crappy gas mileage. Then again, if you do that in an SUV rated at 15MPG, you will get 7MPG.
News flash: When you drive aggressively, your mileage will suck.
I drove from Santa Cruz, CA (just north of Monterey) to Seattle, WA two summers ago. Straight shot up. 1,000 miles between the two points. Sometimes with traffic. Sometimes without. ~12 gallon tank. I filled up when I left Santa Cruz, I refuelled in Medford, OR, and I refuelled after I reached Seattle and checked into my hotel room. Granted, you should not do this. I should have topped the tank off more often instead of running it all of the way down, but that sure as shit doesn't work out to 35MPG.
And three years after I bought the car, it still performs the same.
I can't speak to the Civic though, and there's no way in hell that I'd trade my Prius in for a Civic.
You mean like DOM or SAX? What about XUL. Isn't a namespace (or rather the schema behind it) an API?
Having Mozilla as a platform means talking to a well-defined API. Is the platform Windows or UNIX? Doesn't matter; use the Mozilla API. Want MFC/DirectX as your widget rendering engine or GTK+? Doesn't matter; use the Mozilla API.
Just STDIN et al., eh? What about libssl? What about libc? What about libgthread? You are comparing apples and oranges. When you use an component in Mozilla that's written in C++ (for example), it's like using the functions in a shared library. When you use JavaScript to pass values to and from those components, it's like using perl/csh/sh and calling utility programs. Well...almost. The difference being that the UNIX method of "scripting processes" model is far more loose and prone to failure when given bad input. For a closed system used only by a sysadmin, this is fine. For the masses with myriad variations, the model easily breaks with a lot of loud frustration and venting soon to follow.
Not to mention of course that piping data from process to process is just a hop, skip, and a jump from rudimentary programming. Not everyone is a programmer. Programmers aren't the only ones who need to use programs. And most folks -- even many programmers -- like to use graphical widgets.
Sure, for GUIs you need a bit more: copy and paste and drag and drop, and maybe something along the lines of Mac OS X's "Services"...
If you're on the command line, Mozilla isn't an issue. STDIN and STDOUT kick ass. But then again, the "desktop" becomes immaterial at that point as well. Mozilla was made for graphical work. Adding copy, paste, drag and drop, etc. to the list of requirements by definition breaks the UNIX paradigm.
Repeat after me: GUI environments are not compatible with the traditional UNIX "one tool/one task" model.
Or were you suggesting that drag and drop be implemented somehow with stdio redirects?
Quite often. Yes, they are indeed annoying. But how do you effectively mod down such a person in school or in the workplace? The real world is generally viewed at the equivalent of -1.
Maybe I should lower my threshold.
I wouldn't recommend it. Some would say that it's inappropriate for viewing by children. Personally, I think that it's inappropriate for viewing by most adults.
First off, where did Java vs. PHP come from in this thread? If you look at my list, it includes PHP ADO. My point here was that if database abstraction is just as easy and just as much code as hard-coding a particular database, why code for just one? I don't know what kinda crack you're smoking with that potato peeling analogy.
But if the installer is in the future, PostgreSQL will rightfully take its place at the head of the Open Source databases.
Perhaps that used to be the case, but I don't believe that to be true anymore. Don't get me wrong, I prefer PostgreSQL over MySQL every day of the week and often on holidays (I run *nix servers). But the fact is that more ISPs and applications write directly to MySQL and its own peculiar set of bugs.
More apps means more MySQL installations. More MySQL installations means more apps. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. It's the same pattern followed by MS Windows years ago.
Inertia is not altered by better products; It's reversed by the introduction of "killer" features that are simply unavailable elsewhere. PostgreSQL has the features, but unless people know and understand what they are, they will not be determining factors, Win32 or no Win32.
I'm glad the solution is working well for you. Best wishes to you.
It doesn't bug me that your solution works for you. The fact that you know the difference between databases and still find that MySQL is the best tool for the job speaks volumes. I am curious as to what aspects of MySQL you find to be superior to Firebird or PostgreSQL? I would honestly like to hear them.
I'm also curious about the 200 queries/sec. You have a setup with 50 inserts, updates, and deletes per second? I am indeed impressed.
Perl, ugly as it is, is more useful to me than Java, too.
Don't know where this came from, but good on you. If you're taking in values, running matches and substitutions, running queries against them, and sending off again, Perl is a great tool. I never would have thought ill of you for it.
Of course it's incredibly useful. A horse and buggy are much better than trying to get around on foot all of the time.
