As I pointed out to somebody else below, America, like most of the west, has gone down every year for the last 10, until this year. China has grown every year ( or flattened for a couple of years ), for the last 30+ years.
And as needed to be pointed out in return: China + India have about seven times the population of the United States. That means that they get to pollute seven times as much. As someone else pointed out, we don't say the Vatican is free to pollute just as much as the United States, because reasons. And much of the pollution generated in China is used to produce consumer products for entitled westerners.
We NEED to quit that and instead, push for SMRs like NuScale.
Yeah, no. Putting risk aside, nuclear power will never touch the cost effectiveness of wind and solar with a 20 light year pole. And the baseload BS that people love to trot out on wind and solar applies moreso to nuclear, as plants shut down for planned (or worse unplanned) maintenance all the time. Which means you need to build spare generators to pick up the slack when one of your plants goes down for days, weeks, months or sometimes even years at a time.
It would be cheaper, take less time, and involve none of the risk to just build extra wind and solar capacity into the grid and back it up with the sort of pumped storage that's used to back up nuclear power, or a Tesla Powerpack like they built in Australia, one that will pay for itself in a couple more years.
Yeah we see how much of a boondoggle high speed rail is in the US.
Interstate highways - which have cost trillions to construct and maintain - would be a "boondogle" if started today instead of in the 50's, as you'd have to go level out vast tracks of land for the roads while going through urban areas. That doesn't mean that it would be worth doing.
Even CA can't pull it off.
CA is a state that is limited in how much it can borrow and spend. The US federal government is under no such limitations - and if you slashed a trillion off the annual imperial budget you would have plenty to spend without raising taxes a dime. Speaking of taxes, receipts would jump from the resulting jobs boom, making part of the spending pay for itself over the long term.
...just like Google. This sounds like butthurt, same as the dinosaur news publications that want Google to cut them a check for daring the link to their stories....despite Google brining them an audience...
Please point to even a single example of a car rental firm charging less for a 7-day rental than they do for a 5-day rental that starts on the same date.
Please point to how that's relevant to the point being made.
Apple sticking with Lightning at this point is nothing but a pathetic cash grab and lock in attempt.
Uh huh. Except if Apple had switched to USB-C, the story would still be that they're doing a "pathetic cash grab" by making their users replace their existing lightning accessories with USB-C. No matter what Apple does, it's aways the wrong thing.
I love how you think libertarians are going to draw your strawman inference or feel your strawman way.
I love how his post brought out all the libertarian butthurt.
THAT'S the "libertarian" response, thanks very much.
Yeah, but libertarians are real long on telling everyone else how to live (like christofascists) but tend to flip-flop as soon as their ideology blows up in their faces or it would benefit them personally. Like how even St. Rand was happy to use tens of thousands of dollars in Social Security and Medicare after paying a few hundred bucks tops into the system.
Of course, if Apple had announced a change to USB-C, then they be getting shit for making their users change cables again. Samsung would probably run some ads mocking the move, despite transitioning to USB-C themselves.
That's quite an amount of umbrage - at your narrative being shown to be complete corporatist bullshit. One that ignores the very real history of ISP's blocking competing services, or extorting Netflix to pay up least they be throttled.
Yeah, they have - renewables have surpassed coal or nuclear in Germany in generating capacity. So what if they haven't completely transitioned - everyone isn't going to tear down their coal and nuclear plants to replace them with wind turbines for the same reason everyone didn't run out and shoot their horse the moment the Model T went on sale. The important factoid isn't what percentage of the grid is from renewables, it's where new generating capacity comes from. And the world is losing interest in new coal and nuclear power plants.
By 2030 I expect battery technology to be good/cheap enough to buffer solar on the grid.
For the price of a new nuclear power plant you could buy 300 Tesla Powerpacks like the one they built in Australia or 1.3 million Powerwalls. Right now, not 2030. Kinda takes the baseload FUD and nukes it from orbit.
And the nuclear accident was caused by straight up incompetency and criminally lax oversight.
And a once-in-a-thousand-years disaster. Just how many nuclear plants in the United States do you think would weather a once-in-a-thousand years tornado, earthquake, flood etc etc without issue?
