I don't think that we'll ever hear them say oops, many on the far right are very good at rationalizing their views, strange that they're not often rational.
Alright, calm down, It's going to be O K. Now here's why one degree difference matters, when sea surface temperatures are below 80 degrees Fahrenheit(roughly) hurricanes rarely form. So when the sea surface temperature goes up one degree Fahrenheit this is actually a very big deal. I'm sure that the guys at NOAA are up on their thermodynamics classes.
As far as your theories regarding political motivation, I can tell from your language that you're a God fearing Christian and as such have no political agenda.
Look up conservation of mass. Where does the CO2 from fermentation come from? It's a closed container with grain and water in it. The grain came from a plant that..... That's right sequestered CO2 from the atmosphere. Come on, don't hurt yourself thinking before you comment or anything. As far as methane produced in your gut, you don't produce enough, compared to a cow that is.
Actually energy is only fungible in an economic sense if entire life cycle costs are taken into account. Since the life cycle costs of coal and oil are not usually included in the price of a barrel of oil, or a short ton of coal, the statement that a kWh of Wind power is equivilant (see fungible) to a kWh of oil or coal power is fallacious. In addition electrical energy is very difficult, i.e. expensive to store, and for this reason it is not technically fungible in an economic sense.
The current capital and fuel cost of producing electricity from oil is 5.9 cents per kWh not including life cycle costs.
Adding the cost of the war in Iraq brings this to 8.4 cents per kWh.
Adding the cost of relocating the displaced in the USA (due to a 7 meter sea level rise) brings the cost to 9.9 cents per kWh - this cost may be much higher if the disruption to the economy is large, see Easter Island.
The capital and fuel cost of producing electricity from wind is currently 5.2 cents per kWh.
So, yes you're right, energy is fungible, just include the real costs.
Details and examples follow:
For instance the $60 price of a barrel of oil or ton of coal does not include the $700 billion to $2 trillion being spent for the current Iraq war. Or the subsidy provided to the coal companies by the U.S. government in the form of low cost leases of federal land and tax breaks.
I spend $500 per year on gas for my car, but $2000 per year for the war effort in Iraq. So my price for a gallon of gas is not the $2.70 per gallon I spend at the pump, but $13.50 per gallon. I can't get away without paying taxes, so this cost is fixed.
The cost of electricty from oil is published many places at between 3.4-4.5 cents per kWh is not accuate due to the fact that the published nubmers don't take into account the currrent price of oil (they are using prices $18 to $25 per barrel). Furthermore the published values don't include the cost of keeping oil producing regions of the world relatively stable, e.g. bombing brown people - see G. Carlin.
Calculating the cost of electricity production for oil:
One barrel of oil contains 5.8 billion BTUs of thermal energy, this thermal energy can be converted to mechanical/electrical energy of apx. 2090 KWh (at 36 percent efficiency of existing plants, efficiency is much less if used in a gasoline engine). The current US demand for oil is 7.3 billion barrels per year, at $60 per barrel this is $438 billon. Now adding the $400 billion per year spent in Iraq, we have a real cost of ($838e9/7.3e9) $114.7 per barrel. This does not include the costs associated with rising sea levels, but ignoring that, the fuel costs to generate 1 KWh from oil is $0.054 per kWh. Adding in the capital costs of an oil fired power plant ($0.030 per kWh or more) brings the cost to $0.084 per kWh. Costs associated with global warming would add a few more cents to this, let's say $0.015 per kwh for grins.. e.g. Relocating 15 million US residents that currently live at or below 7 meters above 2002 sea levels.
Re:Most breweries do..
on
Green Geek Beer
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
No, most breweries don't. They may have some prototype programs that make for good press, but they don't apply these across the entire production process or make the philosophy an integral part of the culture (no pun) like New Belgium.
From the Aneheuser-Busch site:
The company reduced water usage by nearly 10 percent, electricity consumption decreased by 1 percent and overall fuel usage declined by 4 percent since 1999.
Wow! what a great effort.
