The difference in dB from a fans lowest setting to highest possible, will out weigh a 3 inch to 1 m comparison.
If heat is 18C in one and 40C in another (say Canada Vs Texas testing), not only does the fan have to compensate for a GPU that is already 22C hotter before the test even begins, but one fan is pushing 18C air in an attempt to cool, while the other is pushing 40C air, to which with air cooling there are obviously diminishing returns on cooling the hotter the air you are using to try and cool.
#1 reason you get loud GPU fans, is when they decide they need to kick it into high gear.
I am not saying that the distance of measurement is not important. I am saying that heat is the thing that basically controls the speed of the fan, and the speed of the fan dictates how loud it will be. So if in your experiment you do not control the ambient heat to like values, you can pretty much throw out the results.
The only exception being is if the method of testing is to basically push them all to the max anyway and then measure, in which case you are correct distance is probably going to account for any variance. However if you are just testing against "load", one GPU may be able to handle "load" better given a lower ambient temperature, and not have to max out their fan speed.
Seriously not a bad analogy, there are EULA's out there, that basically say by opening this software package you just automatically agree to the next 80 pages of legalese (which you cannot read until you open it funny enough).
It is dubiously enforceable, but that doesn't seem to stop them from trying.
Technology yes, but I think it is more about Corporate affiliation. The NSA are basically using corporate infrastructure to spy on the cheap, They demand these companies do so. These are *supposedly* global international companies. If Brazil went to Apple and said I demand all the information you have on Obama, what do you think the response would be? Vice Versa? Should nations be scared of using technology produced by america? Yes. This is why since the Patriot Act came into being, I would never ever use any cloud based system, particularly should the servers be physically located in the US (which most are).
It isn't so much a technological advantage, it is more that the most of the companies that do, are american, and are beholden to the government. Which is actually pretty funny to say considering how sold out the government is to corporate masters, I guess it goes both ways. Makes me think of those dystopian futures where the world is controlled not by national countries, but blocks of affiliated corporations. GO Capitol Corporation!
Truly I think it is ironic that it was the US not that long ago, making grave accusations of the PRC and the production of hardware and software that might be used for spying with built in backdoors etc... When really the whole time doing it themselves. American Policy on Everything: Do as I say, not as I do!:)
Sadly true. I think I am surrounded by unprofessionals some days. Everyone is falling over themselves to agree and try to implement every horrible idea proposed by management, who at this point think they can do no wrong. Trying to "work" a terrible idea is sometimes just not going to suffice.
I seem to be either the only competent (which I doubt), or honest person to express that the idea or methodology being proposed is a colossal terrible, horrible mistake that will cause all sorts of problems for us in the future. Truly there is usually several ways to solve any problem, but some are intrinsically the correct way, and others the wrong way. People look at me funny in meetings when I say"no" like it is some sort of revelation, and I am afraid at this point I am becoming the negative Nancy who always says "no" (because no one else does). I have little doubt that this hasn't hurt my career.
For example: A LARGE enterprise system being proposed (implemented now I presume), will have users supposedly securely log on. Download a file. Fill out the file. Upload the file. Email the file to a local office. The local office will then "process", I assume using automated tools, those files and their contents into a database, which I also assume is centralized, but I could be wrong. When I heard this, I shook my head and said this is a terrible idea. When I asked why they don't just have people submit their information directly online into a DB rather than messing about with all this file processing garbage, I was looked at strangely and asked what difference does it make, and when I tried to explain all the duplication and points of failure, and inefficiency of the file based system (not to mention the storage and organization of thousands upon thousands of files, every single year) they didn't seem all that interested in any of it. I mean I thought this isn't something you have to be a total expert in, but something that is relatively obvious to even a layperson. However I suspect the blinders go on and common sense go out the window when trying to say yes fast enough to move up the corporate ladder.
Initially on first pass I would agree. However I think it goes beyond simply a political stunt. True India has a number of basic problems to deal with, but this may be something that pushes that agenda forward.
With the US and NASA basically "outsourcing" their space program, it offers opportunities to others. The country that can land those space contracts (I can't believe I just wrote space contracts, what is this Firefly?), not only will get a big boost into their space program and associated technology and experience, but also all the positive spin off jobs that they bring. India is certainly trying to show it can do the same thing for cheaper and faster than others.
It also fosters a focus on science, however I don't think it is stereotypical to say that India already has that in oodles.
Lastly, it gives some hope, pride, and patriotism for the future of India. Not only proving to the world, but to their own people, that their country is doing great things. Sure if you are really hungry that might be cold comfort, however with people probably a bit sick of the soul crushing corruption in government, it might be nice to see them accomplish something a bit altruistic (or seemingly so).
