"Inflammable" means "likely to burst into flame". Because this confused the illiterate
Confused the illiterate? Literally one meaning of the prefix "in-" is not as in "insane", not sane. Or "inseparable", not separable. Following the rule "inflammable" would mean "not flammable", so "flammable" is the better word for easy to burn. What is confusing is changing the rules.
But then again, English is a Crazy Language. In what other language does feet smell and noses run. Or look at the plural of tooth, "teeth". Why isn't the plural of "booth" "beeth"?
Match.com was caught a few years ago scamming [paying] members: just as one's membership was about to expire, if it wasn't renewed or set to auto-renew, an employee would contact you and pretend to be interested until you paid again.
Others can be seen to log in, change their profiles, etc., but lack the courtesy to respond at all
When I was signed up on dating sites years ago I tried to check f not every day then two or three days a week. I answered most intros sent to me, even if not interested, but I didn't answer all. On the other hand I contacted a lot that didn't reply, not even a "not interested". And almost every one I didn't reply to didn't come close to matching according to their profiles.
Wind and solar are not serious energy sources as is hinted by how much subsidies they need
By that criteria nuclear power is not a serious energy source because it needs massive subsidies. Not only does it need guarantied loans but it also needs it's liability limited and government disposal of it's waste. All alternative energy sources put together including geothermal, solar, tidal, wind, even biofuels only get a fraction of the subsidies nuclear power gets. "While renewable energy may require subsidies for the immediate future, nuclear power needs subsidies forever." From the Financial Times:
"'But those hoping for handouts would be disappointed. The "incentives" for nuclear and carbon capture and storage are only there to "help a nascent sector grow', he said."
"We are not going to achieve a competitive [nuclear] sector by handing out subsidies... we are not in the business of giving out subsidies. We are in the business of maintaining a level playing field."
"It's telling that the 'level playing field' the industry wants and the one the government wants bear little resemblance to each other."
Something is still going to need to provide the power to run the aluminium foundries and nuclear is the cleanest, safest long term solution for that.
Neither you nor anyone else has proven that nuclear power is clean yet I have provided evidence solar and wind are clean. Such as 2 of the links I provide above. Studies linked to say both wind and geothermal and cheaper and cleaner than nuclear. Now will you provide links to evidence says nuclear is cleaner?
Lets run through the check lists.
I provide evidence that this list is wrong, where is yours saying you're right? And for one on that list, "Wind is nice but it's unpredictable and bigger wind farms kill migrating birds", buildingscats, and cars kill more birds than turbines.
Try again.
Together they can never provide more than 20% of the grids needs simply for stability reasons. This is pretty much a hard cap, once you get more than that from unpredictable sources rolling blackouts start to become a real problem.
So you know more about solar power than the writers of the SciAm article "A Solar Grand Plan", and know more about wind power than the writers of a new study in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Science" as well as those who created the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States at the National Renewable Energy Lab? What is your degree in and where did you get it so that you're smarter than they are? The SciAm article says that by 2050 solar energy can provide 69% of the US's electrical needs. The National Acad
This used to be such a standard line in personal ads ("I like hiking in the woods") that I wondered if it was a code word for some kind of disturbing activity.
Damn. I've said elsewhere and here on slashdot that I love hiking.
And photography, so I'd like go anywhere wireless broadband. Take some exposures with a DSLR, transfer them to my laptop, then upload them to my server.
A salesperson for renewable energy concluded that renewable energy is cheaper than it's chief competitor!
I noticed you provided no citations to back up your statement that nuclear power is clearer than coal and does does not need subsidies. I on the other hand provided not one but four links to back up mine in my post you replied to, and more links previously. Including links to business and freemarket supporters. Yes one was from a clean energy group, but hey didn't you claim nuclear power is clean. Another link was to a magazine, one to news, and one news about a study on costs. And it links to another study that "ranked technologies according to their environmental impact." Number one was wind, two solar thermal, and three geothermal. And "nuclear, coal and ethanol ranked at the bottom."