But you are completely ignoring the fact that a wide variety of bicycles, motorcycles, cars, and trucks are available.
All I know is that I've built three highly successful, high volume websites off of MySQL over the past five years and there's no way I could have done it as cheaply or quickly otherwise.
Are they >95% select statements? That's probably why. If your projects were more insert/update oriented, you wouldn't be quite so glowing in your praise. It also raises the question: have you used anything else? Have you used another RDBMS package or are you simply assuming that because MySQL was easy to setup that all others must be harder?
Try out PosgreSQL for a short time. It's free as well. Get any one of the books for PostgreSQL and go through the exercises/examples. Trust me. If you are coming from only MySQL experience, you will have quite a few "I didn't know that was possible" moments.
The worst thing that'll happen is that you will choose MySQL based upon an informed decision related to the job at hand. The best thing is that you'll have expanded your toolkit and opened the door to a much greater variety of database engines. (PostgreSQL is more like all of the other popular RDBMSs than it is to MySQL.)
Good post. I especially like the McDonalds analogy. Can I use it in the future?
But really, the question is largely one of awareness. Most developers are simply unaware of the logical capabilities of the relational model, so they assume that the things they would do with a "full" SQL system are almost the same as what they would do with MySQL. If that is the case, then of course there is less reason to use MySQL. (there are also those developers who ARE aware of those capabilities but are too much in love with writing extra code, so they prefer to dismiss them)
This is funny when viewed with your "cheap shot" earlier. When developing for yourself, you can use whatever is easier at the time whether you are an experienced DBA or not. When developing for others, the clients are saying, "We can't do good database work. That's what we want you for." They are paying you to be "aware of the logical capabilities of the relational model." Only they of course will never say this. They will simply say, "I want a reliable system." It's up to you as a developer to translate.
It's like when someone says, "I want my web page to be easy to use." They usually mean, "I want my web page to always stay up, have a logical, easy to navigate structure, be consistent, and yet deal with my color-blind sense of style and gaudy logo." Do you make a web site like someone who has never made one before (because the client doesn't know, why should you?), or do you follow all of their guidelines and yet still try to make one that can actually stand the test of time?
People pay you to be more knowledgeable, not as knowledgeable or less knowledgeable than they. This is not to say that you should disregard their desires. This is saying that when they can't tell the difference, use the better materials just because you know better.
Well, since the mysql_*, pg_*, sybase_* and so on functions use very similar syntax, try using sed.
Well since Perl DBI, JDBC, ODBC, and PHP ADO et al. work perfectly well, why not use the better solution instead of relying on sed after the fact?
But I think the question we should be asking is, why would you want your code to support a different database anyway?
Project requirements change. That is a fact. Your project may not be 99.9% selects anymore. Inserts and updates may become more important. Maybe you want to add a lot more concurrent database clients? In those situations, MySQL turns into a dog compared to other options. When one engine (or operating system) doesn't cut the mustard anymore, it's a question of whether the transition costs are tripled or not.
Then there's the case where you are not the end user, and the client already has a database they are happy with and/or have trained personnel to maintain it. In this case, MySQL is more expensive for them.
Most MySQL advocates say that they don't need stored procedures, views, triggers, etc. in the projects they do. Fair enough. But what happens when you come across a project that does need one of these? Oops! Sorry. You're married to MySQL.
What's that? Stored procedures aren't portable? Mostly that's correct, but they aren't all fundamentally different. In fact, Oracle's procedural language has more in common with PostgreSQL's default procedural language than MySQL has with the SQL92 and SQL99 standards. And porting stored procedures are a damn sight easier than trying to port the custom MySQL functions people write in C in a MySQL-only API.
MySQL fits your task the best? By all means, use it. But tying yourself inextricably to it? Better get the first-aid ready because sooner or later, you're gonna get bit in the ass for that decision.
You can add your fancy object oriented classes and methods, abstraction layers and sundry filibustering tricks all you like; but nothing will change the fact that, at the end of the day, sooner or later, you can't avoid the inevitable fact of having to get your hands dirty and actually manipulate some data.
I agree. I also agree that you don't need to use every feature and technique at your disposal on every project. But that's what MySQL requires much of the time. Your application layer grows in a couple of places when you don't have CHECK constraints in your database. You know what CHECK constraints are, right? They're one of the things that MySQL happily accepts in the CREATE TABLE query, but silently ignores because it's not implemented.
