One thing to mention, the capital investment in your home won't disappear. A home with a solar panel and 11 dollar hydro bills in the summer will easily get more on the market than the same home with a 300 dollar hydro bill. Plus, becuase of the nature of PV, they shouldn't depreciate the same way most capital would. New paint will peel, A new driveway will crack, but those PV cells will keep cranking out power, so in 5-7 years, you can sell your house, get back your capital, and your electricity was effectively free.
I don't know about the usual batteries, but I made a plan for an off-grid house(Just a curiosity, I was bored one day), and it used forklift batteries. These batteries have lifespans of 10-20 years with proper maintenance (distilled water every so often, not running them too far), so they'll be extremely green compared to the majority of batteries with a tenth of the life, and at such a huge amount of time, they'll be greener than pretty much any non-renewable energy source. Also, the batteries can be recycled, so manufacturing waste can be minimized.
The one major downside is cost. I was planning so I could run the household on battery power for a full 24 hours full consumption in the winter months in case the wind generator broke and the solar panels were recieving no sunlight at all, and it was easily $30,000 for enough batteries to run that long.
I'd imagine he'll make back anything he put into the solar panels the moment he sells his house. Having no hydro bills would be a massive selling point for a lot of people, he'll probably get better than market for his house because of it.
Just becuase the Federal Government would be out of the business of legislating marriage doesn't mean the states couldn't. Frankly, I'd prefer it that way. Let Texas have their "one man, one woman" rules, let a place like California have their own "two people" laws. The massive expansion in federal power is a problem. It lets idealogues dictate how to live to all 50 states, where the US was designed for a minimalist federal government.
Let the US stockpile the resources it needs to keep a commodity based currency afloat. It would encourage savings, it would dissuate governments from running up the debt, it would stop inflation it it's tracks. We're on the edge of a very scary cliff right now. Our options aren't "stifle growth" and "keep growing", they're closer to "stifle growth" and "completely crash". The subprime mortgage crisis is a sign of things to come. Our entire economy is based on irresponsibility. this is the sort of thing we're seeing right now. Fuel prices are another rising cost, food prices too, and soon everything is going to cost a lot more, because truckers and manufacturing companies aren't going to accept subsidizing our lifestyles forever.
It may be possible to have a surplus, but the fact is, it's very easy to justify debt with current economic policies. The US ran up a debt of about 200 million in World War II, and considered that an incredibly huge debt. Today, thanks to the hidden tax of inflation, that 200 million is a drop in the bucket we could pay back in a single year if we were so inclined(Cancel the war, pay back the debt twice). Why bother saving money when it will be worth less later? Why bother to NOT borrow money when the value of the loan will depreciate rapidly over time? There's a reason why in the past 20 years we've gone to having a negative savings ratio.
In Korea, you're completely heading off in another direction from where I was. If North and South Korea were forced to deal with their differences on their own like vietnam, there's a good chance that they'd unify and get over their differences, just like vietnam did. There's also a good chance that once we're out of Iraq, and we stop killing people over there, we'll see a drop in violence, rather than the expected increase. Besides, why is it our responsibility to police the world, to keep military bases in a full quarter of countries on earth?
As for civil rights issues, the US has no moral ground upon which to be talking to anyone. We've got secret prisons throughout the world, where we wilfully participate in torture. We've invaded countries that didn't attack us and slaughtered at least tens of thousands of innocents(And currently shoot anyone who looks at us wrong in our benevolent governance there). We're eroding the rights enumerated in our own constitution. Under the PATRIOT act, we're picking up dissidents and locking them up without a trial or writ of habeas corpus. Face it. We may have a better PR team than Cuba, but we're no better.
I'd say, let's drop all entitlements for ALL people(granted, phasing them out over time so the people who use them now aren't left in the cold). Not just immigrants, for everyone. The fact is, it doesn't matter how much money we give to people through taxes, we're just taking them from taxes. Governments can't create weatlh simply by taking from everyone and giving to everyone. Either you're creating two classes of people, net tax providers and net tax consumers, or you're going to tax people for the amount of services they use, which would lead to the eventual end of government services as free market forces go and provide the same services with greater quality or lower cost.
When a system is abused, it is often restricted or eliminated. Birthright citizenship is a perfect example in this case. If large amounts of people are breaking the law and violating our sovereignty in order to exploit birthright citizenship rules, then it only makes logical sense that such citizenship will be restricted.