Try again.
Uh, you are aware that the majority of Uranium for Commercial Nuclear Power now comes from deactivated Nuclear Warheads.
Citation needed. But I doubt you'll provide one.
The AP1000 will be manufactured in modules designed for rail or barge shipment. This will allow constructing many modules in parallel.The plant is designed to have fuel load 36 months after concrete is first poured.This construction period is much shorter than generation II designs. If achieved, it should greatly decrease the interest costs needed to build the plant. Such reductions would make the design much more economically competitive against other power sources than previous generation nuclear plants.
Three years after concrete is poured? I notice you include an "If achieved" escape clause, you then say "Can they do it, I have no idea". So there are none of these units working and online providing power to the grid. They provide 1154 MWe or 1.154 gigawatts of electricity? Wind, and solar, on the other hand is proven. Erect 100 5 megawatt wind turbines a year and in 3 years you've added 1.5 gigawatts of capacity in those three years. Or 500 megawatts a year. Wind power can be added within months, even you admit nuclear power needs more than 3 years lead tyme.
I'm sorry if you don't "believe" these things, but they are as perfectly possible as theories regarding mass adoption of Solar and Wind (though I do think Nuclear is a sounder investment if only because there's never a doubt that it will produce electricity24 hours a day, 7 days a week).
Wind and solar are proven. Your nuclear power plants are not. Geothermal is not only proven but it is also used for baseloads, your 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
You believe in the theories of nuclear power while I believe in the proven power sources of geothermal, solar, and wind.
2. A lack of freedom makes people less able to cope with natural problems, since people can only act by government permission, instead of acting freely, by right.
In other words those who suffer deserve it because they aren't free. Well, yea, the Algonquin and Inuit were conquered by the English and French. And the Navajo and Sioux were conquered by the US. And so on.
Cost overruns are just the result of sloppy accounting, not some overall problem with the business of Nuclear Power Plant construction.
p>Can you point out one nuclear power plant that did not have cost overruns?
As for you oft-claimed "Hooked on Subsidies" argument, I would say that.
I often claim it because people like you keep on saying nuclear power is profitable. For some reason it doesn't penetrate the skulls of enough people, even when it comes from business and libertarian publications. Instead excuses are made up, such as "any business would be crazy *not* too take free money being handed it".
However, Nuclear Power has always been at a disadvantage simply because the *total* cost of burning Coal has never been factored into the argument.
Nuclear power is at a disadvantage because it is dirty and dangerous. And if the total cost of nuclear power were factored in, like both you and I want the total cost of coal to be factored in, nuclear power would cost even more.
Once the environmental impact of burning coal *is* factored in (which, under the new "Cap and Trade" bill currently under consideration, that is *PRECISELY* what will happen)
Nuclear can stand straight and tall on it's own too feet because not one of the over 100 Nuclear Plants currently in operation (and the *SEVEN* NEW ones that have been ordered that you conveniently forgot to mention) produce anything but steam and hot water as a byproduct.
Oh, I agree. When others have said CFLs, Compact Florescent Lights, contain mercury I've pointed out burning coal releases mercury too. I don't have stats now but I've read how using CFLs will prevent more mercury from being emitted from coal fired power plants than the bulbs contain. Then there's the radioactivity released as well, I see you know it but many others don't know radioactive stuff is released when coal is burned. I oppose coal fired power plants, building of most nuclear power plants, and natural gas fired power plants. If built and paid for by Wall Street, and not government, I may support building reprocessing plants, but that's it.
Of course not! Why would anyone turn down a subsidy offered? That doesn't change the fact, however, that A Nuclear Power plant and produce energy cheaper than coal
Citation needed. On the other hand, I'll provide some:
"Nick d'Arbeloff, president of the New England Clean Energy Council, views nuclear plants as costly. "Nuclear power plants are massively expensive and they are massively subsidized."