People say to rely on the app layer to make sure your data is correct and that when MySQL fails silently, it's your fault. If that is so, what happens when a project has more than one developer? Do you know the other's mind? Do they know yours? Gotta rely on good communication, hunh? Wouldn't it be better if the database threw an error during development so that you two were prompted to converse on the subject? Or are you one of those "good teams mind-meld" individuals who discounts that there are different skill sets and expectations on any project.
Just make your app layer better? If that is so, why not have a database backend that actually catches the errors so you can fix your app layer where broken?
Still want things more loose? Here's an idea: don't use foreign keys or check constraints. No matter what database you use, you don't have to use every feature. It's good to know that the features are there if you do need them though. MySQL is a leap of faith that you will never need anything more. There is a big difference between the two camps.
I guess I can see the argument for Windows, but *nix boxes? Is everyone trying to install from source. Obviously this is not the audience we were talking about. Nevermind that by source is not all that difficult either, with a package manager, it's downright embarrasing how easy it is.
Step 1: Install % su (or sudo with the command) % apt-get install postgresql-server
- or with apt-rpm - % apt-rpm install postgresql-server
- or with just any old RPM - download the RPMs and run % rpm -Uvh postgresql*?
Step 2: Start the postgresql server. % service postgresql start
- or - %/etc/init.d/postgresql start
Step 3: Add your username to the postgres group.
Step 4: Become the normal user again.
Step 5: Create a database as that user $ createdb <dbname>
Step 6: Connect to the database $ psql <dbname>
Step 7: Start making SQL queries -- standard SQL99-compliant queries at that.
Can a MySQL advocate please explain how it would be easier to install MySQL? Please?
Which brings me to another point that MySQL folks love to make: there's more documentation available for MySQL. Okay, we've established that installation is a non-issue. What about usage? With both, you connect via a client and make queries. MySQL has some weird syntax and tragic quirks, therefore it's a good thing that there's a lot of documentation. PostgreSQL? Sure there are comparatively fewer books with "PostgreSQL" on the cover. But then, since it closely follows the well published SQL92 and SQL99 specs, most books titled with "SQL" should suffice. Take the books that teach to the spec versus books that teach MySQL's dialect and the scales tip in PostgreSQL's favor.
Has anyone else considered that PostgreSQL books simply aren't as necessary as MySQL? Books solely on MySQL should be renamed to another popular O'reilly series: the series with "Windows XP Annoyances."
I guess the reason they don't is that MySQL diverges so much from both SQL92 and SQL99 that you might as well not compare the two; It doesn't look too good to describe a complete product as an annoyance.
It was my understanding that the knowledge gap usually appeared later in life. For example, the extremely high attrition rates of women in Comp. Sci., Chemistry, and Physics departments in college (for example) were not due mainly to Barbie and "math is hard" but rather the attitudes of many of the male students and professors.
The stories I've heard... Of girls showing interest in science so the parents buy the boy a chemistry set (or a computer or something similarly scientific or technical). Of girls using the computer in their brother's room. Listen to the stories about teacher's expectations and biases in the classroom.
Read the posts on Slashdot that say, "Women just aren't as good as X as men are." Pay attention to the comments that say, "Male minds are drawn more to Y than female minds." Pay even closer attention to the posts that say, "Natalie Portman" and "hot grits!" No, there's no objectification in here. No, there's no abusive generalization in here. No, there's no ambivalence or outright animosity.
To me, the discussion about the pros/cons of Barbie are like trying to enforce a proper diet for people with major stab wounds. Yes, it's better not to eat so many Oreos, but let's keep some perspective here. There are more women in the sciences today than have ever been, and it sure as shit ain't because Barbie stopped being as popular. There are still too few women in comp. sci., chemistry, and physics, and it sure as shit ain't because Barbie is still popular. No, male chauvinism isn't the only issue. But Barbie?
Slashdot Mirror
Remember for solar: 1kw/m^2 max potential (current solar panels are only 8-12% efficient), the sun doesn't always shine, and a lot of land is already used for other things like farming.
Remember for wind: Not all places have sufficient and consistent wind, and a lot of land is already used for other things.
Remember for tidal: Most life on the planet is on or near the coastlines. If you take sufficient amounts of energy from that system in order to generate electricity, you can adversely affect large ecosystems. These ecosystems also feed us.
A complex adaptive systems textbook may be informative and help toward optimization, but the findings cannot violate the physics textbook.
