Cute. 42 actually and the hearing is just fine. Believe me I need damn near silence to sleep. You are full of crap related to noise of modern dishwashers - they don't have much.
Related to turbines, I'm sure there is low frequency vibration near the towers. Fortunately they aren't putting these things near peoples homes. These are *rural* installations. Half-Mile or more between houses let alone turbines. I've been through near this area, it's not quite western US/Canada empty, but it's pretty empty.
No I'm not kidding. Um, how does a coal plant that I live 100 miles away from have any potential death to me when it explodes? None, zero. It has significant operational issues due to pollution, but that *could* be mitigated with proper filtering and sequestration. (We choose not to do that due to cost)
Hydro, again as I said, if you put a dam right over Tokyo yes you have potential. We don't do that for precisely that reason. Hoover Dam is not built over any major city. You can't build nuclear plants that far away from *everything*.
And even if you want to entertain the hydro issue, it's a one time thing. I can quite safely go walking through the disaster area the next day. Can't do that with nuclear as the radiation is ongoing for decades.
Chernobyl is the closest to 'spectacularly bad', but no, those aren't bad as in widespread dispersal into the environment. All could be much much worse.
Considering those, decidedly rural, municipalities are going to be sharing a portion of $1.2 BILLION in money from the turbine operators, I'd say quite a bit of money is coming their way whether it's specifically on their land or not. We're not talking about putting these in even suburban areas, we're talking about farms. Farms are large things where frankly, land values aren't part of the consideration the way they are for resorts or crowded suburbs.
"I don't like it" is being given the respect it deserves.
Come up with actual reasons for your opinions or we'll treat them with the respect they deserve...
Seriously, actual logical reasons why having something on your property that SAVES you money every month is bad? And by property here we're talking multiple acres, these things aren't situated anywhere near buildings. You do know they pay people to have these right? Just like they pay people to put billboards along highways.
1. EVs are a small part of the market, but we need to subsidize them so they can compete with the entrenched oil monopoly.
2. Uh, oil can too be used for electricity. Anything combustible is capable of producing electricity. Natural gas is a finite resource. It *will* go up in price just as oil is now. What that time frame is I won't pretend to know. The question is do you want to wait for those prices to inevitably go up, or do you want to start investing in renewable sources that won't *ever* go up now while prices are cheap?
And of course there's the fracking issue for natural gas. I tend to like clean water and a lack of earthquakes - two things that fracking may indeed be diametrically opposed too.
It is perfectly safe provided people aren't allowed to live in the danger zone. For nuclear that's something like 100 miles from the plant. Not workable.
Hydro with proper zoning and planning is perfectly save even when it fails. Nuclear is only safe when it doesn't fail.
Yeah but nuclear has the POTENTIAL to kill millions. It's why there are so many damned redundant safeguards on the plants. They simply can not fail. And yet, they do....
Just because nuclear hasn't YET failed in a spectacularly bad way doesn't mean it isn't possible. They actually considered evacuating Tokyo as one possible fallout of the Fukushima disaster. Tokyo. Where the hell do you evacuate 10 million people to?
It isn't *likely* to have such an event, but it is *possible*. No other power source has that potential killing capacity. Construction of wind, solar, hydro have fatalities. So does every other thing on the planet. They don't have any significant operational dangers. (Hydro needs planning to prevent people living below the dam or having adequate high ground to evac too but otherwise is perfectly safe). You can't prevent people from living 100 miles from a nuclear plant and there is no 'high' ground you can run to to escape radiation.
Uh, try something modern, like the last 5 years. Can barely tell the thing is on, literally. They can take 2 hours or more, but noise wise they are almost silent.
The disrespect Brewer shows for our most cherished rights offends me
Think of it as supreme respect for her most cherished American value...money. And the campaign donations she's cashing from corporate interests (i.e. private jail companies writing Immigration Legislation to make more prisoners) are just more examples of her devoted and deep respect...
There are realized fatalities and there are potential fatalities. I fully agree that in terms of realized deaths renewable sources may be higher. Though, the construction phase is different than the operational phase.
In the 'real' world however, you have to take into account potential problems and their likelihood as well. And while nuclear disasters are not 'likely' their potential for death and damage is massive (hence why they are made so redundant).
Show me any renewable source that has *ever* pushed a potential evacuation of 10 million people.
hell the internal emails from Japan document that one possible outcome of Fukushima was an evacuation of...Tokyo. Seriously, one of the largest cities on the planet evacuated because of something that happened hundreds of miles away (I'm not huge on my Japanese distances but it wasn't next door).