Comapared to New Belgium: 50% reduction in water use, 100% wind powered. Theer buildings are so tight that they hardly ever fire up the heater in the winter, and the lighting is 100% fluorescent. Here's the kicker - The took an employee vote to stop using coal and start using 100% wind, at the expense of employee wage increases!
And they make great beer!
From the New Belgium site:
In 2002 we agreed to participate in the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) pilot program. From sun tubes and daylighting throughout the facility to reusing heat in the brewhouse, we continue to search out new ways to close loops and conserve resources.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle The three 'R's of being an environmental steward. Our reuse program includes heat for the brewing process, cleaning chemicals, water and much more. Recyling at New Belgium takes on many forms, from turning "waste" products into something new and useful (like spent grain to cattle feed), to supporting the recycling market in creative ways (like turning our keg caps into table surfaces). We also buy recycled whenever we can, from paper to office furniture. Reduction surrounds us - from motion sensors on the lights throughout the building to induction fans that pull in cool winter air to chill our beer - offsetting our energy needs is the cornerstone to being environmentally efficient.
Crap, In three minutes I can refactor a PHP or Java class in a running application, including unit tests against it every 30 seconds or so... on a PIII 800 MHz server. So yes 3 minutes is a long time.
OK, here's why....Net sucks. OK I said it,.Net is a useless waste of time that sucks months of productivity from every developer that is forced to use it by clueless higher ups that have been getting hand jobs by the MS marketing and sales sluts.
---
Mono on the other hand is very promising and has few of the bugs that still persist in the.Net framework. And C# is a fine language; not my personnel favorite, but a good OO language.
It's called "eating your own dogfood" - See 'Inside Windows NT'. David Cutler, genius and madman, insisted that NT developers start using the alpha versions of NT as their development environment; thousands of bugs were found and fixed. Having developed with.Net 1.1 and 2.0, I can tell you that there are many bugs and much missing functionality in the framework. It is virtually impossible to write a non-trivial.Net application without resorting to un-managed code. If Microsoft had to implement Excel or Word in.Net then many of the bugs and missing functionality in.Net would probably be found and fixed quickly. Organizations that don't develop with the same tools that they provide have little credibility in my mind.
Absolutely right, But being an anti-MS bigot, I welcome this. Here's my twisted logic:
If I, want Microsoft to become irrelevant sooner rather than later then I would want them to keep producing crappy software. Now, if they are held accountable, say like Rovco, the maker of defective Bass-O-matics, then they would have every incentive to make solid, bullet proof operating systems. But if Microsoft is selling anti-virus protection it would be like Rovco selling anti-Bass-Mutation upgrades for the Bass-O-matic 76. --Cut to a Dan Ackroyd speaking at a fishing convention explaining why this is sooo good for fishermen. I would think that Rovco would be inclined to make defective Bass-O-matics just to sell anti-Bass-Mutation subscription service. "But wait, you also get....a baby's arm holding an apple". So the incentive has been removed for MS to produce solid, bullet proof, operating systems, you can see where this is headed.
Well first of all there is no bug list. That, for one, is less than steller. At least Borland always had a reasonably well maintained bug list. There are lots of KB articles though.
Here are a couple of killers bugs that are not documented: The serialization of HashTable requires a special keyword to reduce serialization from 30 minutes to 5 seconds. On a 2GHz PentiumM 2GB memory -- unless a magic keyword is used, 600,000 element hashtable takes 30+ minutes to store to disk, with the keyword it only takes five seconds, and the magic keyword? : System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.FormatterT ypeStyle.XsdString. Microsoft is completely silent on this. It took me a half a day to track it down. It is documented here: http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/thread-1351498.ph p. Not mentioned anywhere by Microsoft. In addition the hashing algorithm is broken for large hash sets.
Here's another killer, try performing binary serialization of a DataSet in 1.1. It doesn't exist you just get XML, which I guess strictly speaking is binary, but in the rest of.Net serialization with a binary format basically just streams the memory image of the object to disk..Net is a lockout mechanism by Microsoft. There are NO serious applications written in.Net that Microsoft sells, none. And I know about visual studio.