The reason I can support Ron Paul is that even though he doesn't believe what I believe on a few social issues, he strongly believes it wouldn't be the job of the Federal Government to legislate these things. He may oppose gay marriage, but if the tax breaks were gone, the Federal Government would be out of the business of legislating marriage, as it rightly should be.
The gold standard (He calls it that, but he's more interested in using a breadbasket of commodities, a more rational approach than gold-only) may seem at face value to be a bad idea, until you realise this: The hyperinflation of the past 20 years has promoted a culture of a debt-holding nation. If you saved 10,000 dollars only 5-10 years ago, that same money which could've bought 160,000 litres of fuel will now buy you closer to 10,000 litres of fuel. Other commodities are experiencing similar booms in pricing. Because of inflation, the money in your bank account is now worth 16 times less than it was 10 years ago. If you were saving for your kids college, your work is worth 16 times less than it was.
ON THE OTHER HAND, any debts you've attained are also worth 16 times less. Simply maintain a debt for 10 years, and you'll have 16 times less debt to worry about in real monetary terms.
We're seeing the effects of that right now. Food is going up, energy is going up, wages are stagnating, our savings are worth less, but the average US citizen has a negative savings ratio. We owe trillions to China, and from the rhetoric we're seeing, since China isn't buying our debt anymore, we're going to start seeing inflation reach new and terrifying heights as the Federal Reserve prints bank notes to finance wars we have no place in.
On Iraq, Ron Paul uses the examples of Korea and Vietnam to show that leaving Iraq isn't necessarily immoral. We stayed in Korea, we stayed for 50 years, and nothing's changed. Vietnam, on the other hand, has united, and today we trade with them and we're allies with them.
While Ron Paul DOES focus on sovereignty and keeping illegal aliens out of the country as a matter of national defence, his root plan IS to stop giving them money. It's to stop giving EVERYONE money. Compared to the current administration taking out debt our kids will have to pay back so they can cut us all a cheque, I'd say that's a pretty damn reasonable idea.
NOBODY chops down old growth forests to make paper.
And I'd venture a guess that you've never been to the sort of place where they harvest the trees to make paper. It's 3 hours drive between gas stations, and no houses or anything, just straight trees in both directions. Displacing ecosystems? Quit being so arrogant.
Most of the energy for making paper comes from burning the non-fibrous sugars and such from the trees themselves. Generally, a well designed paper mill doesn't need extra energy input except for the lime kiln which recausticizes the lime mud extracted from the green liquor.
For unbleached kraft, I'd imagine recycling would simply be throwing it into a repulper before the washer stage, and letting the washers take care of any contaminants. I'm not sure if it'd reduce the amount of lime mud to be recausticized or not.
You're ignorant. Shut up and leave the environmental engineering to the environmental engineers.
First off, sulphur dioxide, you say? In unbleached kraft paper? Gee, that's really interesting! I didn't know that they used BLEACHING AGENTS in making UNBLEACHED KRAFT PAPER.
Oh look, your precious study doesn't apply to unbleached kraft either! Gee, that's interesting!
Ah yes, let's also talk about this "water is consumed" myth. Water is taken from the water table, filtered, and either evaporated(and returned to the water table cleaner than it started) or sent through the environmental system to remove pollutants and returned to the water table cleaner than it started. At no point is water actually consumed in the process of making unbleached kraft paper.
Also, trees are very much a similar thing. If you cut down a tree, but plant three more, as environmental laws in many paper-making countries demand, guess what? You've got more trees than you've started with, and those trees are going to grow into big strong trees! Imagine that!
You're ignorant of paper-making. You're just as bad as Rush Limbaugh because you're spouting off like you have a clue, when you clearly don't.
It's just Kraft Paper. Not too many harsh chemicals used at all. The biggest environmental hazard would be the energy use in the kiln recausticizing the lime mud, since the caustic is reused.
I'd wait for cellulostic ethanol to take off. Recycling becomes a pretty good idea THEN.
I ignore the guy behind me. I find that by simply slowing the pace down a bit, I can be at the back of the pack, and from there I can keep whatever zones of control I want.
They have paid sick days, but they don't have paid snow days. Considering nearly every day is -40C and icy as hell in the winter, it's not really an option to routinely take days off for bad conditions.