"By far the cheapest, cleanest, and quickest strategy to meet America's growing demand for electricity is energy efficiency and demand-side management."
"For Cheap Clean Energy, Go Geothermal, Study Says".
"Coal is America's most abundant and cheapest fossil fuel but, as Scott Pelley reports, burning it happens to be the biggest contributor to global warming."
Wiki has a table of the cost of various energy sources at Levelised energy cost. Of more than 10 sources listed of cost per megawatt coal is cheapest while 4 others are potentially cheaper than nuclear. One of those potentially cheaper is wind.
with a virtually nonexistent environmental footprint
Now I picked on Australia, Canada, and the Unites States because they should have among the strictest environmental laws. Imagine what happens in countries without strong environmental laws.
AND with equal reliability (which, of all of the renewables I've ever heard of, none can accomplish all three).
Check into conservation which is listed as being cheaper and geothermal which is also listed as being cheaper by at least one of the links above and is good for baseload power.
Subsidies will be taken by the Nuclear Industry as long as they are offered
Nuclear power asks and is addicted to subsides. Without them Wall Street will not pay for nuclear power plants to be built. At least solar and wind would be built without subsidies. Think NanoSolar asked for or was given subsidies? Not that I know of, instead billionaire founders of Google invested in NanoSolar. Even if they did though, economically subsidies are supposed to be only temporary aid, however coal and nuclear power get subsidized year after year after year. There is nothing temporary about the subsidies they get.
One, the new "Cap and Trade" laws will make Coal Power (which is already more expensive to operate than Nuclear, even though the initial plant construction costs *might* be cheaper)
As referenced above coal is cheapest and even with cap and trade or carbon capture and storage it's still cheaper than nuclear power. Now if you have a link to data that disputes that provide it.
Despite all the rosy pictures and cheery outlook for renewables, *only* Nuclear Energy is a drop in replacement for Coal Fired Energy.
No matter how many tymes you repeat a lie* it doesn't magically make i
Their guard is down so they're honest and as a bonus you may just get laid after the first meeting. The only catch is remembering if she's a keeper or not the next day.
It's not a problem if you have to chew your arm off in the morning.
I found it was the opposite with Match.com. I signed up with them years ago and for both my matches they generated as well as searches I did it was not unusual to see last sign-in dates from a week or a month ago. I figured that if users are waiting a couple of weeks to a month before logging in then they mustn't be that interested, or too busy. Then most of the those I contacted never returned my messages.
The commercials you see are obviously designed to exploit lonely people in an emotionally vulnerable situation. When you sign up you have such optimism that you are going to find someone and then you get slammed hard with disappointment after a few weeks of it.
While the commercials promise too much, people have too high of expectations. Seriously it's unrealistic to expect to strike paydirt by creating an online profile on a dating site and not doing much otherwise. Singles should be doing more than just that. For instance find a club or group that shares an interest you have. You like bike riding, find a bike riding club. Interested in writing, find a writing group. But don't join these groups just to find a date, do it because you like it and want to meet others who like it too. One thing may lead to another.
- Age
- Geographic location
- Large important decisions (e.g. Family, yes/no?)
- A few shard interests
Would likely have a very high success rate.
Many dating website offer those choices. Searchers can chose what is important and what isn't. Age, is someone between 30 and 40 important? Do matches have to be within 20 miles, or is it alright if matches are 200 miles away? Do you want children or prefer none. Do you do or are you interested in outdoor activities?
I last checked out dating sites years ago, but those I did check out allowed as many or as few selection criteria as users want.
Strange, I thought they were among the first to start the free and high quality dating site.
I didn't find the date of when OkCupid started but more than 10 years ago there was a free site called American Singles I think. Another dating site bought or took over it though.
Life and property is already protected under law - regulations do not change that.
