Plainly you're just a cheerleader with no hard facts to back up your faith in renewables. Os it your job to proselytize? Given your handle one has to wonder.
Math is meaningless when based on faulty assumptions. One comment on that article is spot on: The 18% of electricity generated from hydro power is being impacted greatly by the drought in California. What's replacing it? Natural gas. So your monumental naiveté is playing right into the hands of fossil fuel interests.
You're touting math, but all you have is fairy dust assumptions. Try living in the real world.
Sorry, but no. Unreliable renewables go out every day (solar) or completely unpredictably. (solar and wind) They do not back each other up. Your link doesn't even claim that. Vermont and California are not making up for their nuclear shutdowns with renewables. They're using natural gas and coal.
Which basically means pro-fossil. Don't let the siren song of wind and solar fool you. They both need 100% fossil fuel backup. Shutting down nuclear power plants simply hands energy generation back to coal and natural gas.
They haven't seen it because supporters of bitcoin are blinded by ideology. They can't see that their rejection of "fiat currency" should cause them to reject bit coin as well. Ironically it's because they have faith in bitcoin itself.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Is this what slashdot has come to?
Fine. I'm out. I first got my /. account back in 1998 but this is the last bullshit I'll tolerate. This site is no longer relevant.
It's awesome, too. A great way to meet other science minded folk.
Three months training is a perfect amount of training to royally fuck up just about anything, yes.
These types of studies have been debunked.
I've been using Google hangouts on my iPad as my sole phone for months now. I get incoming calls on my Google Voice number.
Ditto.
But, as you freely admit, your math is influenced by $$$.
Wow, you are a complete Lovins acolyte. How does it feel to be only out for your own gain while ignoring the needs of the planet?
Keep drawing that paycheck.
You're ignoring capacity factor.
Yes, he also advocates for nuclear power. Hansen is awesome.
The point is that hydro is being reduced because of drought. I think you're losing track of which conversation you're having.
What about nuclear?
What math are you trolling about? You can't be bothered to provide specifics? Is that because you don't have any?
That's installed capacity. How much was actually generated?
Except at night.
What about gigawatt hours?
Plainly you're just a cheerleader with no hard facts to back up your faith in renewables. Os it your job to proselytize? Given your handle one has to wonder.
You've missed actually providing a number. With a handle like mdsolar shouldn't you know?
Hydro replaced by solar? Jesus. Here are some facts. Please rely on them instead of fairy tales.
Math is meaningless when based on faulty assumptions. One comment on that article is spot on: The 18% of electricity generated from hydro power is being impacted greatly by the drought in California. What's replacing it? Natural gas. So your monumental naiveté is playing right into the hands of fossil fuel interests.
You're touting math, but all you have is fairy dust assumptions. Try living in the real world.
This has got to be some of the most inept trolling I've ever seen.
Ad hominem and appeal to authority? Please. Educate yourself on EROI.
Sorry, but no. Unreliable renewables go out every day (solar) or completely unpredictably. (solar and wind) They do not back each other up. Your link doesn't even claim that. Vermont and California are not making up for their nuclear shutdowns with renewables. They're using natural gas and coal.
Which basically means pro-fossil. Don't let the siren song of wind and solar fool you. They both need 100% fossil fuel backup. Shutting down nuclear power plants simply hands energy generation back to coal and natural gas.
If you beloeve anything is immune from manipulation you are either monumentally naive or intrntionally ignorant.
"Real" currencies have the value of national and transnational economies behind them. What does bitcoin have backing it up?
They haven't seen it because supporters of bitcoin are blinded by ideology. They can't see that their rejection of "fiat currency" should cause them to reject bit coin as well. Ironically it's because they have faith in bitcoin itself. :)