Frankly, all of them. None have the failure problems nuclear has, nor the long term waste storage problem. The closest case for failure issue is obviously hydro-electric, but you can mitigate all of those conditions with proper planning and zoning. How you zone 100 sq mile area of non-habitable land in a populated area?
Unlike coal they don't have any significant operational issues either.
Nuclear hasn't *yet* failed in a bad bad way, but the potential is always there. There is no such potential failure downside for anything else.
This the crux of the issue. They are not the same service. One is the ISP and one is content. Comcast is using their monopoly of the former to give an advantage to the latter.
The problem is that this only works when these things are spaced out significantly. Which defeats the purpose of using vertical space instead of horizontal space.
Moreover, they posit that these work well at dawn/dusk. Only the outside cells works good, the rest are in shadow from the outside cell.
Or think of a city highrise landscape. You don't get any direct sun at dawn/dusk if there's something of equal height between you and the sun.
Government intervention in markets is NEVER productive.
You mean like in the 1940's when the government literally told private manufacturers what to make? And subsequently lifted us out of the depression? oh right...defense spending isn't intervention in the markets...it's just 'good'.
Government intervention in the markets is absolutely necessary...to a point. The lack of government intervention led to the great Depression and our most recent Recession. Completely unregulated markets will crash - regularly and routinely. Laws and regulations exist for a reason...
Five years from now, they will have a lot less money, and when they try to jack up the prices, we will be competitive again.
The problem is you assume that our ability, manpower and know how remain at the level when we stopped using them. People can't just take 5 years off waiting for a trade war to work itself out. Nor can mines just stop production and expect to start up again with no cost.
Besides, what China would do in 5 years is simply lower their prices when they see a challenge in production coming on online. Like how the Saudi's can just start pumping massive amounts of oil to stabilize the market. They could do that to 'destabilize' the market too....
Or is this a test? Those who say 'sure' don't get return calls, those who say 'not a chance'...show the requisite intelligence and are kept in the running for the position?
If I need a new tire (my spare is currently full size...natch ) I buy a tire and have my mechanic install it on the car.
What if that tire is defective? I either get a refund or a new tire for free with likely the same installation costs.
If we substitute kidney for tire and doctor for mechanic, the only difference is right now, we don't pay for the kidney (tire) itself, only the hospital and doctor 'installation' services.
If you want to now start paying for the kidney...that starts creating incentives to lie about how 'good' the donor kidney is. Do you want Ozzy Ozbourne's kidney? Or Keith Richards? Or some unknown boozer's liver?
If the organ was warranted to be 'good' and it wasn't due to lying or other negligence and you paid them $400,000 dollars, you wouldn't want that money back?
The difference is the doctors and hospitals are not the suppliers they are simply the workers - they get paid in any circumstance. Paying the donor's family for the donor's organs is an entirely different, and new, scenario.
Catholic hospitals are primarily secular in nature.
In general understanding I would agree, however, given the recent controversy and Obama's 'compromise' I'd say that's pretty well in question now.
They specifically argued that because they are religious in 'founding' they should be able to choose what to do and what not to do regardless of employment law. Obama said "OK here's a different way so you won't pay for it", thus granting their argument's base of reason.
If I go to St. Mary of the Holy Land of Virgin Blessed Heart hospital for an X-ray of a broken arm
Talk about apples and oranges. The issue was with EMPLOYEES not with PATIENTS. PATIENTS already are denied care due to 'objections of conscience' and quite legally too. They have to be transferred somewhere that will provide the care, but St. Mary of the Holy Land of Virgin Blessed Heart is certainly not performing abortions for you.
Second apple - you used a standard medical procedure, a broken arm, to which just about nobody objects, to a controversial (to some anyway) procedure, abortion/contraception, that many object too.
My point is simple, if they take federal funds, they simply can't not provide the contraception coverage.
Slashdot Mirror
Cute. 42 actually and the hearing is just fine. Believe me I need damn near silence to sleep. You are full of crap related to noise of modern dishwashers - they don't have much.
Related to turbines, I'm sure there is low frequency vibration near the towers. Fortunately they aren't putting these things near peoples homes. These are *rural* installations. Half-Mile or more between houses let alone turbines. I've been through near this area, it's not quite western US/Canada empty, but it's pretty empty.