Can I open a toxic waste dump next door to you? Or do regulations prevent that? I'm not saying it's real but if Climate Change is then how are laws going to protect those in Bangladesh from having their homes flooded? How are they going to protect the south and west of the US from becoming more arid than they already are? How are they going to protect the Gulf and East Coast from extreme weather, like the hurricanes that rammed into New Orleans and Texas? Almost 4 year later New Orleans still hasn't recovered from Hurricane Katrina. Not that I agree it should be, actually if it isn't relocated away from there it shouldn't be rebuilt. But if pumping Greenhouse Gases into the atmosphere is even partially responasible for flooding, desertification, and extreme weather then what of those who lose property or suffer because of it?
As I see it, encouraging people to drive even less will further decrease the revenue collected for road repair- which could mean fewer repairs, more time between repairs, and/or an incentive to raise the gas tax or invent new "usage fees".
The less people drive the less wear and tear on the roads. Personally I believe fuel taxes should be raised. Fuel tax should pay for almost if not all road building and maintenance costs. That or every year when license plate tags are renewed the odometer is read and people are charged for miles driven. Actually this would be fairer than the fuel tax. Fuel efficient vehicles can put as much wear and tear on roads as gas guzzlers yet because they get better mileage they won't use as much fuel. The point though being that drivers pay for the roads, while those who do not drive don't have to pay so much.
Why would I care about the 'freedom' of a jerk to use my code and withhold his own?
It's a choice, if you don't want to close your source you don't have to but those who want to can. It sounds like you don't want programmers to have that choice.
Two, even closed source code benefits people.
Yeah, but not programmers
Sure it does, all the programmers who work for Adobe benefit as do those who work for other closed source software companies. Or are you going to say all those programmers are starving? Microsoft hasn't a lot of programmers a lot of money? I bet many more programmers who worked for closed source companies were made wealthy than open source businesses did. MS made maybe half a dozen billionaires on Forbes list of 400 wealthiest people. How many of them on the list are there because of open source? And yes Bill Gates was a programmer. Larry Ellison, number 4, was a programmer too.
Because you can place nuclear power closer to people's homes.
It still needs a massive distribution network. Two gigawatts of power needs to be distributed no matter how it is generated. Small scale generation can be located in more places as well as closer to some places that need it.
It isn't dependent on wind speed.
A national distribution network with a bunch of small scale generators wold help here. Geothermal, which is a steady energy source, can be used where feasible. The west and southwest has enough potential solar power it can provide the 48 continuous states with power. The Rockies too have enough potential wind power to do the same. However that's not all the conceivable wind energy. The "Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States" details more wind potential.
Now until storage is worked out the problem is having a baseload. Geothermal can serve as part of the baseload. As much as I hate to say it so can natural gas, unlike coal and nuclear power, it can be ramped up fast.
Just cooling water
Yeap, nuclear power needs more water than any other power generation system, well except maybe corn based ethanol. However as it is now water shortages are being experienced throughout the USA. For instance the water level of the Ogallala Aquifer which runs from South Dakota to Texas is is dropping fast. Yet T Boone Pickens of the Pickens Plan for wind wants to pump the water from his west Texas ranch and use the power of eminent domain to seize other people's land to pipe the water to Dallas.
People who frequently exercise are less of an insurance risk. By pricing policies according to the amount of physical activity a person gets, insurance companies can offer discounts to healthier people, and put an appropriate cost penalty on basement-dwelling nerds, obese people, and other physically-unfit people.
I wish. If only health insurance premiums were at least partially based on the life styles of the insured. The one problem I have with it is that insurance companies will want to monitor people.
Easy. Give everyone insurance ID cards which must be scanned to purchase gas. Then, the computer system at the pump can introduce coefficients based on a backend database of IDs and their rates.
You buy insurance on behalf of the people you don't think you're ever going to hit, which is why the government requires it.