Still not a single radiation-related death in Fake-ashima 8 years later.
Don't know how cancer works, do you? It can take decades for a person to develop mesothelioma after exposure to Asbestos. Do you think that smoking cigarettes doesn't cause lung cancer because people don't develop lung cancer in their early 20's?
See above on the baseload BS. You have to build extra nuclear plants to cover for those that are shutdown for maintenance, just as you would have to build extra solar capacity for cloudy days. Or you have to back up your plants with a giant battery - and if you can do that for nuclear, you can do it for wind and solar.
Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe.
I don't oppose solar, I think it's sweet. It's just unproven.
Germany has been proving it for years now, and they have the same amount of sunlight as Alaska. Speaking of batteries again, the price has plummeted for the last twenty years and all signs show it will continue to do so. Making the price of a Tesla Powerwall or a large scale backup like they built in Australia cheaper all the time - but you're still going to spend $20 billion on a new nuclear power plant.
"Wind and solar passed coal in cost effectiveness" Why do I hear this being said all the time, all those studies showing current wind/solar $/kWh as being the cheapest form available
Probably because it's old news? So what else are you skeptical of, because reasons....Obama being born in Hawaii? Vaccines not causing autism?
We do not live in a dictatorship, if it was possible to build a solar farm and erect a bunch of windmills and undercut the local electric utility, you'd see this wholesale and fast across North America.
And run all their own utility lines? Here's another link for you. Coal has a full hundred year head start on solar, and nuclear power has had trillions thrown at it around the planet. Of course it's going to take wind and solar some time to catch up in generating capacity. France isn't going to tear down their network of nuclear power plants that they spent a few hundred billion building and replace them with wind turbines and solar panels while the plants can still operate. People didn't all run out and shoot their hoses when Ford put the Model T on sale, for the same reason people haven't all sold their ICE cars to monster truck rallies to be crushed the moment the Model S was available for purchase.
Expensive, extremely "loyal" fans who can't look at them objectively
Can say the same thing about those operating under the Hatorade Distortion Field, who rag on Tesla/Apple all day while having no intentions in buying either product. Musk/Zombie Steve aren't holding guns to anyone's heads to force a purchase.
Can you even point to one place in the world where solar has replaced baseload? That is the question that matters.
In the world where coal has been around for a full century before the advent of solar power? Sounds like dismissing cars because they hadn't yet replaced horses as the primary mode of transportation in 1905. You could also have a whole lotta wind and solar if the trillions spent around the world on nuclear power had been used for that instead - but a wind turbine wont produce the materials you need for a nuclear bomb.
So any transition is going to be a work in progress - but you could always visit Germany, which has made significant investments in wind, solar and biomass energy.
Can you get past this facile, 1990's handwaving on politics? Anything but hard left is a corporatist fail. Most self-professed conservatives would be on board for this as well - even a majority of Republicans are for medicare for all, and they would sign up for wind and solar jobs faster than Ayn Rand signed up for Medicare and Social Security as soon as she was eligible.
Of course it would. You could make a jobs program based purely from finding homeless people and paying them $50,000 a year to pick lint out of their navels, and it would still be a better jobs program than the military-industrial-complex, and for less money. Because those homeless people would run out and spend their money in the local economy, creating more demand and jobs along with it.
There's two arguments here, either the USAF is constitutional because it's an extension of the federal authority to raise an Army, or it's not.
Whiiiich it hasn't been for the better part of a century, so you're still evading the point.
Just because the USAF is distinct from the Army operationally does not make it unconstitutional.
Being a strict constitutionalist is like being pregnant: either you are, or you are not. And nowhere does the Constitution mention an air force, nor has an amendment been passed to allow for one.
There is another option, and you've even mentioned it as a possibility, we'd see an amendment to the US Constitution that flies through DC so fast that it breaks all air speed records ever seen. There, done, the USAF is constitutional. Happy now?
Not until it happens. Do you take the same line on SS, Medicare, free-to-use universities, medicare for all, UBI, etc? It's all just fine (and constitutional) until an amendment is passed to allow it? In which case, again, you aren't strictly pregnant...
Your argument is based on a narrow definition of "army". We can call it the "Air Army" if we like. Or the "Air Navy". Then we get the "Space Army" next. See? It's an "army" now and totally constitutional. Nitwit.