No I'm not kidding. Um, how does a coal plant that I live 100 miles away from have any potential death to me when it explodes? None, zero. It has significant operational issues due to pollution, but that *could* be mitigated with proper filtering and sequestration. (We choose not to do that due to cost)
Hydro, again as I said, if you put a dam right over Tokyo yes you have potential. We don't do that for precisely that reason. Hoover Dam is not built over any major city. You can't build nuclear plants that far away from *everything*.
And even if you want to entertain the hydro issue, it's a one time thing. I can quite safely go walking through the disaster area the next day. Can't do that with nuclear as the radiation is ongoing for decades.
Chernobyl is the closest to 'spectacularly bad', but no, those aren't bad as in widespread dispersal into the environment. All could be much much worse.
Considering those, decidedly rural, municipalities are going to be sharing a portion of $1.2 BILLION in money from the turbine operators, I'd say quite a bit of money is coming their way whether it's specifically on their land or not. We're not talking about putting these in even suburban areas, we're talking about farms. Farms are large things where frankly, land values aren't part of the consideration the way they are for resorts or crowded suburbs.
"I don't like it" is being given the respect it deserves.
Come up with actual reasons for your opinions or we'll treat them with the respect they deserve...
Seriously, actual logical reasons why having something on your property that SAVES you money every month is bad? And by property here we're talking multiple acres, these things aren't situated anywhere near buildings. You do know they pay people to have these right? Just like they pay people to put billboards along highways.
1. EVs are a small part of the market, but we need to subsidize them so they can compete with the entrenched oil monopoly.
2. Uh, oil can too be used for electricity. Anything combustible is capable of producing electricity. Natural gas is a finite resource. It *will* go up in price just as oil is now. What that time frame is I won't pretend to know. The question is do you want to wait for those prices to inevitably go up, or do you want to start investing in renewable sources that won't *ever* go up now while prices are cheap?
And of course there's the fracking issue for natural gas. I tend to like clean water and a lack of earthquakes - two things that fracking may indeed be diametrically opposed too.
It is perfectly safe provided people aren't allowed to live in the danger zone. For nuclear that's something like 100 miles from the plant. Not workable.
Hydro with proper zoning and planning is perfectly save even when it fails. Nuclear is only safe when it doesn't fail.
Yeah but nuclear has the POTENTIAL to kill millions. It's why there are so many damned redundant safeguards on the plants. They simply can not fail. And yet, they do....
Just because nuclear hasn't YET failed in a spectacularly bad way doesn't mean it isn't possible. They actually considered evacuating Tokyo as one possible fallout of the Fukushima disaster. Tokyo. Where the hell do you evacuate 10 million people to?
It isn't *likely* to have such an event, but it is *possible*. No other power source has that potential killing capacity. Construction of wind, solar, hydro have fatalities. So does every other thing on the planet. They don't have any significant operational dangers. (Hydro needs planning to prevent people living below the dam or having adequate high ground to evac too but otherwise is perfectly safe). You can't prevent people from living 100 miles from a nuclear plant and there is no 'high' ground you can run to to escape radiation.
Uh, try something modern, like the last 5 years. Can barely tell the thing is on, literally. They can take 2 hours or more, but noise wise they are almost silent.
The disrespect Brewer shows for our most cherished rights offends me
Think of it as supreme respect for her most cherished American value...money. And the campaign donations she's cashing from corporate interests (i.e. private jail companies writing Immigration Legislation to make more prisoners) are just more examples of her devoted and deep respect...
I would think as a resident of a state which pays less federal tax than it takes in federal money, you'd be a little less spiteful.
Yes that would be the logical conclusion...and yet we have so many examples of the spitefulness being amazingly concentrated in the poor red states.
There are realized fatalities and there are potential fatalities. I fully agree that in terms of realized deaths renewable sources may be higher. Though, the construction phase is different than the operational phase.
In the 'real' world however, you have to take into account potential problems and their likelihood as well. And while nuclear disasters are not 'likely' their potential for death and damage is massive (hence why they are made so redundant).
Show me any renewable source that has *ever* pushed a potential evacuation of 10 million people.
hell the internal emails from Japan document that one possible outcome of Fukushima was an evacuation of...Tokyo. Seriously, one of the largest cities on the planet evacuated because of something that happened hundreds of miles away (I'm not huge on my Japanese distances but it wasn't next door).
What else has that kind of potential damage?
