Nuclear power plants get scheduled reloads. So you can predict and compensate. Predicting wind power generation is more difficult. Not to mention that you can't generate with no wind.
Natural gas generators can spool up and down at the cost of efficiency. Nuclear power plants can also idle for a bit. In France in the night for e.g. they often turn down a reactor and run the generators on the hot water for some time more.
No fret. Another honking huge HVDC cable to France to get more nuclear power to the UK under construction. Plus a nuclear power plant built with Chinese and French funding actually IN the UK.
You don't know the economic history of South Korea very well. Read about how Samsung or the other chaebols started out. Nearly always it was with monopolies or state protection.
Had they done that when Stalin was in power they would have been denounced as 'wreckers' and sent to the Gulag in Siberia or killed immediately. So no that did not happen. There was shoddy production quality in the rush to meet production quotas. But if you did that in any strategically relevant sector you would not live a happy life for long.
This is in part because resources were channeled to the defense sector. Khrushchev tried to increase the production of commodity products but he failed. Miserably. Planned economics seldom works in the consumer products sector.
Mao's problems started when he went from the Soviet planned development model, which had been working fairly well, to his Great Leap Forward movement and the repression where he started punishing professors and scientists in most sectors of the country. The only person who I can think of which was even more evil in the past century is probably Pol Pot. The only sector which escaped was probably ICBM development. But even that after the freeze in relationship with the USSR their development was undermined by lack of technical cooperation with an industrial partner with existing technology and know-how.
As for the deaths yes they happened. I still consider these development models to be flawed. Meiji Japan and Imperial Germany managed similar growth rates without these kinds of death tolls. But the growth rates were historically high in those periods, in the double digits, so it is naive to assume they did not work.
R-7, the Soyuz rocket, was developed as an ICBM. It put Gagarin and Leonov in space. Its successors still launch satellites today and service the ISS. It is true that in time liquid fuel rockets were perceived as unusable for military purposes because of the needs to refuel or store them for a long time. But when R-7 was developed the other nuclear bomb delivery mechanism was a strategic bomber. The time to prep, launch and strike was even larger than that of R-7. So it was revolutionary at the time.
The Soviet Union had issues at first in miniaturizing their warheads so they needed to go for much larger rockets. This caused the decision to push for large hypergolic liquid rockets like R-36 or Proton. Proton BTW was used to launch segments of the ISS and is another rocket still in service today. With time the warheads were miniaturized plus, as Korolev has said himself in the past, hypergolics were replaced by solids in the Soviet Union. A major boost to that happening, besides the launch times, was the Nedelin disaster. The circumstances surrounding the Soviet and US rocket programs are fairly different. All programs both for ICBMs and space launch were controlled by Usinov and the military and he often preferred dual use technologies at that time.
GM is correct of course. This was not a loan and the State could have chosen to sell off their shares after the economy rebounded and GM stock went further up. Assuming it ever did.
What the State can do to get the money back from the auto industry is to start taxing cars more. But I suspect they would not like that either.
To some degree you need funding from corporations to get elected in the first place. I mean who pays for the campaign? That they get served in returns is bound to happen.
The fact that in the US it is bloody hard to create alternatives to both leading parties is a problem as well insofar as the less people you have to buy off the easier it is to buy them off.
The government of China works pretty well. So did the governments of Soviet Russia during the so called war communism period. Economically at least.
State control of the economy and planned economics did not begin with communism, despite what Marx would have liked to think, since Palace economies in the distant past worked pretty much that way. The problems are always the same. Lack of innovation and lack of drive to push efficiency further. But in a place where the individuals actors themselves cannot act to produce infrastructure, a state controlled apparatus with centralized power can do things individuals cannot. This is why it worked so well for electrification in the Soviet Union and other things like that but failed miserably at coming with new technology like biotech or computers.
All things aren't understood in nuclear science. The theory is well established but the practice i.e. the actual implementations are still second rate. Just look at the history of uranium separation as an example. 100x reduction in energy separation costs from going to centrifuges and probably another 10x reduction by going to laser separation processes which might also be useable to separate plutonium from waste in the future.
As for reactors there was talk of high-temperature reactors to produce hydrogen which is a useful product for producing ammonia for fertilizer and explosives without using natural gas or petroleum but that will probably stop being developed now that NA has a lot of those resources. Most work will probably be in making reactors safer or cheaper. Not exactly exciting work.
The X-.ray hafnium apparatus has been tested and it seems to be pseudo-science i.e. quackery. It was the rave like a decade ago.
The problem with atomic reactors on airplanes has always been weight. Even when SAC was trying to use it in large bombers. Until someone develops lightweight shielding it won't happen. I do not think this is impossible. But the funding certainly seems to be scarce. The curious thing is that since the DOE took charge of reactor development from the military all development has stagnated. I think this is because the military actually has real applications in mind so they end up producing viable products unlike the DOE.
Yeah but the issue with eating rabbit is that it lacks an essential protein for the building of heart muscle. It is ok to eat it occasionally but if you eat that as your only protein source you start getting nutritional deficiencies. Chicken does not have that issue.
Actually you can switch licenses if the new license does not conflict with the old license. Since BSD allows basically everything to be done with it you can restrict it any way you wish. Including putting it in proprietary source code.
Because people can eat other things than corn. I do remember some farmers in the US feeding sweets instead of animal feed a couple of years back because it was cheaper though.
Slashdot Mirror
You know what? Constant spooling up and down worsens efficiency of any kind of engine or heat engine.
Nuclear power plants get scheduled reloads. So you can predict and compensate. Predicting wind power generation is more difficult. Not to mention that you can't generate with no wind.
