I think he means worship of the almighty dollar. I think he means worship of the almighty barrel.
There, fixed that for you. Keep in mind that Afghanistan is where a group of ppl attacked America, EU, Indonesia, India, China, Russia, etc. IOW, there is a REAL reason for being there. OTH, Iraq was purely about oil. It was never about WMD, attacks on Poppa Bush, etc.
Mocking non-Americans for knocking relatively minor items? No. I am openly saying that they ARE hypocrites. Many of these same ppl live in countries far far worse than America.
I know that nations take extreme actions when they are under attack. Shoots, We quietly have a number of officers carrying much bigger weapons to deal with this. And I am not wild about what is going on. It is ALL AMERICANS RESPONSIBILITY to fight back against the taking of rights (trading freedoms for security). But, I am amazed at the number of non-Americans that carp about us, while ignoring their own nation's actions. Even now, UK, Germany and France quietly carry far more information about all citizens and aliens in their nations.
I read all of the none Americans gripping about America and all this procedures. Yet, back in the 70 and 80, Germany, Spain, France, Israel, etc. had issues with terrorists and implemented FAR FAR harsher procedures. When traveling through Germany, you would see uzis on police. Do the wrong thing and they were all over you. And that was in West Germany, not East (my understanding is that it was even worse there). Heck, if you live in various areas of Mexico, India, China, etc, you still see guards running around and grab you if you LOOK wrong at them, or if you are the wrong color (literally).
oops. Sorry. I missed this one. Yeah, basically, scale on the solar panel bring them down (higher supply). Some of the others tell me that it SHOULD bring down the price of coal (less demand). In the end, I think that coal will be shutdown and we will switch to natural as the back-up (it burns hotter and cleaner, and it appears that we are about to get LOADS of it so that it will be cheap).
As to the solar thermal Infrastructure, it and geo-thermal are SADLY MISSING IN A BIG WAY. HUGE. Few companies are building this to any scale. Most of the large American power companies are fighting against both Solar Thermal and geo-thermal, though they LOVE wind and solar PV. Neither compete against coal, natural gas, or nuke. Solar/Geo thermal are capable of base-load power and can work on current plants, though with tweaks. Solar initially as a supplement and later as the regular heat-stored medium.
Personally, I find the geo-thermal to be the interesting one. In light of the incident in EU, it will likely cause all nations to re-think the idea of drilling directly below cities. I was thinking 4 years ago that this and solar combined with natural gas backup would be ideal . It should be an easy way to slowly convert existing plants. But, after that, many ppl are nervous. Of course, I am not sure that I would drill in northern CA as my first testbed. They are doing it because it is fairly cheap. Normally, these are DEEP WELLS; most oil wells go to 8-12K ft. while these will be 20-30K ft. That is also why Potter drilling will likely change the economics of geo-thermal drilling. It will be cheaper to drill to 25K in most places using potter then it is today to drill to 12K using conventional tech. The CA site will around 10K ft.
It is amazing that we are not going to add all of the MLM, but the reason is that Raffaello was done differently then the others; It has electrical and HVAC hookups. But this is better than nothing, since it is already going up.
Personally, I would really like to see us add a Sundancer AND a BA-330. If we put these up in the next 2 years, they will get a nice shake out (similar to how the 2 are running around). If NASA is really concerned about lifetime, then the easy answer is to use these for storage for a time and keep the hatch closed. Though, I would not be surprised if the crew do not push to have space there. Apparently, the regular ISS is VERY noisy. The BA* should be very quiet.
There is paying for things and then there is incentives. There is a STRONG difference. COTs is about INCENTIVES. What I am suggesting is that we do several things:
Provide more incentives for Human rated launch vehicles. Not Ares V/Direct 2**, but getting a few more private human launch. I would really like to see Northrup push SS3 along quickly.
We need a several other place for private space to go to besides NASA and DOD. We need to get Bigelow started. I think that we should buy a sundancer and BA-330 and attach them to the ISS. That gets Bigelow started and they will progress with their private stations.
