There are problems of course, otherwise everyone would be rushing out to buy these panels.
For starters, things like cloud cover which reduce efficiency. Additional spending on things like grid-ties inverters.
This is pretty informative: http://www.weatherimagery.com/blog/solar-panels-cost-effective/
A large power station has different issues, it needs a suitable sunny location, or it won't work very well on cloudy days. Even in the desert there's the occasional cloudy day, so it may not be able to provide base power, and always has to be backed up with a conventional power plant.
The flip side is that if we "save" that oil for now, we will be worse off economically when the problem hits, and will be less able to adapt as a consequence.
There may be plenty of money to be made for specific people, like say solar panel or wind turbine manufacturers. The problem is switching to the more expensive renewable resources is a net loss to the economy, and we can't afford it right now as grandparent said.
But the taxpayer's investment is never paid back. Subsidies are not a solution, it's a broken window fallacy that replacing powerplants with solar panels makes things better.
1. Neutrinos from different sources may travel at different speeds.
2. We may not have connected the neutrino flux with the observation of the supernova, and the neutrinos may have been missed before the detectors were active (1983?).
Yes, I agree that's not a good thing.
On what basis would you give un-uniformed enemy combatants habeas corpus rights?
Jose Padilla was a corner case, and handled badly I agree.
And the world resembles a schoolyard without a teacher more than anything else. America is currently the biggest kid on the block ("Pax Americana"), and is actually using that power to protect friends (Taiwan, Israel, etc). Because we're "tough", mere reputation is sufficient, but if we ever show weakness, we might have to actually use force...
Being "reasonable" won't help our allies or convince our enemies. Seems like you don't understand the game or the rules nation-states play by.
Those civilized countries have chosen not to have a large army since Europe was destroyed in WWII, and can spend money on a welfare state because of Pax Americana. Essentially our military is allowing them to take it easy. The EU and Canada understand this, but that information often doesn't trickle down to the man on the street.
Yeah, there's lots of problems, but nothing really problematic that can't be fixed. We can't back off and let the terrorists go just because there's a recession. Recession or not, our allies depend on us to protect them.
More than just the one man bore responsibility for those attacks. Although OBL may have planned the attacks himself, he was helped by other people as well as supported by the Taliban, then the government of Afghanistan.
What the heck are you talking about?
When 3000 people die, you can safely bet that it will not be ignored anywhere in the world, except maybe Soviet Russia, Mao's China or NK.
The Taliban, then the government of Afghanistan directly supported AQ. And once the Government of Afghanistan supported the attacks that makes it a act of war, going to war was thus a reasonable approach.
Those are 2 different issues. The Constitution did not have to be trashed to go after OBL. For instance the terrorists were neither protected by the Geneva Convention, nor the Constitution. The trashing of the Constitution here at home was already happening and was merely accelerated by the War on Terror.
How do you think the power balance around Taiwan would be affected if China became convinced that the US wouldn't have the cojones to militarily support Taiwan?
I would argue that there wasn't much goodwill to begin with. There's a reason the US is called the great satan, and the Palestinians celebrated in the streets after 9/11.
As for the opium issue, that calls for a rant about the drug war which would be completely offtopic. In short, the war on some drugs is responsible for many ills in the US and the rest of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
There are problems of course, otherwise everyone would be rushing out to buy these panels. For starters, things like cloud cover which reduce efficiency. Additional spending on things like grid-ties inverters. This is pretty informative: http://www.weatherimagery.com/blog/solar-panels-cost-effective/ A large power station has different issues, it needs a suitable sunny location, or it won't work very well on cloudy days. Even in the desert there's the occasional cloudy day, so it may not be able to provide base power, and always has to be backed up with a conventional power plant.
Ah, but is the reduction of pollution really worth the extra cost from an economic point of view, especially when the economy is down in the dumps?
Reducing pollution is a luxury we can ill afford at the moment.
But the initial costs of solar are comparatively very large, means that you might be better off investing the money instead.
The flip side is that if we "save" that oil for now, we will be worse off economically when the problem hits, and will be less able to adapt as a consequence.
That's political peak oil. We aren't allowed to drill in many areas like ANWR.
There may be plenty of money to be made for specific people, like say solar panel or wind turbine manufacturers. The problem is switching to the more expensive renewable resources is a net loss to the economy, and we can't afford it right now as grandparent said.
But the taxpayer's investment is never paid back. Subsidies are not a solution, it's a broken window fallacy that replacing powerplants with solar panels makes things better.
Not everyone does. Lipitor has nasty side-effects.
1. Neutrinos from different sources may travel at different speeds. 2. We may not have connected the neutrino flux with the observation of the supernova, and the neutrinos may have been missed before the detectors were active (1983?).
Yes, I agree that's not a good thing. On what basis would you give un-uniformed enemy combatants habeas corpus rights? Jose Padilla was a corner case, and handled badly I agree.
That's fatalities not accidents.
And the world resembles a schoolyard without a teacher more than anything else. America is currently the biggest kid on the block ("Pax Americana"), and is actually using that power to protect friends (Taiwan, Israel, etc). Because we're "tough", mere reputation is sufficient, but if we ever show weakness, we might have to actually use force ...
Being "reasonable" won't help our allies or convince our enemies. Seems like you don't understand the game or the rules nation-states play by.
Those civilized countries have chosen not to have a large army since Europe was destroyed in WWII, and can spend money on a welfare state because of Pax Americana. Essentially our military is allowing them to take it easy. The EU and Canada understand this, but that information often doesn't trickle down to the man on the street.
Yeah, there's lots of problems, but nothing really problematic that can't be fixed. We can't back off and let the terrorists go just because there's a recession. Recession or not, our allies depend on us to protect them.
And once you've deposed them you gotta support the replacement to make sure they don't take over again. etc. etc.
I like how people mock my username when they don't have a real comment to make.
More than just the one man bore responsibility for those attacks. Although OBL may have planned the attacks himself, he was helped by other people as well as supported by the Taliban, then the government of Afghanistan.
"The terrorists" appear human and can certainly die the same way.
What the heck are you talking about? When 3000 people die, you can safely bet that it will not be ignored anywhere in the world, except maybe Soviet Russia, Mao's China or NK.
The Taliban, then the government of Afghanistan directly supported AQ. And once the Government of Afghanistan supported the attacks that makes it a act of war, going to war was thus a reasonable approach.
Those are 2 different issues. The Constitution did not have to be trashed to go after OBL. For instance the terrorists were neither protected by the Geneva Convention, nor the Constitution. The trashing of the Constitution here at home was already happening and was merely accelerated by the War on Terror.
I agree with you. Surely there's a better way than the current security theater.
Well, the goals of Afghanistan are different than Vietnam. Killing terrorists/taliban was indeed the goal of Afghanistan.
How do you think the power balance around Taiwan would be affected if China became convinced that the US wouldn't have the cojones to militarily support Taiwan?
Showing weakness (by inaction) to OBL will be interpreted as a sign of weakness by everyone else.
I would argue that there wasn't much goodwill to begin with. There's a reason the US is called the great satan, and the Palestinians celebrated in the streets after 9/11.
As for the opium issue, that calls for a rant about the drug war which would be completely offtopic. In short, the war on some drugs is responsible for many ills in the US and the rest of the world.
The best defense is a good offense.
Hmmm?
China could invade Taiwan sensing weakness, N. Korea could step up it's little campaign.
You must come from an alternate reality where "greatness, cojones" means delusional.