Frankly, all of them. None have the failure problems nuclear has, nor the long term waste storage problem. The closest case for failure issue is obviously hydro-electric, but you can mitigate all of those conditions with proper planning and zoning. How you zone 100 sq mile area of non-habitable land in a populated area?
Unlike coal they don't have any significant operational issues either.
Nuclear hasn't *yet* failed in a bad bad way, but the potential is always there. There is no such potential failure downside for anything else.
Nuclear has much better operational side effects than coal
Coal as much better failure side effects than nuclear.
Neither is good, yet people scream when we want to invest in renewable sources that *ARE* better in all respects.
You mean the multitudes of examples of the TEPCO power company under-reporting, misreporting or just flat out lying about the severity of the problem?
on the same service
This the crux of the issue. They are not the same service. One is the ISP and one is content. Comcast is using their monopoly of the former to give an advantage to the latter.
The problem is that Comcast is using their monopoly of being the network provider to further their media business interests.
Other companies wanting to compete, ala Netflix, are at a significant disadvantage if their movies count against the cap but Comcast's don't.
It's a clear anti-trust issue unless Comcact allows Netflix movies to also not count against the cap.
The problem is that this only works when these things are spaced out significantly. Which defeats the purpose of using vertical space instead of horizontal space.
Moreover, they posit that these work well at dawn/dusk. Only the outside cells works good, the rest are in shadow from the outside cell.
Or think of a city highrise landscape. You don't get any direct sun at dawn/dusk if there's something of equal height between you and the sun.
Government intervention in markets is NEVER productive.
You mean like in the 1940's when the government literally told private manufacturers what to make? And subsequently lifted us out of the depression? oh right...defense spending isn't intervention in the markets...it's just 'good'.
Government intervention in the markets is absolutely necessary...to a point. The lack of government intervention led to the great Depression and our most recent Recession. Completely unregulated markets will crash - regularly and routinely. Laws and regulations exist for a reason...
Five years from now, they will have a lot less money, and when they try to jack up the prices, we will be competitive again.
The problem is you assume that our ability, manpower and know how remain at the level when we stopped using them. People can't just take 5 years off waiting for a trade war to work itself out. Nor can mines just stop production and expect to start up again with no cost.
Besides, what China would do in 5 years is simply lower their prices when they see a challenge in production coming on online. Like how the Saudi's can just start pumping massive amounts of oil to stabilize the market. They could do that to 'destabilize' the market too....
Or is this a test? Those who say 'sure' don't get return calls, those who say 'not a chance'...show the requisite intelligence and are kept in the running for the position?
Lets go with the obligatory car analogy:
If I need a new tire (my spare is currently full size...natch ) I buy a tire and have my mechanic install it on the car.
What if that tire is defective? I either get a refund or a new tire for free with likely the same installation costs.
If we substitute kidney for tire and doctor for mechanic, the only difference is right now, we don't pay for the kidney (tire) itself, only the hospital and doctor 'installation' services.
If you want to now start paying for the kidney...that starts creating incentives to lie about how 'good' the donor kidney is. Do you want Ozzy Ozbourne's kidney? Or Keith Richards? Or some unknown boozer's liver?
If the organ was warranted to be 'good' and it wasn't due to lying or other negligence and you paid them $400,000 dollars, you wouldn't want that money back?
what's the difference?
The difference is the doctors and hospitals are not the suppliers they are simply the workers - they get paid in any circumstance. Paying the donor's family for the donor's organs is an entirely different, and new, scenario.
Catholic hospitals are primarily secular in nature.
In general understanding I would agree, however, given the recent controversy and Obama's 'compromise' I'd say that's pretty well in question now.
They specifically argued that because they are religious in 'founding' they should be able to choose what to do and what not to do regardless of employment law. Obama said "OK here's a different way so you won't pay for it", thus granting their argument's base of reason.
If I go to St. Mary of the Holy Land of Virgin Blessed Heart hospital for an X-ray of a broken arm
Talk about apples and oranges. The issue was with EMPLOYEES not with PATIENTS. PATIENTS already are denied care due to 'objections of conscience' and quite legally too. They have to be transferred somewhere that will provide the care, but St. Mary of the Holy Land of Virgin Blessed Heart is certainly not performing abortions for you.
Second apple - you used a standard medical procedure, a broken arm, to which just about nobody objects, to a controversial (to some anyway) procedure, abortion/contraception, that many object too.
My point is simple, if they take federal funds, they simply can't not provide the contraception coverage.