It is a stereotype, but it doesn't mean that it isn't true in most cases. I am sure that plenty of kids like yourself can be home schooled properly. Much of it has to do with how educated the parents are. I would say in most cases where you have highly educated parents, they also have careers and as such do not have the time to home school their children. Conversely, most that do, do not, making it more difficult (but not impossible). I have heard of parents putting their careers on hold to do this, it takes a lot of dedication, but occasionally it happens. What the a fore mentioned poster is saying is that the majority of those that make the decision of home schooling are doing it for other reasons, like their particular religion doesn't really agree with accepted science for example, which is being made fun of, and which sadly puts the child as a disadvantage simply because of what their parents might believe in. It might not be limited to religion, but any thing fringe really like the case a few years back of neo-nazi parents naming their kid hitler, and teaching an 'alternative' history...
I personally don't know anyone that has been home schooled, so I do not really have a personal perspective, and it very well could be that only the wackjobs are the ones that get any media attention and for each there are plenty that are doing a fine job. Blame the media or perhaps a teachers union evil cabal or something...
That 40% number you are talking about, is not the percentage of wind being used in total of all power generated. Wind makes up 36.6% of all the renewable energy generated. Renewable energy makes up about 25% (which is a lot however, 2012 stats). That means that wind actually makes up 9.15% of the total generation, so less than 10%, a far cry from nearly half.
Actually Germany is possibly the worst example you could have picked, as while yes they have amped up their renewable program probably more than most larger countries, they have also decided to decommission nuclear plants.
Germany has been trying to decommission these plants for years, but could come up with no alternative solution to generate the power (that was deemed politically acceptable). However with the incident in Japan, they decided politically to make a knee jerk reaction and retire them anyway, without a solution. They just buy the missing energy from external sources. In this case that source is France, which produce most of their current generation with... you got it, nuclear, with more on the way.
So, A) rather than find a solution, they just passed the buck to someone else apparently, and B) now you have your national grid more less supported by another nation, not exactly a good idea. (Though as can be seen in Canada/US a few years back they are not the first to have interdependent systems, however the repercussions were also quite obvious).
"What Snowden has released has been literally going on for years. How has there been no report, release, or action by the House Intelligence Committee, or the Senate Intelligence Committee thus far? Was Snowden the only one with sole access to this information? Clearly your current method is non-functional. Who is doing the real disservice to their country?"
As someone who recently installed windows 7 last month on a new machine, I can tell you that took much longer than 1-2 hours...
just saying...
What certainly did not help was that certification is required, over the internet, but it didn't come with updated ethernet drivers for the MB, making internet impossible.
I was eventually able to download the correct drivers on my phone, then copy them to the new computer, run them, and then proceed. However otherwise I would be waiting until the next day to do it at work unless you have another computer handy. However even without that, with all the updates and reboots (which I made very fast with a mSATA SSD system drive) required made it a much longer than a 2 hour install.
I had less problems physically building a new system using an untested configuration than I did simply trying to get the OS installed functionally. That included forgetting to install the back retaining clip for the cpu heatsink on an itx case with no back plate access... *insert lots of cursing here*
NAS is really a "computer" on all the time sorta however. If neither that or physically walking a external USB over are not acceptable, your best bet is to pray to the voodoo gods that you never have a failure.
There are cloud services you can pay for, which I would never use if you don't want to share your data with the NSA. Apart from that, there are expensive tape drives, that are not all that different from external usb HD backup really.
If you set it up right, you could simply install some extra internal HD and just do a backup there. You could even do a RAID mirror or something if you like. Won't help if your house burns down however. Then only offsite will do, which is basically sneaker-net, or cloud.
However if you backed up to your neighbor, and your neighbor to you, unless both houses burn down you are safe!
Not to mention that most of the rail produced in north america was done by slave labor, or at the very least severely exploited people. Also the stealing of native lands, and wholesale slaughter of said peoples.
That and more are glossed over in these romantic simplistic idealized fiction.
Every time high speed rail is proposed, these truths are exposed, as it would be very expensive to do today. Though if you could nationalize the confiscation of land, go back to near slavery, and enforce it all with the military, while actually stealing all the capitol from the taxpayers...
Try using solar for base at night, similarly wind while not windy out. That is why they are not suitable for "base" or primary load or whatever you want to call it. The part of demand that makes up most of the load, that does not fluctuate below
I will agree nuclear isn't cheap to build, and it takes a long time, largely because it is big and complex. However there are newer technologies that look to mitigate this, different fuel, different methods, passive systems, smaller plants. However we stopped building decades ago, and will never develop anything better unless we do.
Oil, gas, coal are not the answer. Renewables, while important, are not appropriate in all situations. Even nuclear is non-renewable, but at least it is very long term, and if things like thorium work out, apparently there is almost a forever supply of that (famous last words I know)...