I don't know how it is where you live but everywhere I lived, and owned a vehicle, personal injury protection, PIP, was required. In other words in the case of an accident the car owner's insurance has to pay the medical bills of those in the car. No matter who's at fault. I was once hit while riding my bike and rushed to the hospital. Did the driver who hit me, he cut me off and made a turn right in front of me, pay my medical bills? No, my auto insurance did, even though I was riding my bike not driving my car. I didn't even know that until my insurance company told me they paid.
Carsharing is not that widely available or known about. I like the idea myself, for those who don't need or want vehicles much carsharing is terrific, but I am not willing to get rid of my car.
Slashdot Mirror
Where is it? I didn't see a link to a video of it inside. Not labeled as such that is.
Falcon
"Inflammable" means "likely to burst into flame". Because this confused the illiterate
Confused the illiterate? Literally one meaning of the prefix "in-" is not as in "insane", not sane. Or "inseparable", not separable. Following the rule "inflammable" would mean "not flammable", so "flammable" is the better word for easy to burn. What is confusing is changing the rules.
But then again, English is a Crazy Language. In what other language does feet smell and noses run. Or look at the plural of tooth, "teeth". Why isn't the plural of "booth" "beeth"?
Falcon
Match.com was caught a few years ago scamming [paying] members: just as one's membership was about to expire, if it wasn't renewed or set to auto-renew, an employee would contact you and pretend to be interested until you paid again.
I'm not surprised.
If I were younger I'd prefer dating cougars.
Others can be seen to log in, change their profiles, etc., but lack the courtesy to respond at all
When I was signed up on dating sites years ago I tried to check f not every day then two or three days a week. I answered most intros sent to me, even if not interested, but I didn't answer all. On the other hand I contacted a lot that didn't reply, not even a "not interested". And almost every one I didn't reply to didn't come close to matching according to their profiles.
Falcon
Personally I use whichever licence serves my needs best
Same here.
I don't need whiners complaining to me that they can't take my code and close source it.
I don't and by the same reasoning I don't need someone complaining when I use the BSD, or any other license, and close my source.
Falcon
Environmentally nuclear is vastly better than all the other serious energy sources.
Prove it.
Now that I asked fro proof I'll provide my own evidence which supports my position as well as contradicts yours. "Report: Wind the Best Energy; Nuclear, Coal and Ethanol the Worst". "For Cheap Clean Energy, Go Geothermal, Study Says". "Oregon Geothermal Energy = Baseload Energy".
Wind and solar are not serious energy sources as is hinted by how much subsidies they need
By that criteria nuclear power is not a serious energy source because it needs massive subsidies. Not only does it need guarantied loans but it also needs it's liability limited and government disposal of it's waste. All alternative energy sources put together including geothermal, solar, tidal, wind, even biofuels only get a fraction of the subsidies nuclear power gets. "While renewable energy may require subsidies for the immediate future, nuclear power needs subsidies forever." From the Financial Times:
"'But those hoping for handouts would be disappointed. The "incentives" for nuclear and carbon capture and storage are only there to "help a nascent sector grow', he said."
"We are not going to achieve a competitive [nuclear] sector by handing out subsidies... we are not in the business of giving out subsidies. We are in the business of maintaining a level playing field."
"It's telling that the 'level playing field' the industry wants and the one the government wants bear little resemblance to each other."
Something is still going to need to provide the power to run the aluminium foundries and nuclear is the cleanest, safest long term solution for that.
Neither you nor anyone else has proven that nuclear power is clean yet I have provided evidence solar and wind are clean. Such as 2 of the links I provide above. Studies linked to say both wind and geothermal and cheaper and cleaner than nuclear. Now will you provide links to evidence says nuclear is cleaner?
Lets run through the check lists.
I provide evidence that this list is wrong, where is yours saying you're right? And for one on that list, "Wind is nice but it's unpredictable and bigger wind farms kill migrating birds", buildings cats, and cars kill more birds than turbines.