I'll just copy and paste since you're being willfully obtuse: You can say the Marines are constitutional as they are a part of the Navy, but nowhere does the Constitution allow for an air force, nor has an Amendment been passed to allow for it. By the same token, every single spy agency that's not Army or Navy Intelligence is just as "unconstitutional". Yet Randians and strict constitutionalists never ever complain that the CIA/NSA are against the founding document.
Either you are for a strict interpretation for the Constitution as it was written or amendmended, or you are not. You, sir, are not.
It's going to take more than 10 years. But even if that were the case....then they could move right on to building a mass high speed rail network in the United States, which would take many more decades.
Slashdot Mirror
And as needed to be pointed out in return: China + India have about seven times the population of the United States. That means that they get to pollute seven times as much. As someone else pointed out, we don't say the Vatican is free to pollute just as much as the United States, because reasons. And much of the pollution generated in China is used to produce consumer products for entitled westerners.
Yeah, no. Putting risk aside, nuclear power will never touch the cost effectiveness of wind and solar with a 20 light year pole. And the baseload BS that people love to trot out on wind and solar applies moreso to nuclear, as plants shut down for planned (or worse unplanned) maintenance all the time. Which means you need to build spare generators to pick up the slack when one of your plants goes down for days, weeks, months or sometimes even years at a time.
It would be cheaper, take less time, and involve none of the risk to just build extra wind and solar capacity into the grid and back it up with the sort of pumped storage that's used to back up nuclear power, or a Tesla Powerpack like they built in Australia, one that will pay for itself in a couple more years.
And has spyware and a keylogger built into their operating system - but derp Russia!
Fair enough.
Interstate highways - which have cost trillions to construct and maintain - would be a "boondogle" if started today instead of in the 50's, as you'd have to go level out vast tracks of land for the roads while going through urban areas. That doesn't mean that it would be worth doing.
CA is a state that is limited in how much it can borrow and spend. The US federal government is under no such limitations - and if you slashed a trillion off the annual imperial budget you would have plenty to spend without raising taxes a dime. Speaking of taxes, receipts would jump from the resulting jobs boom, making part of the spending pay for itself over the long term.
...just like Google. This sounds like butthurt, same as the dinosaur news publications that want Google to cut them a check for daring the link to their stories....despite Google brining them an audience...
You know most restaurants aren't buffets, right? Really a terrible rebuttal.
Please point to how that's relevant to the point being made.
Customers are always charged what the market will bear. Any cost savings are pocketed by the company, not passed on.
Uh huh. Except if Apple had switched to USB-C, the story would still be that they're doing a "pathetic cash grab" by making their users replace their existing lightning accessories with USB-C. No matter what Apple does, it's aways the wrong thing.
I love how his post brought out all the libertarian butthurt.
Yeah, but libertarians are real long on telling everyone else how to live (like christofascists) but tend to flip-flop as soon as their ideology blows up in their faces or it would benefit them personally. Like how even St. Rand was happy to use tens of thousands of dollars in Social Security and Medicare after paying a few hundred bucks tops into the system.
Contradiction in terms. And where's the FDIC insurance for your cyroptocurrency snafu's like this one?
Of course, if Apple had announced a change to USB-C, then they be getting shit for making their users change cables again. Samsung would probably run some ads mocking the move, despite transitioning to USB-C themselves.
That's quite an amount of umbrage - at your narrative being shown to be complete corporatist bullshit. One that ignores the very real history of ISP's blocking competing services, or extorting Netflix to pay up least they be throttled.
Yeah, they have - renewables have surpassed coal or nuclear in Germany in generating capacity. So what if they haven't completely transitioned - everyone isn't going to tear down their coal and nuclear plants to replace them with wind turbines for the same reason everyone didn't run out and shoot their horse the moment the Model T went on sale. The important factoid isn't what percentage of the grid is from renewables, it's where new generating capacity comes from. And the world is losing interest in new coal and nuclear power plants.
For the price of a new nuclear power plant you could buy 300 Tesla Powerpacks like the one they built in Australia or 1.3 million Powerwalls. Right now, not 2030. Kinda takes the baseload FUD and nukes it from orbit.