I know people like to make fun of Gov and ability to not do things right. However NO private company should run a nuclear plant, ever.
The reason for this is liability. 1) No insurance would ever cover it, 2) No Company could cover it anyway. All these things have limited liability built in. The incentive is not there. Greed will make them cut corners for profit without the limiting factor of liability to keep them in check.
Are you crazy? It is guaranteed profit. It might not be oil rich, but at least in that there is legitimate risk.
1) Get a guaranteed loan from government to build XXX MW of renewable energy for YYY Millions of dollars. 2) Get guaranteed subsidiary contract from government to pay you 80 times the going rate for 20 years. 3) Your plant is now paid off, and you also make a lot of profit. You also have all the assets. Because it is all guaranteed by government, borrow heavily against all that. 4) Repeat.
I mean there is really zero risk, and everything is guaranteed, what is not to love?
While not an example of electrical grid energy, a perfect example of "what the hell happens" to this is here:
I am from Canada. Even for Canada I am pretty lefty. Not a hippy by any measure, but I lean to the left. Voted NDP (New Democratic Party) a number of times, and they are the most left of the major political parties. They preach all the usual rhetoric, conservation, alternative sources, etc...
An election a while ago in Ontario in an unadulterated attempt to buy votes the NDP leader added a reduction of tax at the pumps "to help families", etc... 1) That is probably the worst thing you could do to fuel conservation, by making it cheaper. 2) Less money in coffers for liberal programs which otherwise you collect via income tax (why should I be taxed more for someone else's gluttonous fuel use?). 3) As per this topic they also came out against nuclear as the boogyman.
Didn't vote NPD again.
Anyway politically seemed stupid to me. Alienate those than have some ideology in an attempt to get more votes, while at the same time promoting the far left fringe. Also the savings would be mostly symbolic, and probably for those most well off which is off ideology as well (drive more, more expansive, less public transit).
Anyway, that is how public policy is made half the time. Not through reasoned thought or design, but politically pandering to one group or another to try and get elected/re-elected. About the only future that is considered is the length of term to election.
In an ideal world, your argument would have some merit, if still incorrect. However we do not live in an ideal world. You talk about nuclear having road blocks, and a lot of time spend to build. Wind is easy you say! There are just as many, in fact more opposition to wind (I don't agree with it, but it is there). Project delays of 10+ years, that will never see the light of day. The foot print is much larger on wind. Also not all areas are suitable for wind, most of which are on or near water, which is prime real estate, and you now have a lot of money opposing your proposed project.
Now the three things you are wrong about is cost, time, and a basic understanding of the distribution of electricity.
Cost and time: One of the larger wind farms around these parts is a 86 turbine using newer larger 2.3MW producing 200MW. It took a long time to complete, and cost 400M dollars. The turbines had to be barged over from Europe. Deals had to be made with individual land owners. It will make money because of subsidy deal with government (which you pay with taxes anyway).
Typical nuclear station is over 1GW and includes 1-6 units. For this example say a 4GW facility. You would have to build 20 of those wind power stations to even match the capacity. That is over 1700 of those wind turbines. The cost would be about 8 Billion dollars.
Now you might say, OK, well that isn't too bad all things considered... However the estimated lifespan of a wind turbine is say 15-25 years as compared to 50-60 years for a nuclear plant.
However on top of that there is a fundamental difference between the two. Nuclear is always on, and always produces the same amount, 4GW in this example. Wind *might* produce that amount as a maximum ideally. Realistically the are times it produces pretty much nothing. This can really only be offset one way, which is the inefficient hydro storage, which is geographically limited and already built out.
As you may know you have peak and off hours on the electrical grid, at sometimes of the day there is a lot of demand, and others very few. However you have to maintain a stable load to allow for constant use. It is possible to bring on other generation as demand dictates so long as it has a fast spin up rate (which things like gas plants have, which makes them popular). You also need a certain amount of current just to keep the grid electrified. Nuclear is base. Wind is extra, and only if currently spinning. You can try to over build things like wind to compensate by factors of 3 or 4, however there is a limiting factor to running current from distance, and locally if it not windy in one place, it is likely not windy in the other, same with sunshine for solar.
So really what I am trying to say is that it is a non-argument because: A) Alternative energy isn't as easy or a cheap and many think it is for a verity of reasons, and B) It is really moot as it is comparing apples with oranges.
Anyway don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of wind. It is however limited in its application. What gets me is that when most people talk about nuclear, they are talking about plant designs from 40 years ago, mostly in the US, which were designed with the production of a weaponized byproduct in mind. If people were not so opposed to the idea for so long, and only thinking energy production, just think of the technology we might have by now.