Funny, but a little scary. I hope that we all know that this line (which, while being self evident, may not be completely obvious in its meaning) is generally accepted as meaning, that while all men are certainly not equal, our legal and culture must treat all as if they are... even if they are "these guys".
This has to be a troll or the poster has been trollishly hiding under a rock. The spot market price for 4GB of flash is $144. Apple has negotiated with Samsung for pricing that some estimate is 60% of this in exchange for purchasing 40% of Samsungs flash production. So I look forward to Creative trying to compete with this, maybe samsung, but somehow I doubt it.
And as another poster has already responded, there was a post on ArsTech yesterday about the nano being almost indestructable under normal use.
Well that's mighty christian/buddist/hindu/islamic of you. Read a freaking history book, everyone knew that the poor would be impacted. And that everyone would pay. $10 bn ahead of time would have saved us $200-$300bn after. Unless you're procreating like mad, the poor of the earth are doing a much more effective job of passing along their genetic material than the wealthy (excluding a group in Utah).
Already do. 100% wind driven, oh yeah it costs 5% more than non-wind sources for my area. Actually wind power is currently a bit less expensive than natural gas right now (we burn coal locally). But I'm sure that the price of natural gas and oil will come down soon.
I'm going to agree with the poster here, Although huricanes are the least of our worries. The most recent work suggests that the "Great Dying" of the late Permian was caused by CO2 induced warming and reduced O2, Google for "great dying Huey Ward". 95% of life became extinct. I'm not an environmental freak, the planet will recover, it's just that we won't be around to write the history.
--Life is cheap, I just happen to be rather attached to mine.
I've been using Visual Studio for six months and I can say with 100% certainty that Microsoft's operating systems are completely lacking a Microsoft provided development environment.
I was wondering about the dust problem. Would be possible to have a simple compressor blow off the dust occasionally. Yes--- one more thing to break, but it would not have to run all of the time, just when the dust builds up. Could they have deposited a transparent "semi-conductive" coating on the panels to alleviate the electrostatic issues?
Excellent Points. One problem that needs to be pointed out is that the type of efficiency given for photosynthesis are not the same type of efficiency numbers given for solar panels.
One would assume that both of these are the quantum efficiencies of the systems when in fact the quantum efficiency of photosynthesis is between 6 and 9%.
The lower 0.2 percent figure may take into account the following issues (taken from lecture by Dr. Tad W. Patzek)
1. C3 crops are at maximum photosynthesis rate at 1/5 of full sunlight, so 4/5 must be
dissipated as heat (experiments in laboratories are performed at low light intensity)
2. Crops do not cover the entire field area.
3. Upper leafs form an unbroken canopy, which blocks sunlight from lower ones.
4. In areas far from the equator, the ambient temperature is too low for appreciable
photosynthesis.
E11, Prof. Tad W. Patzek 3
5. At temperatures higher than 30 degrees C, photorespiration losses are high.
6. Water shortage and deficiencies in trace elements limit plant growth.
7. CO2 at 360 ppm is frequently a limiting factor. C3 plants can double or triple
photosynthesis rate in augmented CO2 .
After these factors are taken into account the yield efficiency is approximately 0.5 percent.
The post specifies 0.2 percent. I have not seen a number this low in the literature. Also 20 * 0.2% is 4% not 10%. Did the post intend to use 0.5% for efficiency of photosynthesis? ( 20 * 0.5% = 10%).
"authors undermine their case by making inaccurate claims"
Some of these factors also apply to solar panels. Which reduces the efficiency to an extent.
I've used Lonworks, my experience is that it is very expensive to program and install. I wrote our own tools to get around the cost and limitations of the LonWorks tools. I know about powerline carrier, ask the guys at CoActive what they think about using this in the home. And you still need a LonWorks gateway to communicate to the internet.
I'm thinking that Bluetooth will be the new home automation standard. meets your $5 standard. Still need a gateway.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that we'll ever hear them say oops, many on the far right are very good at rationalizing their views, strange that they're not often rational.
-But how do you know she's a witch?