We need TUGS AND Fuel Depots. We should offer up a two contracts to pull things around as well as de-orbit some of the NASA junk. But it will require that it be by re-fuelable tugs along with fuel depots.
The final one is several landers for the moon. For that, I think that all we will have to do is offer up several contracts for that. The two obvious choices for those are Armadillo and Blue Origin. Carmack will need outside money, but I would put money on it that several billionares will be VERY interested in that.
I really think that with LITTLE BIT OF MONEY, we can prime the pump for getting us into LEO AND ONTO THE MOON. The money that I am suggesting is NOT to pay for the build-out, but the intial contracts. All of these companies have to know that the money will be there. They can not afford to have Congress jerk it out once they are started.
The question should be SHOULD Ares I be rescued? Honestly, I do not think so. It always struck me as a waste since other rockets of similar size were available. That bring us to Ares V. Should it be? I honestly do not know. I know that USA needs multiple types of launchers and they need them to be low costs. I would very much like to see an Ares V or a Direct 2** be in the mix. Which is better? I am not sure. Personally, I have to give the nudge to Direct since it uses far far more of the current launch human-rated equipment. There is a lot to say for that. In the end, I am much more concerned that we will not do the right thing WRT to private space. I have aborted that several times. This time, we need to get it started AND give them an ALTERNATIVE destination; Basically, we need to get Bigelow building his Space Station. Also we need tugs combined with a fuel depot to haul things around. While it is nice to say that this is about NASA, but it really is not. It is about Obama and Congress allocating say 1.5B, 1B, and then.5B for the next 3 years and sticking with it. Will they do it? Tough question to answer
The Composite LH2 WERE completed, tested and worked. Sadly, they were done AFTER the X-33 was canceled by the neo-cons. And obviously you knew little to nothing of the NASP.
Actually, China is trying hard to lock up LOADS of resources all over the world, but the biggies are Rare Earth minerals as well as Uranium. This last week, they quit exports of a select group of REMs that they have control of, and others that they do not have total control of, they dropped the possible exports. At this very moment, Australia is deciding whether to sell them several of their mines. Hopefully they do not as they are REM mines and will be needed by the entire rest of the world. These minerals are concerned with making permanent magnet motors that are going into Electric Cars as well as are used in nearly all electronics.
The scramjet shoule be able to take you to Mach 14-15 at around 80-90K feet. This gets you to speed and a rocket takes you the rest of the way. That is exactly what the X-30 was to be. Since reagan's ppl screwed that up (under funding like all neo-cons), it led to the X-43, which gave way to this; the X-51 waverider.
Scramjet is one of the easiest engines to build. In fact, they will be a great deal less expensive for maintenance. It is just difficult to get it correct. It will also be difficult to get it up to the speed. Right now, we are using a rocket to get there. But down the road, we will likely use a ramjet which will be inefficient taking off (probably will use an electronic runway launcher to get going), all the way to the mach 5.
Such short-sightedness. We did a 10 second burn earlier on the X-43 and so did Australia. Both of them were just tests of concepts. This is another longer lasting test. Will it lead to a super fast Missile? Yup. BUT, then again, China, as well as Russia, are also working on the same thing. In fact, that is what drove our tech from NASA to DOD. Both China and Russia have QUIETLY made several attempts at this, and failed.
Now, were else will this lead? Almost certainly it will lead to a new military drone (within 10 years, probably sooner). BUT, it will also lead to a space vehicle also by 2020. Keep in mind that the goal of a space vehicle is to get SPEED. Once we develop an engine that handles the majority of the supersonic range, then this will be a reality for such a space vehicle. That will drop the price of launching humans or possibly cargo.
And I am THANKFUL that it is NOT the majority. I want it to be a larger part of our matrix, but we need to maintain a matrix of power. The problem with coal is that it is ~50% of America's power. If it was around 33%, then we would not have these issues. In particular, we would not be worried about the idea of losing more of it. We need more nuclear, but not majority.