You're right. In 2001 the US needed 3.7 million megawatts. That isn't going to come from solar panels sitting on a bunch of roofs. A few tens of kilowatts of energy are good enough for some individual homes. It doesn't do jack for industrial uses, pumping all of the water for agriculture, processing our sewage, or keeping the orange juice cold in the grocery store. What's your solution for all of these non-residential needs?
So what if a nuclear plant was designed that addressed these issues? Would you still be against it?
By the way, it was. The prototype was called the EBR-II. The reactor type is called an IFR (Integral Fast Reactor). Let's discuss...
Passive safety: safety systems that rely on properties of nature (like gravity) to function correctly rather than computers or complex machinery. Aside from the fact that a Chernobyl-like accident cannot happen in Western countries (the design was fundamentally different -- optimized for weapons production rather than power), Three Mile Island, a far less serious accident, cannot happen either. How can anyone say this with any conviction? Because they tested the Three-Mile scenario. What happened? The reactor quietly shut down.
So let's summarize safety in an IFR. If something went wrong (the heat exchanger pumps stopped working for example), the reactor is "scrammed", the control rods completely isolate the fuel rods. The control rods are suspended by electromagnet above the fuel rods. Cut the power the control rod suspension mechanism and they drop (gravity), stopping the reaction. But let's say the control rods couldn't drop for some reason. The heat would rise, but the sodium pool would distribute the heat so it wasn't simply localized at the fuel, preventing a meltdown of the fuel (incidentally, for those who get this confused, a meltdown means the fuel melted, not that the plant exploded). The fuel rods would expand gradually from the heat (hot things expand...natural property and all that), the density would descrease, and the chain reaction would reach a terminal point where it cannot sustain further reactions. But let's say that somehow failed. The fuel would need to penetrate the sodium pool to expose its radioactivity to the rest of the core facility (not the outside world, the core building). So let's say that the fuel actually got clear of the pool. It would be contained by the main structure. Let's assume that the fuel were working its way through the main concrete shell. More concrete could be poured to supplement any weak spots. And finally note that all of this highly unlikely scenario would take some time to occur. This would be more than enough time to evacuate anyone in the area.
-----
Re: Weapons use. "The IFR pyroprocess was designed to be 'proliferation resistant'. Simply put, this means that fuel recycled with IFR technology can't be easily used as material for nuclear weapons. Attempts to extract material to produce a nuclear weapon would require a huge, easily detectable, investment in the same type of facilities and equipment that would be required to produce the material directly from spent fuel from any type of reactor."
Only the material coming out of the IFR would have a much lower concentration of transuranics than that of current light water reactors. Which brings me to...
-----
Radioactive waste. The spent fuel of light water reactors and the nuclear material in nuclear warheads can be used for power generation in an IFR. You'll hear the boneheads at Greenpeace say things like "...the nuclear industry has failed to come up with a solution for what to do with nuclear waste." Utter bullshit. Here is a solution that reuses the spent fuel instead of dumping it in Yucca Mountain, uses it more efficiently so that the remaining isotopes are of types with substantially shorter halflives, and it gives a solution to the existing, decaying stockpiles of nuclear warheads.
-----
Uranium caches, while not a renewable resource, w
Average sunlight is 1.36 if memory serves, but your rule of thumb is easier to work with. So with 8-12%, you are looking at closer to 16-24kw max. Multiply this by 6 (number of hours of usable sunlight on a roof -- I'm not going to calculate that unless all of your roof uniformly faces the sun, you will get substantial loss) and you get 96-144kw/hours. This is of course best case scenario. Better keep those panels clean. Dirt and dead leaves do not make good photovoltaics. And you need to account for degradation -- 2-5% every year for the life of the solar cells. So after ten years, you are only at 80% of what you were originally...in the best case scenario.
Thanks for the fusion info.
Everyone should immediately bulldoze their house and build up a brand new solar home, eb? You obviously aren't a homeowner with a family and mortgage payments are you? And I hope you can reuse those building materials or else you will be cutting down a lot more trees. Oh, I guess you can use alternative building materials...which require energy to render it for building quality. I also hope your home gets direct sunlight. Many homes in urban and rural areas are not so lucky.
Perhaps you should do a little research. "Sunlight provides about 1.36 kilowatts per square meter, and most solar cells are between 8 and 12 percent efficient." - Wikipedia
With recent advances in solar cell efficiency (in the lab at least), this could definitely take a huge dent out of the residential power grid. But what about industry? What about farming? What about things like the phone companies and hospitals? What about the grand hydrogen economy? U.S. power usage in 2001 was 3.7 million megawatts according to the Department of Energy. Where's is the power for that? Hint: it ain't in solar.