Bottom line is that the only things capable of base are non-renewable (other than maybe hydro, which is limited) so we are talking coal (dirty/cheap), oil (expensive), gas (current whipping boy), and nuclear. Geothermal might also fit, but in all but say Iceland much to limited in nature. Things like biomass are also much too small to do anything. Wind and solar are great if not all that efficient, but they have limited duty in the generation mix due to their by nature non-stable output.
I am not sure if this is an analogy for something, but it should be. Your range of possibilities reminded me of my first year living in a house with friends during university.
As some parents are wont to do in an attempt to off-set their children's university costs, a friend of mine parent's bought a house in city our university was in, for him to live in and to rent out the rest of it. He convinced us (4 guys) to live with him and pay rent. His parents who lived far away, basically made him our landlord. What could possibly go wrong? Anyway I am pretty sure he pocked whatever the differences in expenses were, so like any good manager he reduced the heat to Siberian like levels. Arguments would ensue when we inevitably increased the heat back to normal. Eventually in a fool proof plan, he duct taped the thermostat. While we could have just as easily have removed the tape and increased it anyway (which I think we did once or twice), and seeing the infantile method being employed, it was answered in kind, when the oven was simply turned on full blast and the door left open...
This is where the two headed troll of economics and markets come to dance.
1) The best way to promote conservation is to make the user pay full (un-subsidized) cost of the product (energy), then they would use the most efficient amount according to the invisible hand of the market lovers. 2) Those same people will say if you don't keep subsidizing cheap energy, you will destroy the economy and collapse civilization as we know it.
Anyway I agree, and disagree with your assessment (sort of). Yes I agree that energy is too cheap, and it's most efficient use for conservation would totally help in this regard. However, getting rid of subsidized energy would TOTALLY destroy ALL renewable energy sources, as NONE of them (with the exception of Hydro, which is geographically limited) would be able to compete in a totally open market. I agree with the article that some sort of nuclear is the future. Nuclear will allow the development of renewable technology, sources, and infrastructure. Natural gas which is what is being beaten like a dead horse is just a stop gap measure. It will eventually become scarce and expensive itself, then what? Also, I don't know all that much about it, but from the noise some are making, things like fracking arn't so great for the environment either (i.e. it may burn clean, but its extraction may be much worse)...
NSA: "When it Absolutely, Positively has to be there overnight"
Also SR-72? But what is it going to be called? I mean the 71 was the "Blackbird". Which isn't very fast as far as birds go, so I can only assume they named it for the color. Assuming they haven'y run out of "Sinister Spy Black" at the Skunkworks, what are they going to name it? Presumably "Black" something or other. I also presume that it will be something that flies. I also presume something that isn't in current use. Given the popularity of Game of Thrones, my vote would be for the SR-72 Raven... (also makes kind of sense since ravens are in a sense used for surveillance more less in the game of thrones world) of course that doesn't have the word "black" in it, which might be a requirement.
Maybe "Black Fly", but that would insinuate that it is small, which even if a drone, fuel consumption and range would likely mean that it is not. Though if Canada every comes up with a done, that is totally going to be the name!
It was my understanding that the Federally mandated US 55 mph speed limit had very little to do with safety margins, and was more to do with the national consumption of Oil, and the dependence on foreign sources. This came about during the big oil crisis in the 70's when OPEC put the squeeze on everyone. On the fuel consumption curve driving faster than 90km/h significantly increases the amount consumed.
It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with trying to curtail personal fuel consumption of individuals at a national level.
I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt I am just making this stuff up...
This. I would guess also that A) some of the DB integrated are Oracle, and likely B) probably was an Oracle based design, and even go so far to say that C) likely partially caused by Oracle issues. I mean why else call in Oracle unless you are just dropping names that the public might know...
My only question would be: On a 600$ million dollar complex oracle application for the Federal US gov, how the fsck was Oracle not directly involved anyway.,, They really need to be "called in"? Anyway I assume it is all just for appearances, to let the public that they are on the case! It would also appears those people that assume gov can't do anything, and that by referencing commercial companies, they will "get it done right now"...
Slashdot Mirror
Funny enough:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/07/10/0234250/millions-of-jellyfish-invade-nuclear-reactors
http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/10/01/2123254/new-threat-to-seaside-nuclear-plants-datacenters-jellyfish
They don't need to blame nuclear energy, they are working in concert with the jellyfish to shut them down.
Next in the nuclear arms race will be some sort of aquatic animal with lasers attached to their heads clean out the jellyfish infestations.
I'm sure one of the many contractors they paid 600 million bucks to will take him.
The difference in dB from a fans lowest setting to highest possible, will out weigh a 3 inch to 1 m comparison.