This will speed up the shutdown of coal plants. Basically, it will lower the costs of Solar Thermal by increased manufactuering and it will be replacing coal plants over the next decade. For the next 5 years, the focus will be to add the solar thermal to increase the efficiency of the plants and lower the amount of coal used. BUT, it will also lower the costs of Solar Thermal. When the collectors get cheap enough, then plants will add these to collect for nighttime storage. Within a decade, we will see our first conversion of an existing coal plant to solar thermal with natural gas as a pure back-up (natural gas is easy to burn and supply) and it will be WITHOUT the subsidies that ANY OF THE PLANTS GET TODAY (and yes, ALL FORMS OF ELECTRICTY AND ENERGY IN AMERICA GET SUBSIDIES).
I was the post above that said I have been trying for nearly 4 years to get Colorado to do this approach. Lets talk economics of this. Many cities have 1-4 SMALL coal plants (typically about 100 MW) that are located in there. Because they were built in the 50-70, they are much older and not as efficient. Many companies want to get rid of them and bring in GW size plants. These monster would be located on the outer fringe and would then have to transport lots of electricity for a long haul. That is wasteful, but it turns out not terribly expensive. With that approach, easterners can get electricity at about.07-.15/kw.. Now, would can AE do? Well, Solar thermal only works when the sun shines. When it does, the price of electricity is about.09-.14/KW. The problem is that solar thermal requires energy storage to go all night. Also you would have to build out a much larger field of collectors (the original group was collecting for the daytime). If you do storage, then the price is jacked up to.16-.25/kwh. Simply put, you can not compete with the.07-15 price. BUT, if we take CURRENT COAL plants, and add these collectors to them, there will be no need for storage. More importantly, it will lower the use of coal. Basically, you can think of the collectors doing the real work during the day time. During the day time, the collectors have the potential to replace 60-80% of coal. That is HUGE. So, why should this be used? Because we need to get manufacturing going. As you increase manufacturing, the price goes down. Today, the price of the collectors is.09-.14kw. If we push strongly on this, the price of the collectors will drop within 5-10 years so that they are below.03KW (for the west; the east will still be higher priced). That will lead to all fo the small coal plants being converted to holding storage as well.
This is the intelligent start of converting our economy to AE. Solar PV has to be one of the most foolish ideas going. In addition, Wind is cheap, but it can not work 24x7. The solar Thermal can replace coal/natural gas and with cheap cheap storage, it can replace the coal plants. The only other intelligent choice is geo-thermal power. That is coming with potter drilling success
That is more likely the difference in latitude combined with greater expenses on Energy costs. In fact, the vast majority of Japanese live in the same latitude as say America's Tennessee. No real need to AC and little heat.
Japan is a relatively small area and does not run much AC compared to Southern Cal, Texas, Florida and relatively little heat compared to Alaska, Maine, Illinois, etc. OTH, America has the same issues as Finland (Alaska, all of upper America) as well as Portugal/Spain (lower America).
To be fair, we do not do a good job of insulation and many of our homes are 30-50 years old and not well insulated. We would do well to push a much bigger program to get homes insulated and to move off Electric/Oil/Natural gas heat and move to Heat Pumps, with the majority being geo-thermal (very efficient).
is exactly what NASA should be doing. RD to develop systems for off-world exploration and sciences. If we really do privatize Launch and hopefully human capabilities, we can allow NASA to go back to what they did in the 60's; RD new ideas/concepts and push the boundaries of science.
Basically, when ppl are living in the same area AND are having children together, then you can not prove exactly where new DNA is from. They can be from Sex, Virus, or simple random mutation. OTH, if you have ppl that have lived in the same area, but do not cross breed, then you mostly eliminate the sex. That would leave mutations and virus. If you have the same sets of mutations in genes, that is LIKELY a virus, not a random mutation. Basically, you want to find ppl that were known to not cross over. In most of the world, you have fairly heterogeneous populations. What is needed to study this is to find locations with taboos. For example, in America, we have had a number of cultures which would rarely cross-over. A place to look at are the older populations in America with diversities. Many Asian, hispanic, black and white cultures would not even dream of marrying out of their culture. A Vietnamese or Korean may live next door to a Chinese, White, Hispanic, or a black, but would not dream of dating, let along marrying them. You will find similar taboos in most countries in the world. Europeans have lived thoughout the world, but few of the local populations would EVER allow their children to marry them.