It's not personal. It's just the numbers, and the numbers just don't add up with solar.
As an exercise, find out how many square meters there are in the U.S. (or the country you live in). Now subtract the areas that are currently occupied like farmland -- which is already using the sunlight for other purposes. Don't forget that you can't just willy nilly go covering large tracts of land. Cutting off sunlight from large tracts of land could have local ecological issues: reduced heat, retarded photosynthesis, etc. Therefore, you have to spread them out in most cases therefore further reducing your energy collection/conversion potential. Also remember that solar cells have about eight hours per day of useful energy collection assuming you have a tracker. Subtract for cloudy/rainy/snowy days. Also keep in mind that most cells out there today are 8-12% efficient. In order to get widespread adoption of the 50% Berkeley lab version, you have to replace all existing panels. Don't forget that you have to keep them clean -- dirt is not a good photovoltaic. And finally, remember to calculate into all of this that solar cells degrade by 2-5% every year; In the best case scenario, a ten year old cell is only working at 80% of its original capacity. (Now is your chance folks! A perfect example where integrals can be used for a real world calculation. Calc 2 wasn't a waste of time for non-physicists after all!)
Compare the number you get with >3.7 million megawatt/hours, the amount used by the US in 2001 (according to the Department of Energy). Do the numbers add up? No. If you cut the used electricity in half, would the numbers match up? No. Will people voluntarily cut energy usage substantially? No. Do energy usage trends indicate a future increase? Yes. It's not personal, it's just what the numbers say.
It's not even a question of more research into solar cells. "1.36 kilowatts" is the average of a hard limit. No cell will ever convert more energy than it receives. The whole "energy is neither created nor destroyed; It merely changes form." The solar cell debate has never been about if they can produce energy but rather if it produces enough energy. For a single home that doesn't waste much electricity? Usually. For the whole residential, rural, and industrial U.S.? Not even close.
-----
Now what about wind...because I know someone's going to bring it up. Allow me to direct you to The Earth Policy Institute, an organization with a decidedly alternative/renewable energy bias. (Not a bad thing, just making it clear that it has no reason to artificially lower their numbers to make wind look bad.) Their examination of wind power is quite optimistic. Pay special attention to their expectations: gathering hydrogen for fuel in cars, halting coal usage, etc. Now let's look at the data they used for that. They cite a total U.S. potential (not current, but potential) of 1,221,191 megawatts. Now let's assume that this number is constant and not a maximum output. Remember, watts are an instantaneous measurement, not over time. This is why our energy meters read in kilowatt hours. Let's look back at the total U.S. power usage of 3.7 million megawatts. Wind is short by a third; It can't even replace coal (52% of all U.S. power production) let alone meet EPW's expectations that "Wind power can meet not only all U.S. electricity needs, but all U.S. energy needs."
But what about wind along with solar? Well, you'd need to make sure the solar cells weren't shadowed by the windmills. Then y
"According to Stephen Mansfield's sympathetic account in The Faith of George W. Bush, he then calls his friend, the Charismatic preacher James Robison, host of the TV show Life Today, and tells him, 'I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president.'"
He is indeed a fool. But he is a fool mainly for believing that the presidency was given to him by divine providence. But perhaps he is not a fool but rather a liar that uses the divine to further his goals?
Hmmmm....
Now I come to think of the old quote that said, "Religion is what the common people see as true, the wise people see as false, and the rulers see as useful."
I don't know. Frankly, both possibilities suck.
Hmmm... Miata: two door, two-seater (the rear of that car doesn't really count as an extra seat in my opinion) and gets 37MPG. Prius: four door, five-seater and gets 40-50MPG. (I get closer to 50 than 40, but whatever.)
Looks more efficient by design to me.
- More expensive
- Cannot be used with diesels that have natural rubber hoses and lines -- they dissolve with biodiesel use
More often, the biodiesel is blended with standard fossil fuel diesel to offset the costs but still reduce the usage of fossil fuel diesel.
Consumer Reports tests cars closer to actual driving styles. The EPA tests to optimum efficiency driving styles. Therein lies the discrepency.
Emissions and mileage are two distinct things -- even for the EPA. When testing, they put gasoline in, they drive it for a given distance, and then they see how much gasoline is left. It has absolutely nothing to do with emissions.