If heat is 18C in one and 40C in another (say Canada Vs Texas testing), not only does the fan have to compensate for a GPU that is already 22C hotter before the test even begins, but one fan is pushing 18C air in an attempt to cool, while the other is pushing 40C air, to which with air cooling there are obviously diminishing returns on cooling the hotter the air you are using to try and cool.
#1 reason you get loud GPU fans, is when they decide they need to kick it into high gear.
I am not saying that the distance of measurement is not important. I am saying that heat is the thing that basically controls the speed of the fan, and the speed of the fan dictates how loud it will be. So if in your experiment you do not control the ambient heat to like values, you can pretty much throw out the results.
The only exception being is if the method of testing is to basically push them all to the max anyway and then measure, in which case you are correct distance is probably going to account for any variance. However if you are just testing against "load", one GPU may be able to handle "load" better given a lower ambient temperature, and not have to max out their fan speed.
This droid has a bad motivator, see it has a stab loop with a bad flag that turns zero stabs into infinite stabs.
Yeah, you definitely don't want that one!
Ambient heat makes a bigger difference, as the fan will have to work harder, spin faster, louder, to keep up.
Particularly when the mode of cooling is basically shoving as much ambient air at the problem to solve it.
You can try to correct for it, however then you assume the cooling curve is consistent, which it isn't.
Have you ever read a EULA? How would you know? :)
Seriously not a bad analogy, there are EULA's out there, that basically say by opening this software package you just automatically agree to the next 80 pages of legalese (which you cannot read until you open it funny enough).
It is dubiously enforceable, but that doesn't seem to stop them from trying.
Technology yes, but I think it is more about Corporate affiliation. The NSA are basically using corporate infrastructure to spy on the cheap, They demand these companies do so. These are *supposedly* global international companies. If Brazil went to Apple and said I demand all the information you have on Obama, what do you think the response would be? Vice Versa? Should nations be scared of using technology produced by america? Yes. This is why since the Patriot Act came into being, I would never ever use any cloud based system, particularly should the servers be physically located in the US (which most are).
It isn't so much a technological advantage, it is more that the most of the companies that do, are american, and are beholden to the government. Which is actually pretty funny to say considering how sold out the government is to corporate masters, I guess it goes both ways. Makes me think of those dystopian futures where the world is controlled not by national countries, but blocks of affiliated corporations. GO Capitol Corporation!
Truly I think it is ironic that it was the US not that long ago, making grave accusations of the PRC and the production of hardware and software that might be used for spying with built in backdoors etc... When really the whole time doing it themselves. American Policy on Everything: Do as I say, not as I do! :)
Sadly true. I think I am surrounded by unprofessionals some days. Everyone is falling over themselves to agree and try to implement every horrible idea proposed by management, who at this point think they can do no wrong. Trying to "work" a terrible idea is sometimes just not going to suffice.
I seem to be either the only competent (which I doubt), or honest person to express that the idea or methodology being proposed is a colossal terrible, horrible mistake that will cause all sorts of problems for us in the future. Truly there is usually several ways to solve any problem, but some are intrinsically the correct way, and others the wrong way. People look at me funny in meetings when I say"no" like it is some sort of revelation, and I am afraid at this point I am becoming the negative Nancy who always says "no" (because no one else does). I have little doubt that this hasn't hurt my career.
For example: A LARGE enterprise system being proposed (implemented now I presume), will have users supposedly securely log on. Download a file. Fill out the file. Upload the file. Email the file to a local office. The local office will then "process", I assume using automated tools, those files and their contents into a database, which I also assume is centralized, but I could be wrong. When I heard this, I shook my head and said this is a terrible idea. When I asked why they don't just have people submit their information directly online into a DB rather than messing about with all this file processing garbage, I was looked at strangely and asked what difference does it make, and when I tried to explain all the duplication and points of failure, and inefficiency of the file based system (not to mention the storage and organization of thousands upon thousands of files, every single year) they didn't seem all that interested in any of it. I mean I thought this isn't something you have to be a total expert in, but something that is relatively obvious to even a layperson. However I suspect the blinders go on and common sense go out the window when trying to say yes fast enough to move up the corporate ladder.
Initially on first pass I would agree. However I think it goes beyond simply a political stunt. True India has a number of basic problems to deal with, but this may be something that pushes that agenda forward.
With the US and NASA basically "outsourcing" their space program, it offers opportunities to others. The country that can land those space contracts (I can't believe I just wrote space contracts, what is this Firefly?), not only will get a big boost into their space program and associated technology and experience, but also all the positive spin off jobs that they bring. India is certainly trying to show it can do the same thing for cheaper and faster than others.
It also fosters a focus on science, however I don't think it is stereotypical to say that India already has that in oodles.