Basically, we can use the taboos from before (actually, many countries still have them in place), to look at this information.
Emissions ARE tied to the size of population as well as GDP. My question is why should PERMITTED emissions be tied to population size? For example, if we use your premise, then EU, China, India, America, Mexico, etc, all have the right to sieze the oil out of the middle east. After all, we have much larger populations that does the middle east. Likewise, China and India are about to be in deep trouble with water over the next decade or so. When that happens, do they have the right to grab Russia's, EU, and America's fresh water just because they have larger populations? In addition, most of the western and African nations are shrinking in population size, while Asia, central/South America countries continue fast growth. SHould they have the right to just take over nations like Russia, Australia, Canada, and America just because they have more ppl?
To tie resources or the ability to pollute to a variable like population is an insane idea. Instead, it should be tied to the size of their landmass as well as GDP (with weight for exports since it supports other nations). We already tied resources to their area, which is really their land mass. By tying this to land mass, it forces nations to live within their means, and to control better their population. Otherwise, we actually reward nations that over populate and continue to overpopulate.
I know; It made LOADS of money for EU as well as brought you tons of raw resources and finished products. It allowed you to expand your nations amongst the world and made EU the mighty rulers of much of the world for several centuries.
Of course the downside was that it kept you from being a single nation ruled by either Kaiser or Hitler. Worse, it helped you to keep your freedoms/rights, when others wanted to take them from you. Why just imagine, you could be part of the USSR and ruled by more stalins (USSR likely would still be today if not for the economic might of America). And even now, Canada, America, and Australia remain some of the biggest trading partners of ALL OF EU with FREE MONEY and TWO WAY TRADE (as opposed to nations that fix their money as well as do pretty much one-way trade).
You should have read the comment just in front of yours. It is possible that you could learn something. Not probable, but possible.
Many ppl put it on the line. Heck, if you live in the developed world, you put it on the line just by crossing the street. If you live in a place like and industrial center in China, you do it with each breath you take. If you live in NYC or Dallas Texas, you do it just be being around ppl that want to shoot or stab you. My father flew nukes during the cold war, always ready to go to USSR. He did it because he knew that it was the best way to keep from starting a war. BTW, in his case, the missions that he had required him to fly into his destination, drop the load, and the continue to Finland. The ONLY way that it was going to happen is if he was in the fuel saving mode. Obviously, that was not possible. He KNEW that it was a one way trip. And I have little doubt that he would have done it had we gone to war. Heck, the man sat on a runway for a better part of a week in Oct. 1962, craft fueled and idling, ready to go. That is what it took to get USSR to remove their first strike weapons.
We ARE ALL GOING TO DIE. Your life is no better than any other. If you are going to die, why not die for the betterment of your descendants? I would.
First, we do sign these, but ignore them if we do not ratify them. All of signatures are conditional on getting ratificaiton. Second, exactly what violations are we doing in GATS? To the best of my knowledge we are obeying it, as well as obey all that we sign (well, with the exception of the last 8 years; gads I wish that other nations would call W, Cheney, and rumsfeld war criminals and grab them when they arrive in their nation).
Second, America did not sign Kyoto because it was massively flawed. Even now, none of the major signatories have complied with it. Nor will they be able to without destroying their nation's economy relative to other nations. The worse part of that is that China has been the largest polluter and is hell bent on putting out more CO2 than all the rest of the world combined. In two short years (2004 to 2006), they DOUBLED their emission and at that time they were building one coal plant every couple of weeks. Now, they PHYSICALLY BUILDING 1-2 new coal plants EACH WEEK. In fact they have been doing that since 2006 when they surpassed America as the most CO2 emissions. Worse, they are fighting against their slowing it down or even capping it while expecting America to do so.