Alright, calm down, It's going to be O K. Now here's why one degree difference matters, when sea surface temperatures are below 80 degrees Fahrenheit(roughly) hurricanes rarely form. So when the sea surface temperature goes up one degree Fahrenheit this is actually a very big deal. I'm sure that the guys at NOAA are up on their thermodynamics classes.
As far as your theories regarding political motivation, I can tell from your language that you're a God fearing Christian and as such have no political agenda.
Green is relative of course, thanks for pointing that out. Did you go look at the New Belgium web site? They're more green than I am.
Look up conservation of mass. Where does the CO2 from fermentation come from? It's a closed container with grain and water in it. The grain came from a plant that..... That's right sequestered CO2 from the atmosphere. Come on, don't hurt yourself thinking before you comment or anything. As far as methane produced in your gut, you don't produce enough, compared to a cow that is.
Actually energy is only fungible in an economic sense if entire life cycle costs are taken into account. Since the life cycle costs of coal and oil are not usually included in the price of a barrel of oil, or a short ton of coal, the statement that a kWh of Wind power is equivilant (see fungible) to a kWh of oil or coal power is fallacious. In addition electrical energy is very difficult, i.e. expensive to store, and for this reason it is not technically fungible in an economic sense.
The current capital and fuel cost of producing electricity from oil is 5.9 cents per kWh not including life cycle costs.
Adding the cost of the war in Iraq brings this to 8.4 cents per kWh.
Adding the cost of relocating the displaced in the USA (due to a 7 meter sea level rise) brings the cost to 9.9 cents per kWh - this cost may be much higher if the disruption to the economy is large, see Easter Island.
The capital and fuel cost of producing electricity from wind is currently 5.2 cents per kWh.
So, yes you're right, energy is fungible, just include the real costs.
Details and examples follow:
For instance the $60 price of a barrel of oil or ton of coal does not include the $700 billion to $2 trillion being spent for the current Iraq war. Or the subsidy provided to the coal companies by the U.S. government in the form of low cost leases of federal land and tax breaks.
I spend $500 per year on gas for my car, but $2000 per year for the war effort in Iraq. So my price for a gallon of gas is not the $2.70 per gallon I spend at the pump, but $13.50 per gallon. I can't get away without paying taxes, so this cost is fixed.
The cost of electricty from oil is published many places at between 3.4-4.5 cents per kWh is not accuate due to the fact that the published nubmers don't take into account the currrent price of oil (they are using prices $18 to $25 per barrel). Furthermore the published values don't include the cost of keeping oil producing regions of the world relatively stable, e.g. bombing brown people - see G. Carlin.
Calculating the cost of electricity production for oil:
One barrel of oil contains 5.8 billion BTUs of thermal energy, this thermal energy can be converted to mechanical/electrical energy of apx. 2090 KWh (at 36 percent efficiency of existing plants, efficiency is much less if used in a gasoline engine). The current US demand for oil is 7.3 billion barrels per year, at $60 per barrel this is $438 billon. Now adding the $400 billion per year spent in Iraq, we have a real cost of ($838e9/7.3e9) $114.7 per barrel. This does not include the costs associated with rising sea levels, but ignoring that, the fuel costs to generate 1 KWh from oil is $0.054 per kWh. Adding in the capital costs of an oil fired power plant ($0.030 per kWh or more) brings the cost to $0.084 per kWh. Costs associated with global warming would add a few more cents to this, let's say $0.015 per kwh for grins.. e.g. Relocating 15 million US residents that currently live at or below 7 meters above 2002 sea levels.