Lastly, it gives some hope, pride, and patriotism for the future of India. Not only proving to the world, but to their own people, that their country is doing great things. Sure if you are really hungry that might be cold comfort, however with people probably a bit sick of the soul crushing corruption in government, it might be nice to see them accomplish something a bit altruistic (or seemingly so).
Perhaps I am just optimistic today.
Disclaimer: Not Indian. :p
It is a stereotype, but it doesn't mean that it isn't true in most cases. I am sure that plenty of kids like yourself can be home schooled properly. Much of it has to do with how educated the parents are. I would say in most cases where you have highly educated parents, they also have careers and as such do not have the time to home school their children. Conversely, most that do, do not, making it more difficult (but not impossible). I have heard of parents putting their careers on hold to do this, it takes a lot of dedication, but occasionally it happens. What the a fore mentioned poster is saying is that the majority of those that make the decision of home schooling are doing it for other reasons, like their particular religion doesn't really agree with accepted science for example, which is being made fun of, and which sadly puts the child as a disadvantage simply because of what their parents might believe in. It might not be limited to religion, but any thing fringe really like the case a few years back of neo-nazi parents naming their kid hitler, and teaching an 'alternative' history...
I personally don't know anyone that has been home schooled, so I do not really have a personal perspective, and it very well could be that only the wackjobs are the ones that get any media attention and for each there are plenty that are doing a fine job. Blame the media or perhaps a teachers union evil cabal or something...
Cite your sources.
Wikipedia seems to think differently.
That 40% number you are talking about, is not the percentage of wind being used in total of all power generated.
Wind makes up 36.6% of all the renewable energy generated.
Renewable energy makes up about 25% (which is a lot however, 2012 stats).
That means that wind actually makes up 9.15% of the total generation, so less than 10%, a far cry from nearly half.
Actually Germany is possibly the worst example you could have picked, as while yes they have amped up their renewable program probably more than most larger countries, they have also decided to decommission nuclear plants.
Germany has been trying to decommission these plants for years, but could come up with no alternative solution to generate the power (that was deemed politically acceptable). However with the incident in Japan, they decided politically to make a knee jerk reaction and retire them anyway, without a solution. They just buy the missing energy from external sources. In this case that source is France, which produce most of their current generation with... you got it, nuclear, with more on the way.
So, A) rather than find a solution, they just passed the buck to someone else apparently, and B) now you have your national grid more less supported by another nation, not exactly a good idea. (Though as can be seen in Canada/US a few years back they are not the first to have interdependent systems, however the repercussions were also quite obvious).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#Renewable_energy
That took about 5 seconds to find.
My simple question for Feinstein would be thus:
"What Snowden has released has been literally going on for years. How has there been no report, release, or action by the House Intelligence Committee, or the Senate Intelligence Committee thus far? Was Snowden the only one with sole access to this information? Clearly your current method is non-functional. Who is doing the real disservice to their country?"
As someone who recently installed windows 7 last month on a new machine, I can tell you that took much longer than 1-2 hours...
just saying...
What certainly did not help was that certification is required, over the internet, but it didn't come with updated ethernet drivers for the MB, making internet impossible.
I was eventually able to download the correct drivers on my phone, then copy them to the new computer, run them, and then proceed. However otherwise I would be waiting until the next day to do it at work unless you have another computer handy. However even without that, with all the updates and reboots (which I made very fast with a mSATA SSD system drive) required made it a much longer than a 2 hour install.
I had less problems physically building a new system using an untested configuration than I did simply trying to get the OS installed functionally. That included forgetting to install the back retaining clip for the cpu heatsink on an itx case with no back plate access... *insert lots of cursing here*
NAS is really a "computer" on all the time sorta however. If neither that or physically walking a external USB over are not acceptable, your best bet is to pray to the voodoo gods that you never have a failure.
There are cloud services you can pay for, which I would never use if you don't want to share your data with the NSA. Apart from that, there are expensive tape drives, that are not all that different from external usb HD backup really.
If you set it up right, you could simply install some extra internal HD and just do a backup there. You could even do a RAID mirror or something if you like. Won't help if your house burns down however. Then only offsite will do, which is basically sneaker-net, or cloud.
However if you backed up to your neighbor, and your neighbor to you, unless both houses burn down you are safe!
Not to mention that most of the rail produced in north america was done by slave labor, or at the very least severely exploited people. Also the stealing of native lands, and wholesale slaughter of said peoples.
That and more are glossed over in these romantic simplistic idealized fiction.
Every time high speed rail is proposed, these truths are exposed, as it would be very expensive to do today. Though if you could nationalize the confiscation of land, go back to near slavery, and enforce it all with the military, while actually stealing all the capitol from the taxpayers...