Emissions are a separate designation. This is the LEV (Low Emissions Vehicle), ULEV (Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle), SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle), and PZEV (Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle). Each is something like a factor of five of each other. For point of reference, the original Civic is a LEV, the hybrid Civic is a ULEV, the original Prius is a SULEV, and the new Prius is a PZEV. It is in these designations that the EPA depicts vehicle emissions.
They have nothing to do with mileage. The sticker on my 2001 Prius says something like 52/47MPG. And you know what? After calculating how far I go relative to how much gas I put in, that's about right.
Careful driving is what gives SUVs their 15MPG rating. How they are normally driven, they get 7-8MPG.
The sticker estimates for all cars is with careful (sensible) driving habits.
Except that I actually have a hybrid -- a 2001 Toyota Prius. I get much better than 31.5MPG even on my worst average tanks. Then again, I don't gun the engine after a stop, I start braking earlier before the stop sign than most, I don't usually accelerate uphill (I can, it's just horrible for mileage), and I usually don't go 90 on the highway.
Lo and behold, my average mileage is closer to 48MPG. And this isn't from the in-dash mileage indicator. This is from watching how much gas goes in versus how far I go per tank. Going from Santa Cruz, CA to Seattle is a little over 1,000 miles (not as the crow flies, of course). I did it in two tanks. (I didn't speed while I was in Oregon as California plates seem to be a "please ticket me" sign.) Since the Prius doesn't have a 16-gallon fuel tank, I'm left with the result that I'm getting noticeably better than 31.5MPG.
I don't know about the Civic, but the Prius ain't far off the mark for advertised mileage. The newer models are even better. They are more efficient. They do have lower emissions. They are not wasted.
The Prius has batteries, four cylinders, medium torque for a car its size, and low roll-resistance tires. I think that 100MPG+ is a bit overly optimistic. Could it be done? Sure, but you'd end up with a car that has trouble carrying five adults or anything heavy in the trunk.
The Honda Insight was in that model. It only(!) got about 60-70MPG though. And it is a two-seater, three-cylinder, no trunk space, horrible acoustic, commuter vehicle.
I have a first generation Prius, 2001 model year. I constantly check mileage. I constantly get 45-52MPG averaged over the course of a fuel tank. If I'm constantly making short runs to the grocery store and it's cold, I'll see 38-42MPG. The only times I see 35MPG are when I've been going 85MPH on the highway for extended distances (although, it's usually closer to 40MPG), or when I'm going up long, moderate inclines.
Sure, if you gun the engine, try to accelerate to 75MPH as fast as you can, slam on the gas pedal after every stop sign, wait until the last minute to hit the brakes before coming to a light, you will get crappy gas mileage. Then again, if you do that in an SUV rated at 15MPG, you will get 7MPG.
News flash: When you drive aggressively, your mileage will suck.
I drove from Santa Cruz, CA (just north of Monterey) to Seattle, WA two summers ago. Straight shot up. 1,000 miles between the two points. Sometimes with traffic. Sometimes without. ~12 gallon tank. I filled up when I left Santa Cruz, I refuelled in Medford, OR, and I refuelled after I reached Seattle and checked into my hotel room. Granted, you should not do this. I should have topped the tank off more often instead of running it all of the way down, but that sure as shit doesn't work out to 35MPG.
And three years after I bought the car, it still performs the same.
I can't speak to the Civic though, and there's no way in hell that I'd trade my Prius in for a Civic.
Having Mozilla as a platform means talking to a well-defined API. Is the platform Windows or UNIX? Doesn't matter; use the Mozilla API. Want MFC/DirectX as your widget rendering engine or GTK+? Doesn't matter; use the Mozilla API.
Just STDIN et al., eh? What about libssl? What about libc? What about libgthread? You are comparing apples and oranges. When you use an component in Mozilla that's written in C++ (for example), it's like using the functions in a shared library. When you use JavaScript to pass values to and from those components, it's like using perl/csh/sh and calling utility programs. Well...almost. The difference being that the UNIX method of "scripting processes" model is far more loose and prone to failure when given bad input. For a closed system used only by a sysadmin, this is fine. For the masses with myriad variations, the model easily breaks with a lot of loud frustration and venting soon to follow.
Not to mention of course that piping data from process to process is just a hop, skip, and a jump from rudimentary programming. Not everyone is a programmer. Programmers aren't the only ones who need to use programs. And most folks -- even many programmers -- like to use graphical widgets.