No, most breweries don't. They may have some prototype programs that make for good press, but they don't apply these across the entire production process or make the philosophy an integral part of the culture (no pun) like New Belgium. From the Aneheuser-Busch site: The company reduced water usage by nearly 10 percent, electricity consumption decreased by 1 percent and overall fuel usage declined by 4 percent since 1999. Wow! what a great effort. Comapared to New Belgium: 50% reduction in water use, 100% wind powered. Theer buildings are so tight that they hardly ever fire up the heater in the winter, and the lighting is 100% fluorescent. Here's the kicker - The took an employee vote to stop using coal and start using 100% wind, at the expense of employee wage increases! And they make great beer! From the New Belgium site: In 2002 we agreed to participate in the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) pilot program. From sun tubes and daylighting throughout the facility to reusing heat in the brewhouse, we continue to search out new ways to close loops and conserve resources. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle The three 'R's of being an environmental steward. Our reuse program includes heat for the brewing process, cleaning chemicals, water and much more. Recyling at New Belgium takes on many forms, from turning "waste" products into something new and useful (like spent grain to cattle feed), to supporting the recycling market in creative ways (like turning our keg caps into table surfaces). We also buy recycled whenever we can, from paper to office furniture. Reduction surrounds us - from motion sensors on the lights throughout the building to induction fans that pull in cool winter air to chill our beer - offsetting our energy needs is the cornerstone to being environmentally efficient.
Crap, In three minutes I can refactor a PHP or Java class in a running application, including unit tests against it every 30 seconds or so... on a PIII 800 MHz server. So yes 3 minutes is a long time.
OK, here's why... .Net sucks. OK I said it, .Net is a useless waste of time that sucks months of productivity from every developer that is forced to use it by clueless higher ups that have been getting hand jobs by the MS marketing and sales sluts.
---
Mono on the other hand is very promising and has few of the bugs that still persist in the .Net framework. And C# is a fine language; not my personnel favorite, but a good OO language.
It's called "eating your own dogfood" - See 'Inside Windows NT'. David Cutler, genius and madman, insisted that NT developers start using the alpha versions of NT as their development environment; thousands of bugs were found and fixed. Having developed with .Net 1.1 and 2.0, I can tell you that there are many bugs and much missing functionality in the framework. It is virtually impossible to write a non-trivial .Net application without resorting to un-managed code. If Microsoft had to implement Excel or Word in .Net then many of the bugs and missing functionality in .Net would probably be found and fixed quickly. Organizations that don't develop with the same tools that they provide have little credibility in my mind.
Absolutely right, But being an anti-MS bigot, I welcome this. Here's my twisted logic:
If I, want Microsoft to become irrelevant sooner rather than later then I would want them to keep producing crappy software. Now, if they are held accountable, say like Rovco, the maker of defective Bass-O-matics, then they would have every incentive to make solid, bullet proof operating systems. But if Microsoft is selling anti-virus protection it would be like Rovco selling anti-Bass-Mutation upgrades for the Bass-O-matic 76. --Cut to a Dan Ackroyd speaking at a fishing convention explaining why this is sooo good for fishermen. I would think that Rovco would be inclined to make defective Bass-O-matics just to sell anti-Bass-Mutation subscription service. "But wait, you also get....a baby's arm holding an apple". So the incentive has been removed for MS to produce solid, bullet proof, operating systems, you can see where this is headed.
Well first of all there is no bug list. That, for one, is less than steller. At least Borland always had a reasonably well maintained bug list. There are lots of KB articles though.
T ypeStyle.XsdString. Microsoft is completely silent on this. It took me a half a day to track it down. It is documented here: http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/thread-1351498.ph p. Not mentioned anywhere by Microsoft. In addition the hashing algorithm is broken for large hash sets.
.Net serialization with a binary format basically just streams the memory image of the object to disk. .Net is a lockout mechanism by Microsoft. There are NO serious applications written in .Net that Microsoft sells, none. And I know about visual studio.
Here are a couple of killers bugs that are not documented:
The serialization of HashTable requires a special keyword to reduce serialization from 30 minutes to 5 seconds. On a 2GHz PentiumM 2GB memory -- unless a magic keyword is used, 600,000 element hashtable takes 30+ minutes to store to disk, with the keyword it only takes five seconds, and the magic keyword? : System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Formatter
Here's another killer, try performing binary serialization of a DataSet in 1.1. It doesn't exist you just get XML, which I guess strictly speaking is binary, but in the rest of
Funny, but a little scary. I hope that we all know that this line (which, while being self evident, may not be completely obvious in its meaning) is generally accepted as meaning, that while all men are certainly not equal, our legal and culture must treat all as if they are... even if they are "these guys".