"Great Men" indeed.
Try using solar for base at night, similarly wind while not windy out. That is why they are not suitable for "base" or primary load or whatever you want to call it. The part of demand that makes up most of the load, that does not fluctuate below
I will agree nuclear isn't cheap to build, and it takes a long time, largely because it is big and complex. However there are newer technologies that look to mitigate this, different fuel, different methods, passive systems, smaller plants. However we stopped building decades ago, and will never develop anything better unless we do.
Oil, gas, coal are not the answer. Renewables, while important, are not appropriate in all situations. Even nuclear is non-renewable, but at least it is very long term, and if things like thorium work out, apparently there is almost a forever supply of that (famous last words I know)...
I know people like to make fun of Gov and ability to not do things right. However NO private company should run a nuclear plant, ever.
The reason for this is liability. 1) No insurance would ever cover it, 2) No Company could cover it anyway. All these things have limited liability built in. The incentive is not there. Greed will make them cut corners for profit without the limiting factor of liability to keep them in check.
Are you crazy? It is guaranteed profit. It might not be oil rich, but at least in that there is legitimate risk.
1) Get a guaranteed loan from government to build XXX MW of renewable energy for YYY Millions of dollars.
2) Get guaranteed subsidiary contract from government to pay you 80 times the going rate for 20 years.
3) Your plant is now paid off, and you also make a lot of profit. You also have all the assets. Because it is all guaranteed by government, borrow heavily against all that.
4) Repeat.
I mean there is really zero risk, and everything is guaranteed, what is not to love?
While not an example of electrical grid energy, a perfect example of "what the hell happens" to this is here:
I am from Canada. Even for Canada I am pretty lefty. Not a hippy by any measure, but I lean to the left. Voted NDP (New Democratic Party) a number of times, and they are the most left of the major political parties. They preach all the usual rhetoric, conservation, alternative sources, etc...
An election a while ago in Ontario in an unadulterated attempt to buy votes the NDP leader added a reduction of tax at the pumps "to help families", etc...
1) That is probably the worst thing you could do to fuel conservation, by making it cheaper.
2) Less money in coffers for liberal programs which otherwise you collect via income tax (why should I be taxed more for someone else's gluttonous fuel use?).
3) As per this topic they also came out against nuclear as the boogyman.
Didn't vote NPD again.
Anyway politically seemed stupid to me. Alienate those than have some ideology in an attempt to get more votes, while at the same time promoting the far left fringe. Also the savings would be mostly symbolic, and probably for those most well off which is off ideology as well (drive more, more expansive, less public transit).
Anyway, that is how public policy is made half the time. Not through reasoned thought or design, but politically pandering to one group or another to try and get elected/re-elected. About the only future that is considered is the length of term to election.
In an ideal world, your argument would have some merit, if still incorrect. However we do not live in an ideal world. You talk about nuclear having road blocks, and a lot of time spend to build. Wind is easy you say! There are just as many, in fact more opposition to wind (I don't agree with it, but it is there). Project delays of 10+ years, that will never see the light of day. The foot print is much larger on wind. Also not all areas are suitable for wind, most of which are on or near water, which is prime real estate, and you now have a lot of money opposing your proposed project.
Now the three things you are wrong about is cost, time, and a basic understanding of the distribution of electricity.
Cost and time: One of the larger wind farms around these parts is a 86 turbine using newer larger 2.3MW producing 200MW. It took a long time to complete, and cost 400M dollars. The turbines had to be barged over from Europe. Deals had to be made with individual land owners. It will make money because of subsidy deal with government (which you pay with taxes anyway).
Typical nuclear station is over 1GW and includes 1-6 units. For this example say a 4GW facility. You would have to build 20 of those wind power stations to even match the capacity. That is over 1700 of those wind turbines. The cost would be about 8 Billion dollars.
Now you might say, OK, well that isn't too bad all things considered... However the estimated lifespan of a wind turbine is say 15-25 years as compared to 50-60 years for a nuclear plant.
However on top of that there is a fundamental difference between the two. Nuclear is always on, and always produces the same amount, 4GW in this example. Wind *might* produce that amount as a maximum ideally. Realistically the are times it produces pretty much nothing. This can really only be offset one way, which is the inefficient hydro storage, which is geographically limited and already built out.
As you may know you have peak and off hours on the electrical grid, at sometimes of the day there is a lot of demand, and others very few. However you have to maintain a stable load to allow for constant use. It is possible to bring on other generation as demand dictates so long as it has a fast spin up rate (which things like gas plants have, which makes them popular). You also need a certain amount of current just to keep the grid electrified. Nuclear is base. Wind is extra, and only if currently spinning. You can try to over build things like wind to compensate by factors of 3 or 4, however there is a limiting factor to running current from distance, and locally if it not windy in one place, it is likely not windy in the other, same with sunshine for solar.
