We don't run anything on solar, it's run on electricity. And yes we can run the entire world on electricity...and for the most part already do. The trick with solar and renewable is energy storage and that isn't there yet but will come in likely a matter of decades.
But to deal with the CO2 issues, for the next 20-50 years, yes nuclear is the only CO2 free base load source we've got. The problem is by the time you get all those plants constructed, you likely won't need them for more than a decade or two more...which makes that massive investment less than ideal.
Nuclear is a terrible idea. It is, however, the only choice we have for the next 50ish years for non CO2 releasing true baseload power. Even then though, perhaps having more peaking gas plants might be able to cover that. Not CO2 free but less than coal.
Renewables can provide orders of magnitude more energy than nuclear or fossil fuels and can do that as of today. What they can't do just yet is store that energy to smooth out it's variable generation scale. Batteries are the next front of massive change.
Think your link is wrong Forbes doesn't know about it.
How much is it going to cost to relocate Florida? NYC? Half of SC?
If the cost of carbon fueled harvest equipment gets too expensive ( or more correctly... accurate) farmers will switch to renewable fueled machines.
The point is exactly that...carbon fuel is massively UNDERPRICED currently and will only go up. Start the switch now while it's still relatively low priced rather than wait for both high prices and the need for a quick conversion.
Same way saving a little every month is cheaper over time than saving more per month but starting later.
Indeed it is money driven. We basically don't want to see our kids paying for our mistakes so we're trying to get started paying the debts we've incurred before then.
It even further points out that the 'bad' stations Watts identified were indeed measuring incorrectly - they were 'cooler' than they should have been had they been put in 'good' locations. Sorta blows his point to bits.
Why would Watts try to suppress a video calmly showing how his 'discovery' of bad weather stations was totally bunk? They compared the stations Watts' said were good with the full set...and the data from them was *exactly* the same as the whole data set Watts claimed is flawed because of the bad stations; which the gov readily admits have issues. I.e. they know about the issues and mitigate them as any good scientist does when working with imperfect data where you know the imperfections.
There are no legitimate purposes to parallel construction. Protecting undercover agents and informants is routinely done in court cases and does not require parallel construction.
What parallel construction does violate is the fundamental bedrock principle of the modern legal system that you are allowed to question your accuser.
It is dangerous, but a person innocent of substantial wrongdoing is yet to be convicted because of it...
And just how do you know this? An 'innocent' person is one who can't be convicted based on the evidence introduced against them. When evidence that wouldn't be admissible is used because of parallel construction, the person 'convicted' is actually innocent.
and that's probably true for a 'stationary' Lidar gun being used for speed enforcement. And which can be wiped off frequently.
The problem is a car driving through snow/ice that builds up in front of the laser/sensors.
I know I've driven in ice storms where I stopped to 'de-ice' my car and I quite literally had a 2-3 inch high pile of ice all around the front of my car when I was done. That's a LOT of ice for said lasers to get through.
That doesn't mean other scientists aren't going to then develop a practical protection for a 1 atom thick layer of graphene that still allows the process to work.
What isn't practical today has *very* frequently become practical in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Both wrong and right in the same post :)
We don't run anything on solar, it's run on electricity. And yes we can run the entire world on electricity...and for the most part already do. The trick with solar and renewable is energy storage and that isn't there yet but will come in likely a matter of decades.
But to deal with the CO2 issues, for the next 20-50 years, yes nuclear is the only CO2 free base load source we've got. The problem is by the time you get all those plants constructed, you likely won't need them for more than a decade or two more...which makes that massive investment less than ideal.
Nuclear is a terrible idea. It is, however, the only choice we have for the next 50ish years for non CO2 releasing true baseload power. Even then though, perhaps having more peaking gas plants might be able to cover that. Not CO2 free but less than coal.
Renewables can provide orders of magnitude more energy than nuclear or fossil fuels and can do that as of today. What they can't do just yet is store that energy to smooth out it's variable generation scale. Batteries are the next front of massive change.