The idea that emissions are tied to the count of ppl has to be one of the worst ideas going. The more so since the count of ppl change. It should be tied to 2 things; GDP, which reflects the amount of business AND the size of their nation. I did a quick set of calculations which I need to throw into wiki, but basically, when looking at emission PER THE LAND SIZE (not the country), then America has less than normal emission. In fact, most of Europe has MUCH HIGHER emissions for their land mass. Also, you will note that United States is in the second to last grouping. Per the land mass, America is far more efficient than is most of the world esp EU.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he means worship of the almighty dollar.
I think he means worship of the almighty barrel.
There, fixed that for you. Keep in mind that Afghanistan is where a group of ppl attacked America, EU, Indonesia, India, China, Russia, etc. IOW, there is a REAL reason for being there. OTH, Iraq was purely about oil. It was never about WMD, attacks on Poppa Bush, etc.
Mocking non-Americans for knocking relatively minor items? No. I am openly saying that they ARE hypocrites. Many of these same ppl live in countries far far worse than America.
I know that nations take extreme actions when they are under attack. Shoots, We quietly have a number of officers carrying much bigger weapons to deal with this. And I am not wild about what is going on. It is ALL AMERICANS RESPONSIBILITY to fight back against the taking of rights (trading freedoms for security). But, I am amazed at the number of non-Americans that carp about us, while ignoring their own nation's actions. Even now, UK, Germany and France quietly carry far more information about all citizens and aliens in their nations.
I read all of the none Americans gripping about America and all this procedures. Yet, back in the 70 and 80, Germany, Spain, France, Israel, etc. had issues with terrorists and implemented FAR FAR harsher procedures. When traveling through Germany, you would see uzis on police. Do the wrong thing and they were all over you. And that was in West Germany, not East (my understanding is that it was even worse there). Heck, if you live in various areas of Mexico, India, China, etc, you still see guards running around and grab you if you LOOK wrong at them, or if you are the wrong color (literally).
oops. Sorry. I missed this one. Yeah, basically, scale on the solar panel bring them down (higher supply). Some of the others tell me that it SHOULD bring down the price of coal (less demand). In the end, I think that coal will be shutdown and we will switch to natural as the back-up (it burns hotter and cleaner, and it appears that we are about to get LOADS of it so that it will be cheap).
As to the solar thermal Infrastructure, it and geo-thermal are SADLY MISSING IN A BIG WAY. HUGE. Few companies are building this to any scale. Most of the large American power companies are fighting against both Solar Thermal and geo-thermal, though they LOVE wind and solar PV. Neither compete against coal, natural gas, or nuke. Solar/Geo thermal are capable of base-load power and can work on current plants, though with tweaks. Solar initially as a supplement and later as the regular heat-stored medium.
Personally, I find the geo-thermal to be the interesting one. In light of the incident in EU, it will likely cause all nations to re-think the idea of drilling directly below cities. I was thinking 4 years ago that this and solar combined with natural gas backup would be ideal . It should be an easy way to slowly convert existing plants. But, after that, many ppl are nervous. Of course, I am not sure that I would drill in northern CA as my first testbed. They are doing it because it is fairly cheap. Normally, these are DEEP WELLS; most oil wells go to 8-12K ft. while these will be 20-30K ft. That is also why Potter drilling will likely change the economics of geo-thermal drilling. It will be cheaper to drill to 25K in most places using potter then it is today to drill to 12K using conventional tech. The CA site will around 10K ft.
Ooops. It was donatello that had the extra electrical and HVAC. I wonder why they are not using it?
It is amazing that we are not going to add all of the MLM, but the reason is that Raffaello was done differently then the others; It has electrical and HVAC hookups. But this is better than nothing, since it is already going up.
Personally, I would really like to see us add a Sundancer AND a BA-330. If we put these up in the next 2 years, they will get a nice shake out (similar to how the 2 are running around). If NASA is really concerned about lifetime, then the easy answer is to use these for storage for a time and keep the hatch closed. Though, I would not be surprised if the crew do not push to have space there. Apparently, the regular ISS is VERY noisy. The BA* should be very quiet.