So really what I am trying to say is that it is a non-argument because:
A) Alternative energy isn't as easy or a cheap and many think it is for a verity of reasons, and
B) It is really moot as it is comparing apples with oranges.
Anyway don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of wind. It is however limited in its application. What gets me is that when most people talk about nuclear, they are talking about plant designs from 40 years ago, mostly in the US, which were designed with the production of a weaponized byproduct in mind. If people were not so opposed to the idea for so long, and only thinking energy production, just think of the technology we might have by now.
Bottom line is that the only things capable of base are non-renewable (other than maybe hydro, which is limited) so we are talking coal (dirty/cheap), oil (expensive), gas (current whipping boy), and nuclear. Geothermal might also fit, but in all but say Iceland much to limited in nature. Things like biomass are also much too small to do anything. Wind and solar are great if not all that efficient, but they have limited duty in the generation mix due to their by nature non-stable output.
I am not sure if this is an analogy for something, but it should be. Your range of possibilities reminded me of my first year living in a house with friends during university.
As some parents are wont to do in an attempt to off-set their children's university costs, a friend of mine parent's bought a house in city our university was in, for him to live in and to rent out the rest of it. He convinced us (4 guys) to live with him and pay rent. His parents who lived far away, basically made him our landlord. What could possibly go wrong? Anyway I am pretty sure he pocked whatever the differences in expenses were, so like any good manager he reduced the heat to Siberian like levels. Arguments would ensue when we inevitably increased the heat back to normal. Eventually in a fool proof plan, he duct taped the thermostat. While we could have just as easily have removed the tape and increased it anyway (which I think we did once or twice), and seeing the infantile method being employed, it was answered in kind, when the oven was simply turned on full blast and the door left open...
This is where the two headed troll of economics and markets come to dance.
1) The best way to promote conservation is to make the user pay full (un-subsidized) cost of the product (energy), then they would use the most efficient amount according to the invisible hand of the market lovers.
2) Those same people will say if you don't keep subsidizing cheap energy, you will destroy the economy and collapse civilization as we know it.
Anyway I agree, and disagree with your assessment (sort of). Yes I agree that energy is too cheap, and it's most efficient use for conservation would totally help in this regard. However, getting rid of subsidized energy would TOTALLY destroy ALL renewable energy sources, as NONE of them (with the exception of Hydro, which is geographically limited) would be able to compete in a totally open market. I agree with the article that some sort of nuclear is the future. Nuclear will allow the development of renewable technology, sources, and infrastructure. Natural gas which is what is being beaten like a dead horse is just a stop gap measure. It will eventually become scarce and expensive itself, then what? Also, I don't know all that much about it, but from the noise some are making, things like fracking arn't so great for the environment either (i.e. it may burn clean, but its extraction may be much worse)...
NSA: "When it Absolutely, Positively has to be there overnight"
Also SR-72? But what is it going to be called? I mean the 71 was the "Blackbird". Which isn't very fast as far as birds go, so I can only assume they named it for the color. Assuming they haven'y run out of "Sinister Spy Black" at the Skunkworks, what are they going to name it? Presumably "Black" something or other. I also presume that it will be something that flies. I also presume something that isn't in current use. Given the popularity of Game of Thrones, my vote would be for the SR-72 Raven... (also makes kind of sense since ravens are in a sense used for surveillance more less in the game of thrones world) of course that doesn't have the word "black" in it, which might be a requirement.
Maybe "Black Fly", but that would insinuate that it is small, which even if a drone, fuel consumption and range would likely mean that it is not. Though if Canada every comes up with a done, that is totally going to be the name!
It was my understanding that the Federally mandated US 55 mph speed limit had very little to do with safety margins, and was more to do with the national consumption of Oil, and the dependence on foreign sources. This came about during the big oil crisis in the 70's when OPEC put the squeeze on everyone. On the fuel consumption curve driving faster than 90km/h significantly increases the amount consumed.
It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with trying to curtail personal fuel consumption of individuals at a national level.
I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt I am just making this stuff up...
This. I would guess also that A) some of the DB integrated are Oracle, and likely B) probably was an Oracle based design, and even go so far to say that C) likely partially caused by Oracle issues. I mean why else call in Oracle unless you are just dropping names that the public might know...
My only question would be: On a 600$ million dollar complex oracle application for the Federal US gov, how the fsck was Oracle not directly involved anyway.,, They really need to be "called in"? Anyway I assume it is all just for appearances, to let the public that they are on the case! It would also appears those people that assume gov can't do anything, and that by referencing commercial companies, they will "get it done right now"...