If you're on the command line, Mozilla isn't an issue. STDIN and STDOUT kick ass. But then again, the "desktop" becomes immaterial at that point as well. Mozilla was made for graphical work. Adding copy, paste, drag and drop, etc. to the list of requirements by definition breaks the UNIX paradigm.
Repeat after me: GUI environments are not compatible with the traditional UNIX "one tool/one task" model.
Or were you suggesting that drag and drop be implemented somehow with stdio redirects?
I wouldn't recommend it. Some would say that it's inappropriate for viewing by children. Personally, I think that it's inappropriate for viewing by most adults.
First off, where did Java vs. PHP come from in this thread? If you look at my list, it includes PHP ADO. My point here was that if database abstraction is just as easy and just as much code as hard-coding a particular database, why code for just one? I don't know what kinda crack you're smoking with that potato peeling analogy.
More apps means more MySQL installations. More MySQL installations means more apps. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. It's the same pattern followed by MS Windows years ago.
Inertia is not altered by better products; It's reversed by the introduction of "killer" features that are simply unavailable elsewhere. PostgreSQL has the features, but unless people know and understand what they are, they will not be determining factors, Win32 or no Win32.
It doesn't bug me that your solution works for you. The fact that you know the difference between databases and still find that MySQL is the best tool for the job speaks volumes. I am curious as to what aspects of MySQL you find to be superior to Firebird or PostgreSQL? I would honestly like to hear them.
I'm also curious about the 200 queries/sec. You have a setup with 50 inserts, updates, and deletes per second? I am indeed impressed.
Don't know where this came from, but good on you. If you're taking in values, running matches and substitutions, running queries against them, and sending off again, Perl is a great tool. I never would have thought ill of you for it.
But you are completely ignoring the fact that a wide variety of bicycles, motorcycles, cars, and trucks are available.
Are they >95% select statements? That's probably why. If your projects were more insert/update oriented, you wouldn't be quite so glowing in your praise. It also raises the question: have you used anything else? Have you used another RDBMS package or are you simply assuming that because MySQL was easy to setup that all others must be harder?
Try out PosgreSQL for a short time. It's free as well. Get any one of the books for PostgreSQL and go through the exercises/examples. Trust me. If you are coming from only MySQL experience, you will have quite a few "I didn't know that was possible" moments.
The worst thing that'll happen is that you will choose MySQL based upon an informed decision related to the job at hand. The best thing is that you'll have expanded your toolkit and opened the door to a much greater variety of database engines. (PostgreSQL is more like all of the other popular RDBMSs than it is to MySQL.)
This is funny when viewed with your "cheap shot" earlier. When developing for yourself, you can use whatever is easier at the time whether you are an experienced DBA or not. When developing for others, the clients are saying, "We can't do good database work. That's what we want you for." They are paying you to be "aware of the logical capabilities of the relational model." Only they of course will never say this. They will simply say, "I want a reliable system." It's up to you as a developer to translate.
It's like when someone says, "I want my web page to be easy to use." They usually mean, "I want my web page to always stay up, have a logical, easy to navigate structure, be consistent, and yet deal with my color-blind sense of style and gaudy logo." Do you make a web site like someone who has never made one before (because the client doesn't know, why should you?), or do you follow all of their guidelines and yet still try to make one that can actually stand the test of time?
People pay you to be more knowledgeable, not as knowledgeable or less knowledgeable than they. This is not to say that you should disregard their desires. This is saying that when they can't tell the difference, use the better materials just because you know better.
Project requirements change. That is a fact. Your project may not be 99.9% selects anymore. Inserts and updates may become more important. Maybe you want to add a lot more concurrent database clients? In those situations, MySQL turns into a dog compared to other options. When one engine (or operating system) doesn't cut the mustard anymore, it's a question of whether the transition costs are tripled or not.
Then there's the case where you are not the end user, and the client already has a database they are happy with and/or have trained personnel to maintain it. In this case, MySQL is more expensive for them.
Most MySQL advocates say that they don't need stored procedures, views, triggers, etc. in the projects they do. Fair enough. But what happens when you come across a project that does need one of these? Oops! Sorry. You're married to MySQL.
What's that? Stored procedures aren't portable? Mostly that's correct, but they aren't all fundamentally different. In fact, Oracle's procedural language has more in common with PostgreSQL's default procedural language than MySQL has with the SQL92 and SQL99 standards. And porting stored procedures are a damn sight easier than trying to port the custom MySQL functions people write in C in a MySQL-only API.