I really think that with LITTLE BIT OF MONEY, we can prime the pump for getting us into LEO AND ONTO THE MOON. The money that I am suggesting is NOT to pay for the build-out, but the intial contracts. All of these companies have to know that the money will be there. They can not afford to have Congress jerk it out once they are started.
The question should be SHOULD Ares I be rescued? Honestly, I do not think so. It always struck me as a waste since other rockets of similar size were available. That bring us to Ares V. Should it be? I honestly do not know. I know that USA needs multiple types of launchers and they need them to be low costs. I would very much like to see an Ares V or a Direct 2** be in the mix. Which is better? I am not sure. Personally, I have to give the nudge to Direct since it uses far far more of the current launch human-rated equipment. There is a lot to say for that. In the end, I am much more concerned that we will not do the right thing WRT to private space. I have aborted that several times. This time, we need to get it started AND give them an ALTERNATIVE destination; Basically, we need to get Bigelow building his Space Station. Also we need tugs combined with a fuel depot to haul things around. While it is nice to say that this is about NASA, but it really is not. It is about Obama and Congress allocating say 1.5B, 1B, and then .5B for the next 3 years and sticking with it. Will they do it? Tough question to answer
The X-43 did Mach 10. The X-51 is flying slow for length of time, but future versions of the scramjet are expected to go to Mach 15.
The Composite LH2 WERE completed, tested and worked. Sadly, they were done AFTER the X-33 was canceled by the neo-cons. And obviously you knew little to nothing of the NASP.
Actually, China is trying hard to lock up LOADS of resources all over the world, but the biggies are Rare Earth minerals as well as Uranium. This last week, they quit exports of a select group of REMs that they have control of, and others that they do not have total control of, they dropped the possible exports. At this very moment, Australia is deciding whether to sell them several of their mines. Hopefully they do not as they are REM mines and will be needed by the entire rest of the world. These minerals are concerned with making permanent magnet motors that are going into Electric Cars as well as are used in nearly all electronics.
The scramjet shoule be able to take you to Mach 14-15 at around 80-90K feet. This gets you to speed and a rocket takes you the rest of the way. That is exactly what the X-30 was to be. Since reagan's ppl screwed that up (under funding like all neo-cons), it led to the X-43, which gave way to this; the X-51 waverider.
Scramjet is one of the easiest engines to build. In fact, they will be a great deal less expensive for maintenance. It is just difficult to get it correct. It will also be difficult to get it up to the speed. Right now, we are using a rocket to get there. But down the road, we will likely use a ramjet which will be inefficient taking off (probably will use an electronic runway launcher to get going), all the way to the mach 5.
Such short-sightedness. We did a 10 second burn earlier on the X-43 and so did Australia. Both of them were just tests of concepts. This is another longer lasting test. Will it lead to a super fast Missile? Yup. BUT, then again, China, as well as Russia, are also working on the same thing. In fact, that is what drove our tech from NASA to DOD. Both China and Russia have QUIETLY made several attempts at this, and failed.
Now, were else will this lead? Almost certainly it will lead to a new military drone (within 10 years, probably sooner). BUT, it will also lead to a space vehicle also by 2020. Keep in mind that the goal of a space vehicle is to get SPEED. Once we develop an engine that handles the majority of the supersonic range, then this will be a reality for such a space vehicle. That will drop the price of launching humans or possibly cargo.
And I am THANKFUL that it is NOT the majority. I want it to be a larger part of our matrix, but we need to maintain a matrix of power. The problem with coal is that it is ~50% of America's power. If it was around 33%, then we would not have these issues. In particular, we would not be worried about the idea of losing more of it. We need more nuclear, but not majority.
This will speed up the shutdown of coal plants. Basically, it will lower the costs of Solar Thermal by increased manufactuering and it will be replacing coal plants over the next decade. For the next 5 years, the focus will be to add the solar thermal to increase the efficiency of the plants and lower the amount of coal used. BUT, it will also lower the costs of Solar Thermal. When the collectors get cheap enough, then plants will add these to collect for nighttime storage. Within a decade, we will see our first conversion of an existing coal plant to solar thermal with natural gas as a pure back-up (natural gas is easy to burn and supply) and it will be WITHOUT the subsidies that ANY OF THE PLANTS GET TODAY (and yes, ALL FORMS OF ELECTRICTY AND ENERGY IN AMERICA GET SUBSIDIES).