Try again.
Together they can never provide more than 20% of the grids needs simply for stability reasons. This is pretty much a hard cap, once you get more than that from unpredictable sources rolling blackouts start to become a real problem.
So you know more about solar power than the writers of the SciAm article "A Solar Grand Plan", and know more about wind power than the writers of a new study in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Science" as well as those who created the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States at the National Renewable Energy Lab? What is your degree in and where did you get it so that you're smarter than they are? The SciAm article says that by 2050 solar energy can provide 69% of the US's electrical needs. The National Acad
This used to be such a standard line in personal ads ("I like hiking in the woods") that I wondered if it was a code word for some kind of disturbing activity.
Damn. I've said elsewhere and here on slashdot that I love hiking.
And photography, so I'd like go anywhere wireless broadband. Take some exposures with a DSLR, transfer them to my laptop, then upload them to my server.
Falcon
A salesperson for renewable energy concluded that renewable energy is cheaper than it's chief competitor!
I noticed you provided no citations to back up your statement that nuclear power is clearer than coal and does does not need subsidies. I on the other hand provided not one but four links to back up mine in my post you replied to, and more links previously. Including links to business and freemarket supporters. Yes one was from a clean energy group, but hey didn't you claim nuclear power is clean. Another link was to a magazine, one to news, and one news about a study on costs. And it links to another study that "ranked technologies according to their environmental impact." Number one was wind, two solar thermal, and three geothermal. And "nuclear, coal and ethanol ranked at the bottom."
Try again.
Uh, you are aware that the majority of Uranium for Commercial Nuclear Power now comes from deactivated Nuclear Warheads.
Citation needed. But I doubt you'll provide one.
The AP1000 will be manufactured in modules designed for rail or barge shipment. This will allow constructing many modules in parallel. The plant is designed to have fuel load 36 months after concrete is first poured. This construction period is much shorter than generation II designs. If achieved, it should greatly decrease the interest costs needed to build the plant. Such reductions would make the design much more economically competitive against other power sources than previous generation nuclear plants.
Three years after concrete is poured? I notice you include an "If achieved" escape clause, you then say "Can they do it, I have no idea". So there are none of these units working and online providing power to the grid. They provide 1154 MWe or 1.154 gigawatts of electricity? Wind, and solar, on the other hand is proven. Erect 100 5 megawatt wind turbines a year and in 3 years you've added 1.5 gigawatts of capacity in those three years. Or 500 megawatts a year. Wind power can be added within months, even you admit nuclear power needs more than 3 years lead tyme.
I'm sorry if you don't "believe" these things, but they are as perfectly possible as theories regarding mass adoption of Solar and Wind (though I do think Nuclear is a sounder investment if only because there's never a doubt that it will produce electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week).
Wind and solar are proven. Your nuclear power plants are not. Geothermal is not only proven but it is also used for baseloads, your 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
You believe in the theories of nuclear power while I believe in the proven power sources of geothermal, solar, and wind.
Falcon
2. A lack of freedom makes people less able to cope with natural problems, since people can only act by government permission, instead of acting freely, by right.
In other words those who suffer deserve it because they aren't free. Well, yea, the Algonquin and Inuit were conquered by the English and French. And the Navajo and Sioux were conquered by the US. And so on.
Falcon
Cost overruns are just the result of sloppy accounting, not some overall problem with the business of Nuclear Power Plant construction.
p>Can you point out one nuclear power plant that did not have cost overruns?
As for you oft-claimed "Hooked on Subsidies" argument, I would say that .
I often claim it because people like you keep on saying nuclear power is profitable. For some reason it doesn't penetrate the skulls of enough people, even when it comes from business and libertarian publications. Instead excuses are made up, such as "any business would be crazy *not* too take free money being handed it".
However, Nuclear Power has always been at a disadvantage simply because the *total* cost of burning Coal has never been factored into the argument.