[coal] is still the dominant energy source in the US
Natural gas surpasses coal for electricity generation, July 2015
Now just for a month, but coal has been declining in it's percentage.
in 2010 coal was 50%. Dropping to 30% in just 5 years? that's not a 'dominant' player, that's a dead albatross on it's way down.
Think your link is wrong Forbes doesn't know about it. How much is it going to cost to relocate Florida? NYC? Half of SC? If the cost of carbon fueled harvest equipment gets too expensive ( or more correctly... accurate) farmers will switch to renewable fueled machines. The point is exactly that...carbon fuel is massively UNDERPRICED currently and will only go up. Start the switch now while it's still relatively low priced rather than wait for both high prices and the need for a quick conversion. Same way saving a little every month is cheaper over time than saving more per month but starting later.
And who said "There will never again be snow in Washington DC after 2010". Certainly google has no record of such a statement...
Show us the failed predictions about climate, not weather.
become the leaders in the new energy economy
We had a chance with Solar...but the GOP stopped any grants to an industry until it could stand on it's own. Now it's all in China.
"the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to regulate emission of pollutants that "endanger public health and welfare.""
I'd say the drought in California, the increased wildfires in Texas and say....Florida being underwater pretty squarely fall in its wheelhouse.
SCOTUS agrees
The Clean Air Act has been modified many times under it's proscribed authority as new pollutants are discovered and/or become a serious threat.
Indeed it is money driven. We basically don't want to see our kids paying for our mistakes so we're trying to get started paying the debts we've incurred before then.
Capitalism is a redistribution plot...by design.
and for a plethora of sources check these
It even further points out that the 'bad' stations Watts identified were indeed measuring incorrectly - they were 'cooler' than they should have been had they been put in 'good' locations. Sorta blows his point to bits.
here ya go
Why would Watts try to suppress a video calmly showing how his 'discovery' of bad weather stations was totally bunk? They compared the stations Watts' said were good with the full set...and the data from them was *exactly* the same as the whole data set Watts claimed is flawed because of the bad stations; which the gov readily admits have issues. I.e. they know about the issues and mitigate them as any good scientist does when working with imperfect data where you know the imperfections.
2 words. Aaron. Swartz. cite
What parallel construction does violate is the fundamental bedrock principle of the modern legal system that you are allowed to question your accuser.
It is dangerous, but a person innocent of substantial wrongdoing is yet to be convicted because of it...
And just how do you know this? An 'innocent' person is one who can't be convicted based on the evidence introduced against them. When evidence that wouldn't be admissible is used because of parallel construction, the person 'convicted' is actually innocent.
and be subject to the CFAA and YEARS of jail time.
Agreed in principle. However, the law unfortunately disagrees. We need to vote in more reps to change these laws.
That 'civil' charge carries $150K 'per instance' fine. It's absurd and why we need to get these laws changed.
mod points if I had'em
I'm already annoyed at the K Band alert going off every time I near a new vehicle that has driving assist technologies enabled.
Sorry. Not Sorry.
who says the cars won't be emitting visible light? It's ridiculously stupid to make cars LESS visibile just because they are self driving cars.
replace deer with pedestrians. You wouldn't have these driving down town lanes with no lights on would you?
and that's probably true for a 'stationary' Lidar gun being used for speed enforcement. And which can be wiped off frequently.
The problem is a car driving through snow/ice that builds up in front of the laser/sensors.
I know I've driven in ice storms where I stopped to 'de-ice' my car and I quite literally had a 2-3 inch high pile of ice all around the front of my car when I was done. That's a LOT of ice for said lasers to get through.
only from behind though ;-)
Could fuel a new industry in bumper butt busters!
back of the envelope arguments said that 1. a moon shot was ridiculous 2. that Apollo 13 was doomed.
Posters point is still valid.
private space industry just landed a reusable rocket on a heaving platform in the ocean. That's nothing to sneeze at.
Perhaps 'kludgy' - awkwardly or inelegantly made or done.
That doesn't mean other scientists aren't going to then develop a practical protection for a 1 atom thick layer of graphene that still allows the process to work.
What isn't practical today has *very* frequently become practical in the future.
no, that would make it worse. It's the mass moving FROM the poles that's causing the changes.