And if I'm already at work, what am I do to? Pull 16 hour shift so the highways can be cleared so I can go home?
Somehow I think my boss would get ticked if I did either.
Regardless, the last time this happened to me was actually on a trip where, when we got in the car, we were wearing shorts and no jackets. A freak blizzard hit that was so hard we had to make that choice, but there was no predicting such a crazy thing, considering there was no snow left at that point!
We really lucked out, because half the country got hit with a really REALLY hard snow storm that we managed to avoid coming home. Sounds like we would've been trapped for a good 3 days if we'd stopped and waited for it to hit us.
When someone rear-ends another person, it's always the person behind's fault. It doesn't matter HOW the person in front drives, it's our responsibility as drivers to drive at a speed which will allow us to react to changing road conditions, such as people stopping suddenly.
It's not HIS fault that half the friggin' earth seems to have the stuff.
Seriously, how big WAS the planet krypton? If you go with the distribution of kryptonite on earth as a guide, taking into account that the planet is supposedly light years away from earth, the planet must've been bigger than most solar systems, and must've formed a small sun after it exploded!
Wow. "The United States has made some poor foreign policy decisions in the past." is how you euphemise 50 years of assassination, war, murder, and propping up murderous regimes while tearing down democracies with the hidden talons of the CIA.
You're too well indoctrinated. I doubt you could take responsibility for something if you wanted to.
There are many storms up here in the north where your options are:
1. Stop and die because your car will be buried and you won't have enough gas to keep warm until morning. Also, if you stop, you could be hit by another car exercising option 2.
2. Keep going and live, despite the dangers because you can barely see the road.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's not yours. It's your kids'. You don't pay enough taxes to get the services you're recieving.
One thing to mention, the capital investment in your home won't disappear. A home with a solar panel and 11 dollar hydro bills in the summer will easily get more on the market than the same home with a 300 dollar hydro bill. Plus, becuase of the nature of PV, they shouldn't depreciate the same way most capital would. New paint will peel, A new driveway will crack, but those PV cells will keep cranking out power, so in 5-7 years, you can sell your house, get back your capital, and your electricity was effectively free.
I don't know about the usual batteries, but I made a plan for an off-grid house(Just a curiosity, I was bored one day), and it used forklift batteries. These batteries have lifespans of 10-20 years with proper maintenance (distilled water every so often, not running them too far), so they'll be extremely green compared to the majority of batteries with a tenth of the life, and at such a huge amount of time, they'll be greener than pretty much any non-renewable energy source. Also, the batteries can be recycled, so manufacturing waste can be minimized.
The one major downside is cost. I was planning so I could run the household on battery power for a full 24 hours full consumption in the winter months in case the wind generator broke and the solar panels were recieving no sunlight at all, and it was easily $30,000 for enough batteries to run that long.
I'd imagine he'll make back anything he put into the solar panels the moment he sells his house. Having no hydro bills would be a massive selling point for a lot of people, he'll probably get better than market for his house because of it.
I could be missing something, but it sounds to me like you're pretty much fucked.
Having socalised healthcare costs a lot of money.
Not having socialised healthcare costs a lot of humanity.
Your call.
I don't even need a paragraph to counter your post, just six words.
Enron. Even non-governments can be corrupt.
Did taxes drop after the electric companies were privatised?
Just becuase the Federal Government would be out of the business of legislating marriage doesn't mean the states couldn't. Frankly, I'd prefer it that way. Let Texas have their "one man, one woman" rules, let a place like California have their own "two people" laws. The massive expansion in federal power is a problem. It lets idealogues dictate how to live to all 50 states, where the US was designed for a minimalist federal government.
Let the US stockpile the resources it needs to keep a commodity based currency afloat. It would encourage savings, it would dissuate governments from running up the debt, it would stop inflation it it's tracks. We're on the edge of a very scary cliff right now. Our options aren't "stifle growth" and "keep growing", they're closer to "stifle growth" and "completely crash". The subprime mortgage crisis is a sign of things to come. Our entire economy is based on irresponsibility. this is the sort of thing we're seeing right now. Fuel prices are another rising cost, food prices too, and soon everything is going to cost a lot more, because truckers and manufacturing companies aren't going to accept subsidizing our lifestyles forever.