Nuclear power is at a disadvantage because it is dirty and dangerous. And if the total cost of nuclear power were factored in, like both you and I want the total cost of coal to be factored in, nuclear power would cost even more.
Once the environmental impact of burning coal *is* factored in (which, under the new "Cap and Trade" bill currently under consideration, that is *PRECISELY* what will happen)
According to a table on Levelised energy cost. And "Comparative Cost of California Central Station Electricity" [pfd] (Table 23: Instant Cost Adjustments) says wind is cheaper. However Table 24: Effect of Tax Credits on Costs says wind cost more, and Figure 15: Effect of Tax Credits on Costs says less.
Nuclear can stand straight and tall on it's own too feet because not one of the over 100 Nuclear Plants currently in operation (and the *SEVEN* NEW ones that have been ordered that you conveniently forgot to mention) produce anything but steam and hot water as a byproduct.
Really? Oyster Creek nuclear plant in New Jersey didn't leak? Trojan Nuclear Power Plant in Rainier, Oregon, wasn't closed after only 16 years in operation? Here's a List of civilian radiation accidents. And it does produce radioactive waste as well.
No CO2
No CO2? Right, NOT! Nuclear power plants require vast amounts of both concrete and steel. Cement is used to make concrete and the "cement industry produces 5% of global man-made CO2 emissions". And to make steel coke from coal is needed to generate the heat.
no Mercury, and no *radioactive* fly-ash
Oh, I agree. When others have said CFLs, Compact Florescent Lights, contain mercury I've pointed out burning coal releases mercury too. I don't have stats now but I've read how using CFLs will prevent more mercury from being emitted from coal fired power plants than the bulbs contain. Then there's the radioactivity released as well, I see you know it but many others don't know radioactive stuff is released when coal is burned. I oppose coal fired power plants, building of most nuclear power plants, and natural gas fired power plants. If built and paid for by Wall Street, and not government, I may support building reprocessing plants, but that's it.
Of course not! Why would anyone turn down a subsidy offered? That doesn't change the fact, however, that A Nuclear Power plant and produce energy cheaper than coal
Citation needed. On the other hand, I'll provide some:
"Nick d'Arbeloff, president of the New England Clean Energy Council, views nuclear plants as costly. "Nuclear power plants are massively expensive and they are massively subsidized."
"By far the cheapest, cleanest, and quickest strategy to meet America's growing demand for electricity is energy efficiency and demand-side management."
"For Cheap Clean Energy, Go Geothermal, Study Says".
"Coal is America's most abundant and cheapest fossil fuel but, as Scott Pelley reports, burning it happens to be the biggest contributor to global warming."
Wiki has a table of the cost of various energy sources at Levelised energy cost. Of more than 10 sources listed of cost per megawatt coal is cheapest while 4 others are potentially cheaper than nuclear. One of those potentially cheaper is wind.
with a virtually nonexistent environmental footprint
Try to tell that to indigenous people's from who's land uranium is mined. Ask the Sioux or Navajo in the US. Ask the Algonquin First Nation in Canada. Or the aboriginals in Australia such as the Adnyamathanha community.
Now I picked on Australia, Canada, and the Unites States because they should have among the strictest environmental laws. Imagine what happens in countries without strong environmental laws.
AND with equal reliability (which, of all of the renewables I've ever heard of, none can accomplish all three).
Check into conservation which is listed as being cheaper and geothermal which is also listed as being cheaper by at least one of the links above and is good for baseload power.
Subsidies will be taken by the Nuclear Industry as long as they are offered
Nuclear power asks and is addicted to subsides. Without them Wall Street will not pay for nuclear power plants to be built. At least solar and wind would be built without subsidies. Think NanoSolar asked for or was given subsidies? Not that I know of, instead billionaire founders of Google invested in NanoSolar. Even if they did though, economically subsidies are supposed to be only temporary aid, however coal and nuclear power get subsidized year after year after year. There is nothing temporary about the subsidies they get.