Natural gas generators can spool up and down at the cost of efficiency. Nuclear power plants can also idle for a bit. In France in the night for e.g. they often turn down a reactor and run the generators on the hot water for some time more.
No fret. Another honking huge HVDC cable to France to get more nuclear power to the UK under construction. Plus a nuclear power plant built with Chinese and French funding actually IN the UK.
It was also high in the 50s and 60s I believe. The debt is not as much of a problem as the lack of being able to service it.
You don't know the economic history of South Korea very well. Read about how Samsung or the other chaebols started out. Nearly always it was with monopolies or state protection.
Example: See what happened to Tupolev after the ANT-20 requirement and quality control issues.
Had they done that when Stalin was in power they would have been denounced as 'wreckers' and sent to the Gulag in Siberia or killed immediately. So no that did not happen. There was shoddy production quality in the rush to meet production quotas. But if you did that in any strategically relevant sector you would not live a happy life for long.
This is in part because resources were channeled to the defense sector. Khrushchev tried to increase the production of commodity products but he failed. Miserably. Planned economics seldom works in the consumer products sector.
Mao's problems started when he went from the Soviet planned development model, which had been working fairly well, to his Great Leap Forward movement and the repression where he started punishing professors and scientists in most sectors of the country. The only person who I can think of which was even more evil in the past century is probably Pol Pot. The only sector which escaped was probably ICBM development. But even that after the freeze in relationship with the USSR their development was undermined by lack of technical cooperation with an industrial partner with existing technology and know-how.
As for the deaths yes they happened. I still consider these development models to be flawed. Meiji Japan and Imperial Germany managed similar growth rates without these kinds of death tolls. But the growth rates were historically high in those periods, in the double digits, so it is naive to assume they did not work.
R-7, the Soyuz rocket, was developed as an ICBM. It put Gagarin and Leonov in space. Its successors still launch satellites today and service the ISS. It is true that in time liquid fuel rockets were perceived as unusable for military purposes because of the needs to refuel or store them for a long time. But when R-7 was developed the other nuclear bomb delivery mechanism was a strategic bomber. The time to prep, launch and strike was even larger than that of R-7. So it was revolutionary at the time.
The Soviet Union had issues at first in miniaturizing their warheads so they needed to go for much larger rockets. This caused the decision to push for large hypergolic liquid rockets like R-36 or Proton. Proton BTW was used to launch segments of the ISS and is another rocket still in service today. With time the warheads were miniaturized plus, as Korolev has said himself in the past, hypergolics were replaced by solids in the Soviet Union. A major boost to that happening, besides the launch times, was the Nedelin disaster. The circumstances surrounding the Soviet and US rocket programs are fairly different. All programs both for ICBMs and space launch were controlled by Usinov and the military and he often preferred dual use technologies at that time.
GM is correct of course. This was not a loan and the State could have chosen to sell off their shares after the economy rebounded and GM stock went further up. Assuming it ever did.
What the State can do to get the money back from the auto industry is to start taxing cars more. But I suspect they would not like that either.
To some degree you need funding from corporations to get elected in the first place. I mean who pays for the campaign? That they get served in returns is bound to happen.
The fact that in the US it is bloody hard to create alternatives to both leading parties is a problem as well insofar as the less people you have to buy off the easier it is to buy them off.
The government of China works pretty well. So did the governments of Soviet Russia during the so called war communism period. Economically at least.
State control of the economy and planned economics did not begin with communism, despite what Marx would have liked to think, since Palace economies in the distant past worked pretty much that way. The problems are always the same. Lack of innovation and lack of drive to push efficiency further. But in a place where the individuals actors themselves cannot act to produce infrastructure, a state controlled apparatus with centralized power can do things individuals cannot. This is why it worked so well for electrification in the Soviet Union and other things like that but failed miserably at coming with new technology like biotech or computers.
Actually most of the interest was in ICBMs. The rest was propaganda. Then satellites became useful but even for that a Moon rocket was just too big.
Hear GWB himself discussing the auto bailout.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N5kRVfmMoE
All things aren't understood in nuclear science. The theory is well established but the practice i.e. the actual implementations are still second rate. Just look at the history of uranium separation as an example. 100x reduction in energy separation costs from going to centrifuges and probably another 10x reduction by going to laser separation processes which might also be useable to separate plutonium from waste in the future.
As for reactors there was talk of high-temperature reactors to produce hydrogen which is a useful product for producing ammonia for fertilizer and explosives without using natural gas or petroleum but that will probably stop being developed now that NA has a lot of those resources. Most work will probably be in making reactors safer or cheaper. Not exactly exciting work.
The X-.ray hafnium apparatus has been tested and it seems to be pseudo-science i.e. quackery. It was the rave like a decade ago.
The problem with atomic reactors on airplanes has always been weight. Even when SAC was trying to use it in large bombers. Until someone develops lightweight shielding it won't happen. I do not think this is impossible. But the funding certainly seems to be scarce. The curious thing is that since the DOE took charge of reactor development from the military all development has stagnated. I think this is because the military actually has real applications in mind so they end up producing viable products unlike the DOE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation
Yeah but the issue with eating rabbit is that it lacks an essential protein for the building of heart muscle. It is ok to eat it occasionally but if you eat that as your only protein source you start getting nutritional deficiencies. Chicken does not have that issue.
You mean Clang has the Apple PR department.
Actually you can switch licenses if the new license does not conflict with the old license. Since BSD allows basically everything to be done with it you can restrict it any way you wish. Including putting it in proprietary source code.
IMO the problem is the lack of a JIT compiler. Java is too slow without it.
Because people can eat other things than corn. I do remember some farmers in the US feeding sweets instead of animal feed a couple of years back because it was cheaper though.
That makes DDT less toxic than caffeine.