MySQL fits your task the best? By all means, use it. But tying yourself inextricably to it? Better get the first-aid ready because sooner or later, you're gonna get bit in the ass for that decision.
I agree. I also agree that you don't need to use every feature and technique at your disposal on every project. But that's what MySQL requires much of the time. Your application layer grows in a couple of places when you don't have CHECK constraints in your database. You know what CHECK constraints are, right? They're one of the things that MySQL happily accepts in the CREATE TABLE query, but silently ignores because it's not implemented.
People say to rely on the app layer to make sure your data is correct and that when MySQL fails silently, it's your fault. If that is so, what happens when a project has more than one developer? Do you know the other's mind? Do they know yours? Gotta rely on good communication, hunh? Wouldn't it be better if the database threw an error during development so that you two were prompted to converse on the subject? Or are you one of those "good teams mind-meld" individuals who discounts that there are different skill sets and expectations on any project.
Just make your app layer better? If that is so, why not have a database backend that actually catches the errors so you can fix your app layer where broken?
Still want things more loose? Here's an idea: don't use foreign keys or check constraints. No matter what database you use, you don't have to use every feature. It's good to know that the features are there if you do need them though. MySQL is a leap of faith that you will never need anything more. There is a big difference between the two camps.
You are so right.
/etc/init.d/postgresql start
I guess I can see the argument for Windows, but *nix boxes? Is everyone trying to install from source. Obviously this is not the audience we were talking about. Nevermind that by source is not all that difficult either, with a package manager, it's downright embarrasing how easy it is.
Step 1: Install
% su (or sudo with the command)
% apt-get install postgresql-server
- or with apt-rpm -
% apt-rpm install postgresql-server
- or with just any old RPM -
download the RPMs and run
% rpm -Uvh postgresql*?
Step 2: Start the postgresql server.
% service postgresql start
- or -
%
Step 3: Add your username to the postgres group.
Step 4: Become the normal user again.
Step 5: Create a database as that user
$ createdb <dbname>
Step 6: Connect to the database
$ psql <dbname>
Step 7: Start making SQL queries -- standard SQL99-compliant queries at that.
Can a MySQL advocate please explain how it would be easier to install MySQL? Please?
Which brings me to another point that MySQL folks love to make: there's more documentation available for MySQL. Okay, we've established that installation is a non-issue. What about usage? With both, you connect via a client and make queries. MySQL has some weird syntax and tragic quirks, therefore it's a good thing that there's a lot of documentation. PostgreSQL? Sure there are comparatively fewer books with "PostgreSQL" on the cover. But then, since it closely follows the well published SQL92 and SQL99 specs, most books titled with "SQL" should suffice. Take the books that teach to the spec versus books that teach MySQL's dialect and the scales tip in PostgreSQL's favor.
Has anyone else considered that PostgreSQL books simply aren't as necessary as MySQL? Books solely on MySQL should be renamed to another popular O'reilly series: the series with "Windows XP Annoyances."
I guess the reason they don't is that MySQL diverges so much from both SQL92 and SQL99 that you might as well not compare the two; It doesn't look too good to describe a complete product as an annoyance.
It was my understanding that the knowledge gap usually appeared later in life. For example, the extremely high attrition rates of women in Comp. Sci., Chemistry, and Physics departments in college (for example) were not due mainly to Barbie and "math is hard" but rather the attitudes of many of the male students and professors.
The stories I've heard... Of girls showing interest in science so the parents buy the boy a chemistry set (or a computer or something similarly scientific or technical). Of girls using the computer in their brother's room. Listen to the stories about teacher's expectations and biases in the classroom.
Read the posts on Slashdot that say, "Women just aren't as good as X as men are." Pay attention to the comments that say, "Male minds are drawn more to Y than female minds." Pay even closer attention to the posts that say, "Natalie Portman" and "hot grits!" No, there's no objectification in here. No, there's no abusive generalization in here. No, there's no ambivalence or outright animosity.
To me, the discussion about the pros/cons of Barbie are like trying to enforce a proper diet for people with major stab wounds. Yes, it's better not to eat so many Oreos, but let's keep some perspective here. There are more women in the sciences today than have ever been, and it sure as shit ain't because Barbie stopped being as popular. There are still too few women in comp. sci., chemistry, and physics, and it sure as shit ain't because Barbie is still popular. No, male chauvinism isn't the only issue. But Barbie?
Please. Some Perspective. Please.