Try two thousand.
Which is still over $600 biiiiiiilion dollars.
And a once-in-a-thousand-years disaster. Just how many nuclear plants in the United States do you think would weather a once-in-a-thousand years tornado, earthquake, flood etc etc without issue?
Don't know how cancer works, do you? It can take decades for a person to develop mesothelioma after exposure to Asbestos. Do you think that smoking cigarettes doesn't cause lung cancer because people don't develop lung cancer in their early 20's?
Still in denial of the situational reasoning and cognitive dissonance, I see. Are your double standards powered by a fusion device?
See above on the baseload BS. You have to build extra nuclear plants to cover for those that are shutdown for maintenance, just as you would have to build extra solar capacity for cloudy days. Or you have to back up your plants with a giant battery - and if you can do that for nuclear, you can do it for wind and solar.
Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe.
Germany has been proving it for years now, and they have the same amount of sunlight as Alaska. Speaking of batteries again, the price has plummeted for the last twenty years and all signs show it will continue to do so. Making the price of a Tesla Powerwall or a large scale backup like they built in Australia cheaper all the time - but you're still going to spend $20 billion on a new nuclear power plant.
Probably because it's old news? So what else are you skeptical of, because reasons....Obama being born in Hawaii? Vaccines not causing autism?
And run all their own utility lines? Here's another link for you. Coal has a full hundred year head start on solar, and nuclear power has had trillions thrown at it around the planet. Of course it's going to take wind and solar some time to catch up in generating capacity. France isn't going to tear down their network of nuclear power plants that they spent a few hundred billion building and replace them with wind turbines and solar panels while the plants can still operate. People didn't all run out and shoot their hoses when Ford put the Model T on sale, for the same reason people haven't all sold their ICE cars to monster truck rallies to be crushed the moment the Model S was available for purchase.
Can say the same thing about those operating under the Hatorade Distortion Field, who rag on Tesla/Apple all day while having no intentions in buying either product. Musk/Zombie Steve aren't holding guns to anyone's heads to force a purchase.
In the world where coal has been around for a full century before the advent of solar power? Sounds like dismissing cars because they hadn't yet replaced horses as the primary mode of transportation in 1905. You could also have a whole lotta wind and solar if the trillions spent around the world on nuclear power had been used for that instead - but a wind turbine wont produce the materials you need for a nuclear bomb.
So any transition is going to be a work in progress - but you could always visit Germany, which has made significant investments in wind, solar and biomass energy.
Can you get past this facile, 1990's handwaving on politics? Anything but hard left is a corporatist fail. Most self-professed conservatives would be on board for this as well - even a majority of Republicans are for medicare for all, and they would sign up for wind and solar jobs faster than Ayn Rand signed up for Medicare and Social Security as soon as she was eligible.
Of course it would. You could make a jobs program based purely from finding homeless people and paying them $50,000 a year to pick lint out of their navels, and it would still be a better jobs program than the military-industrial-complex, and for less money. Because those homeless people would run out and spend their money in the local economy, creating more demand and jobs along with it.
Your perception of reality is completely and utterly inverted. That it is all.
Whiiiich it hasn't been for the better part of a century, so you're still evading the point.
Being a strict constitutionalist is like being pregnant: either you are, or you are not. And nowhere does the Constitution mention an air force, nor has an amendment been passed to allow for one.
Not until it happens. Do you take the same line on SS, Medicare, free-to-use universities, medicare for all, UBI, etc? It's all just fine (and constitutional) until an amendment is passed to allow it? In which case, again, you aren't strictly pregnant...
I'll just copy and paste since you're being willfully obtuse: You can say the Marines are constitutional as they are a part of the Navy, but nowhere does the Constitution allow for an air force, nor has an Amendment been passed to allow for it. By the same token, every single spy agency that's not Army or Navy Intelligence is just as "unconstitutional". Yet Randians and strict constitutionalists never ever complain that the CIA/NSA are against the founding document.
Either you are for a strict interpretation for the Constitution as it was written or amendmended, or you are not. You, sir, are not.
It's going to take more than 10 years. But even if that were the case....then they could move right on to building a mass high speed rail network in the United States, which would take many more decades.