It may be possible to have a surplus, but the fact is, it's very easy to justify debt with current economic policies. The US ran up a debt of about 200 million in World War II, and considered that an incredibly huge debt. Today, thanks to the hidden tax of inflation, that 200 million is a drop in the bucket we could pay back in a single year if we were so inclined(Cancel the war, pay back the debt twice). Why bother saving money when it will be worth less later? Why bother to NOT borrow money when the value of the loan will depreciate rapidly over time? There's a reason why in the past 20 years we've gone to having a negative savings ratio.
In Korea, you're completely heading off in another direction from where I was. If North and South Korea were forced to deal with their differences on their own like vietnam, there's a good chance that they'd unify and get over their differences, just like vietnam did. There's also a good chance that once we're out of Iraq, and we stop killing people over there, we'll see a drop in violence, rather than the expected increase. Besides, why is it our responsibility to police the world, to keep military bases in a full quarter of countries on earth?
As for civil rights issues, the US has no moral ground upon which to be talking to anyone. We've got secret prisons throughout the world, where we wilfully participate in torture. We've invaded countries that didn't attack us and slaughtered at least tens of thousands of innocents(And currently shoot anyone who looks at us wrong in our benevolent governance there). We're eroding the rights enumerated in our own constitution. Under the PATRIOT act, we're picking up dissidents and locking them up without a trial or writ of habeas corpus. Face it. We may have a better PR team than Cuba, but we're no better.
I'd say, let's drop all entitlements for ALL people(granted, phasing them out over time so the people who use them now aren't left in the cold). Not just immigrants, for everyone. The fact is, it doesn't matter how much money we give to people through taxes, we're just taking them from taxes. Governments can't create weatlh simply by taking from everyone and giving to everyone. Either you're creating two classes of people, net tax providers and net tax consumers, or you're going to tax people for the amount of services they use, which would lead to the eventual end of government services as free market forces go and provide the same services with greater quality or lower cost.
When a system is abused, it is often restricted or eliminated. Birthright citizenship is a perfect example in this case. If large amounts of people are breaking the law and violating our sovereignty in order to exploit birthright citizenship rules, then it only makes logical sense that such citizenship will be restricted.
The reason I can support Ron Paul is that even though he doesn't believe what I believe on a few social issues, he strongly believes it wouldn't be the job of the Federal Government to legislate these things. He may oppose gay marriage, but if the tax breaks were gone, the Federal Government would be out of the business of legislating marriage, as it rightly should be.
The gold standard (He calls it that, but he's more interested in using a breadbasket of commodities, a more rational approach than gold-only) may seem at face value to be a bad idea, until you realise this: The hyperinflation of the past 20 years has promoted a culture of a debt-holding nation. If you saved 10,000 dollars only 5-10 years ago, that same money which could've bought 160,000 litres of fuel will now buy you closer to 10,000 litres of fuel. Other commodities are experiencing similar booms in pricing. Because of inflation, the money in your bank account is now worth 16 times less than it was 10 years ago. If you were saving for your kids college, your work is worth 16 times less than it was.
ON THE OTHER HAND, any debts you've attained are also worth 16 times less. Simply maintain a debt for 10 years, and you'll have 16 times less debt to worry about in real monetary terms.
We're seeing the effects of that right now. Food is going up, energy is going up, wages are stagnating, our savings are worth less, but the average US citizen has a negative savings ratio. We owe trillions to China, and from the rhetoric we're seeing, since China isn't buying our debt anymore, we're going to start seeing inflation reach new and terrifying heights as the Federal Reserve prints bank notes to finance wars we have no place in.
On Iraq, Ron Paul uses the examples of Korea and Vietnam to show that leaving Iraq isn't necessarily immoral. We stayed in Korea, we stayed for 50 years, and nothing's changed. Vietnam, on the other hand, has united, and today we trade with them and we're allies with them.
While Ron Paul DOES focus on sovereignty and keeping illegal aliens out of the country as a matter of national defence, his root plan IS to stop giving them money. It's to stop giving EVERYONE money. Compared to the current administration taking out debt our kids will have to pay back so they can cut us all a cheque, I'd say that's a pretty damn reasonable idea.
More ignorance.
NOBODY chops down old growth forests to make paper.
And I'd venture a guess that you've never been to the sort of place where they harvest the trees to make paper. It's 3 hours drive between gas stations, and no houses or anything, just straight trees in both directions. Displacing ecosystems? Quit being so arrogant.