No, he's ten and lives in Ohio .... Dumb Ass (Red Foreman)
I thought that Tom Delay was already employeed, at least for the time being.
I think that XML, specifically the client-side transform of XML using XSLT, is a very very important part of AJAX.
Dude, ASP is so 90's try Ruby on Rails, or CakePHP (since you already know PHP).
This has to be a troll or the poster has been trollishly hiding under a rock. The spot market price for 4GB of flash is $144. Apple has negotiated with Samsung for pricing that some estimate is 60% of this in exchange for purchasing 40% of Samsungs flash production. So I look forward to Creative trying to compete with this, maybe samsung, but somehow I doubt it. And as another poster has already responded, there was a post on ArsTech yesterday about the nano being almost indestructable under normal use.
Well that's mighty christian/buddist/hindu/islamic of you. Read a freaking history book, everyone knew that the poor would be impacted. And that everyone would pay. $10 bn ahead of time would have saved us $200-$300bn after. Unless you're procreating like mad, the poor of the earth are doing a much more effective job of passing along their genetic material than the wealthy (excluding a group in Utah).
Already do. 100% wind driven, oh yeah it costs 5% more than non-wind sources for my area. Actually wind power is currently a bit less expensive than natural gas right now (we burn coal locally). But I'm sure that the price of natural gas and oil will come down soon.
I'm going to agree with the poster here, Although huricanes are the least of our worries. The most recent work suggests that the "Great Dying" of the late Permian was caused by CO2 induced warming and reduced O2, Google for "great dying Huey Ward". 95% of life became extinct. I'm not an environmental freak, the planet will recover, it's just that we won't be around to write the history. --Life is cheap, I just happen to be rather attached to mine.
64 bits, no CLR, will blow away any C# application written with managed code.
I've been using Visual Studio for six months and I can say with 100% certainty that Microsoft's operating systems are completely lacking a Microsoft provided development environment.
I was wondering about the dust problem. Would be possible to have a simple compressor blow off the dust occasionally. Yes--- one more thing to break, but it would not have to run all of the time, just when the dust builds up. Could they have deposited a transparent "semi-conductive" coating on the panels to alleviate the electrostatic issues?
Excellent Points. One problem that needs to be pointed out is that the type of efficiency given for photosynthesis are not the same type of efficiency numbers given for solar panels. One would assume that both of these are the quantum efficiencies of the systems when in fact the quantum efficiency of photosynthesis is between 6 and 9%. The lower 0.2 percent figure may take into account the following issues (taken from lecture by Dr. Tad W. Patzek) 1. C3 crops are at maximum photosynthesis rate at 1/5 of full sunlight, so 4/5 must be dissipated as heat (experiments in laboratories are performed at low light intensity) 2. Crops do not cover the entire field area. 3. Upper leafs form an unbroken canopy, which blocks sunlight from lower ones. 4. In areas far from the equator, the ambient temperature is too low for appreciable photosynthesis. E11, Prof. Tad W. Patzek 3 5. At temperatures higher than 30 degrees C, photorespiration losses are high. 6. Water shortage and deficiencies in trace elements limit plant growth. 7. CO2 at 360 ppm is frequently a limiting factor. C3 plants can double or triple photosynthesis rate in augmented CO2 . After these factors are taken into account the yield efficiency is approximately 0.5 percent. The post specifies 0.2 percent. I have not seen a number this low in the literature. Also 20 * 0.2% is 4% not 10%. Did the post intend to use 0.5% for efficiency of photosynthesis? ( 20 * 0.5% = 10%). "authors undermine their case by making inaccurate claims" Some of these factors also apply to solar panels. Which reduces the efficiency to an extent.
I've used Lonworks, my experience is that it is very expensive to program and install. I wrote our own tools to get around the cost and limitations of the LonWorks tools. I know about powerline carrier, ask the guys at CoActive what they think about using this in the home. And you still need a LonWorks gateway to communicate to the internet.
I'm thinking that Bluetooth will be the new home automation standard. meets your $5 standard. Still need a gateway.