I was the post above that said I have been trying for nearly 4 years to get Colorado to do this approach. Lets talk economics of this. Many cities have 1-4 SMALL coal plants (typically about 100 MW) that are located in there. Because they were built in the 50-70, they are much older and not as efficient. Many companies want to get rid of them and bring in GW size plants. These monster would be located on the outer fringe and would then have to transport lots of electricity for a long haul. That is wasteful, but it turns out not terribly expensive. With that approach, easterners can get electricity at about .07-.15/kw.. Now, would can AE do? Well, Solar thermal only works when the sun shines. When it does, the price of electricity is about .09-.14/KW. The problem is that solar thermal requires energy storage to go all night. Also you would have to build out a much larger field of collectors (the original group was collecting for the daytime). If you do storage, then the price is jacked up to .16-.25/kwh. Simply put, you can not compete with the .07-15 price. BUT, if we take CURRENT COAL plants, and add these collectors to them, there will be no need for storage. More importantly, it will lower the use of coal. Basically, you can think of the collectors doing the real work during the day time. During the day time, the collectors have the potential to replace 60-80% of coal. That is HUGE. So, why should this be used? Because we need to get manufacturing going. As you increase manufacturing, the price goes down. Today, the price of the collectors is .09-.14kw. If we push strongly on this, the price of the collectors will drop within 5-10 years so that they are below .03KW (for the west; the east will still be higher priced). That will lead to all fo the small coal plants being converted to holding storage as well.
This is the intelligent start of converting our economy to AE. Solar PV has to be one of the most foolish ideas going. In addition, Wind is cheap, but it can not work 24x7. The solar Thermal can replace coal/natural gas and with cheap cheap storage, it can replace the coal plants. The only other intelligent choice is geo-thermal power. That is coming with potter drilling success
That is more likely the difference in latitude combined with greater expenses on Energy costs. In fact, the vast majority of Japanese live in the same latitude as say America's Tennessee. No real need to AC and little heat.
Japan is a relatively small area and does not run much AC compared to Southern Cal, Texas, Florida and relatively little heat compared to Alaska, Maine, Illinois, etc. OTH, America has the same issues as Finland (Alaska, all of upper America) as well as Portugal/Spain (lower America).
To be fair, we do not do a good job of insulation and many of our homes are 30-50 years old and not well insulated. We would do well to push a much bigger program to get homes insulated and to move off Electric/Oil/Natural gas heat and move to Heat Pumps, with the majority being geo-thermal (very efficient).
I thought that we already did. According to a number of posts here, it is just surrounded by either hollywood or desert.
ES&S is not known to be ran by a corrupt republican. So, the election will simply go to the top bidder.
is exactly what NASA should be doing. RD to develop systems for off-world exploration and sciences. If we really do privatize Launch and hopefully human capabilities, we can allow NASA to go back to what they did in the 60's; RD new ideas/concepts and push the boundaries of science.
Basically, when ppl are living in the same area AND are having children together, then you can not prove exactly where new DNA is from. They can be from Sex, Virus, or simple random mutation. OTH, if you have ppl that have lived in the same area, but do not cross breed, then you mostly eliminate the sex. That would leave mutations and virus. If you have the same sets of mutations in genes, that is LIKELY a virus, not a random mutation. Basically, you want to find ppl that were known to not cross over. In most of the world, you have fairly heterogeneous populations. What is needed to study this is to find locations with taboos. For example, in America, we have had a number of cultures which would rarely cross-over. A place to look at are the older populations in America with diversities. Many Asian, hispanic, black and white cultures would not even dream of marrying out of their culture. A Vietnamese or Korean may live next door to a Chinese, White, Hispanic, or a black, but would not dream of dating, let along marrying them. You will find similar taboos in most countries in the world. Europeans have lived thoughout the world, but few of the local populations would EVER allow their children to marry them.