I'm curious. How is he a nutbar?
I've been through his entire political platform a number of times, and it all seems very rational and sensical to me. What am I missing?
Most of the energy for making paper comes from burning the non-fibrous sugars and such from the trees themselves. Generally, a well designed paper mill doesn't need extra energy input except for the lime kiln which recausticizes the lime mud extracted from the green liquor.
For unbleached kraft, I'd imagine recycling would simply be throwing it into a repulper before the washer stage, and letting the washers take care of any contaminants. I'm not sure if it'd reduce the amount of lime mud to be recausticized or not.
You're ignorant. Shut up and leave the environmental engineering to the environmental engineers.
First off, sulphur dioxide, you say? In unbleached kraft paper? Gee, that's really interesting! I didn't know that they used BLEACHING AGENTS in making UNBLEACHED KRAFT PAPER.
Oh look, your precious study doesn't apply to unbleached kraft either! Gee, that's interesting!
Ah yes, let's also talk about this "water is consumed" myth. Water is taken from the water table, filtered, and either evaporated(and returned to the water table cleaner than it started) or sent through the environmental system to remove pollutants and returned to the water table cleaner than it started. At no point is water actually consumed in the process of making unbleached kraft paper.
Also, trees are very much a similar thing. If you cut down a tree, but plant three more, as environmental laws in many paper-making countries demand, guess what? You've got more trees than you've started with, and those trees are going to grow into big strong trees! Imagine that!
You're ignorant of paper-making. You're just as bad as Rush Limbaugh because you're spouting off like you have a clue, when you clearly don't.
It's just Kraft Paper. Not too many harsh chemicals used at all. The biggest environmental hazard would be the energy use in the kiln recausticizing the lime mud, since the caustic is reused.
I'd wait for cellulostic ethanol to take off. Recycling becomes a pretty good idea THEN.
Yep, you've definitely stated what a heatsink is and two irrationally high possible melting points.
Honestly though, I don't want my CPU at 50C if I can help it, especially if this 1W solution is supposed to be better than water cooling.
I ignore the guy behind me. I find that by simply slowing the pace down a bit, I can be at the back of the pack, and from there I can keep whatever zones of control I want.
Japan is looking into this idea, but much technology has to be created first before it can work.
If your computer was that cold, wouldn't the purpose of the heat sink be pretty much negated until it thawed?
They have paid sick days, but they don't have paid snow days. Considering nearly every day is -40C and icy as hell in the winter, it's not really an option to routinely take days off for bad conditions.
And if I'm already at work, what am I do to? Pull 16 hour shift so the highways can be cleared so I can go home?
Somehow I think my boss would get ticked if I did either.
Regardless, the last time this happened to me was actually on a trip where, when we got in the car, we were wearing shorts and no jackets. A freak blizzard hit that was so hard we had to make that choice, but there was no predicting such a crazy thing, considering there was no snow left at that point!
We really lucked out, because half the country got hit with a really REALLY hard snow storm that we managed to avoid coming home. Sounds like we would've been trapped for a good 3 days if we'd stopped and waited for it to hit us.
When someone rear-ends another person, it's always the person behind's fault. It doesn't matter HOW the person in front drives, it's our responsibility as drivers to drive at a speed which will allow us to react to changing road conditions, such as people stopping suddenly.
That said, teenage drivers pay for their increased risk factors with dollars and cents.
Insurance for a young driver is insane.
It's not HIS fault that half the friggin' earth seems to have the stuff.
Seriously, how big WAS the planet krypton? If you go with the distribution of kryptonite on earth as a guide, taking into account that the planet is supposedly light years away from earth, the planet must've been bigger than most solar systems, and must've formed a small sun after it exploded!
Wow. "The United States has made some poor foreign policy decisions in the past." is how you euphemise 50 years of assassination, war, murder, and propping up murderous regimes while tearing down democracies with the hidden talons of the CIA.
You're too well indoctrinated. I doubt you could take responsibility for something if you wanted to.
There are many storms up here in the north where your options are:
1. Stop and die because your car will be buried and you won't have enough gas to keep warm until morning. Also, if you stop, you could be hit by another car exercising option 2.
2. Keep going and live, despite the dangers because you can barely see the road.