Basically, we can use the taboos from before (actually, many countries still have them in place), to look at this information.
Emissions ARE tied to the size of population as well as GDP. My question is why should PERMITTED emissions be tied to population size? For example, if we use your premise, then EU, China, India, America, Mexico, etc, all have the right to sieze the oil out of the middle east. After all, we have much larger populations that does the middle east. Likewise, China and India are about to be in deep trouble with water over the next decade or so. When that happens, do they have the right to grab Russia's, EU, and America's fresh water just because they have larger populations? In addition, most of the western and African nations are shrinking in population size, while Asia, central/South America countries continue fast growth. SHould they have the right to just take over nations like Russia, Australia, Canada, and America just because they have more ppl?
To tie resources or the ability to pollute to a variable like population is an insane idea. Instead, it should be tied to the size of their landmass as well as GDP (with weight for exports since it supports other nations). We already tied resources to their area, which is really their land mass. By tying this to land mass, it forces nations to live within their means, and to control better their population. Otherwise, we actually reward nations that over populate and continue to overpopulate.
I know; It made LOADS of money for EU as well as brought you tons of raw resources and finished products. It allowed you to expand your nations amongst the world and made EU the mighty rulers of much of the world for several centuries.
Of course the downside was that it kept you from being a single nation ruled by either Kaiser or Hitler. Worse, it helped you to keep your freedoms/rights, when others wanted to take them from you. Why just imagine, you could be part of the USSR and ruled by more stalins (USSR likely would still be today if not for the economic might of America). And even now, Canada, America, and Australia remain some of the biggest trading partners of ALL OF EU with FREE MONEY and TWO WAY TRADE (as opposed to nations that fix their money as well as do pretty much one-way trade).
Yes, It truly was a bad deal for EU.
You should have read the comment just in front of yours. It is possible that you could learn something. Not probable, but possible.
Many ppl put it on the line. Heck, if you live in the developed world, you put it on the line just by crossing the street. If you live in a place like and industrial center in China, you do it with each breath you take. If you live in NYC or Dallas Texas, you do it just be being around ppl that want to shoot or stab you. My father flew nukes during the cold war, always ready to go to USSR. He did it because he knew that it was the best way to keep from starting a war. BTW, in his case, the missions that he had required him to fly into his destination, drop the load, and the continue to Finland. The ONLY way that it was going to happen is if he was in the fuel saving mode. Obviously, that was not possible. He KNEW that it was a one way trip. And I have little doubt that he would have done it had we gone to war. Heck, the man sat on a runway for a better part of a week in Oct. 1962, craft fueled and idling, ready to go. That is what it took to get USSR to remove their first strike weapons.
We ARE ALL GOING TO DIE. Your life is no better than any other. If you are going to die, why not die for the betterment of your descendants? I would.
Second, America did not sign Kyoto because it was massively flawed. Even now, none of the major signatories have complied with it. Nor will they be able to without destroying their nation's economy relative to other nations. The worse part of that is that China has been the largest polluter and is hell bent on putting out more CO2 than all the rest of the world combined. In two short years (2004 to 2006), they DOUBLED their emission and at that time they were building one coal plant every couple of weeks. Now, they PHYSICALLY BUILDING 1-2 new coal plants EACH WEEK. In fact they have been doing that since 2006 when they surpassed America as the most CO2 emissions. Worse, they are fighting against their slowing it down or even capping it while expecting America to do so.
The idea that emissions are tied to the count of ppl has to be one of the worst ideas going. The more so since the count of ppl change. It should be tied to 2 things; GDP, which reflects the amount of business AND the size of their nation. I did a quick set of calculations which I need to throw into wiki, but basically, when looking at emission PER THE LAND SIZE (not the country), then America has less than normal emission. In fact, most of Europe has MUCH HIGHER emissions for their land mass.
Also, you will note that United States is in the second to last grouping. Per the land mass, America is far more efficient than is most of the world esp EU.
Tons of CO2 emission / km^2.