One, the new "Cap and Trade" laws will make Coal Power (which is already more expensive to operate than Nuclear, even though the initial plant construction costs *might* be cheaper)
As referenced above coal is cheapest and even with cap and trade or carbon capture and storage it's still cheaper than nuclear power. Now if you have a link to data that disputes that provide it.
Despite all the rosy pictures and cheery outlook for renewables, *only* Nuclear Energy is a drop in replacement for Coal Fired Energy.
No matter how many tymes you repeat a lie* it doesn't magically make i
Their guard is down so they're honest and as a bonus you may just get laid after the first meeting. The only catch is remembering if she's a keeper or not the next day.
It's not a problem if you have to chew your arm off in the morning.
Falcon
I found it was the opposite with Match.com. I signed up with them years ago and for both my matches they generated as well as searches I did it was not unusual to see last sign-in dates from a week or a month ago. I figured that if users are waiting a couple of weeks to a month before logging in then they mustn't be that interested, or too busy. Then most of the those I contacted never returned my messages.
The commercials you see are obviously designed to exploit lonely people in an emotionally vulnerable situation. When you sign up you have such optimism that you are going to find someone and then you get slammed hard with disappointment after a few weeks of it.
While the commercials promise too much, people have too high of expectations. Seriously it's unrealistic to expect to strike paydirt by creating an online profile on a dating site and not doing much otherwise. Singles should be doing more than just that. For instance find a club or group that shares an interest you have. You like bike riding, find a bike riding club. Interested in writing, find a writing group. But don't join these groups just to find a date, do it because you like it and want to meet others who like it too. One thing may lead to another.
Falcon
- Age
- Geographic location
- Large important decisions (e.g. Family, yes/no?)
- A few shard interests
Would likely have a very high success rate.
Many dating website offer those choices. Searchers can chose what is important and what isn't. Age, is someone between 30 and 40 important? Do matches have to be within 20 miles, or is it alright if matches are 200 miles away? Do you want children or prefer none. Do you do or are you interested in outdoor activities?
I last checked out dating sites years ago, but those I did check out allowed as many or as few selection criteria as users want.
Falcon
Strange, I thought they were among the first to start the free and high quality dating site.
I didn't find the date of when OkCupid started but more than 10 years ago there was a free site called American Singles I think. Another dating site bought or took over it though.
Falcon
Life and property is already protected under law - regulations do not change that.
Can I open a toxic waste dump next door to you? Or do regulations prevent that? I'm not saying it's real but if Climate Change is then how are laws going to protect those in Bangladesh from having their homes flooded? How are they going to protect the south and west of the US from becoming more arid than they already are? How are they going to protect the Gulf and East Coast from extreme weather, like the hurricanes that rammed into New Orleans and Texas? Almost 4 year later New Orleans still hasn't recovered from Hurricane Katrina. Not that I agree it should be, actually if it isn't relocated away from there it shouldn't be rebuilt. But if pumping Greenhouse Gases into the atmosphere is even partially responasible for flooding, desertification, and extreme weather then what of those who lose property or suffer because of it?
Falcon
As I see it, encouraging people to drive even less will further decrease the revenue collected for road repair- which could mean fewer repairs, more time between repairs, and/or an incentive to raise the gas tax or invent new "usage fees".
The less people drive the less wear and tear on the roads. Personally I believe fuel taxes should be raised. Fuel tax should pay for almost if not all road building and maintenance costs. That or every year when license plate tags are renewed the odometer is read and people are charged for miles driven. Actually this would be fairer than the fuel tax. Fuel efficient vehicles can put as much wear and tear on roads as gas guzzlers yet because they get better mileage they won't use as much fuel. The point though being that drivers pay for the roads, while those who do not drive don't have to pay so much.
Falcon
Why would I care about the 'freedom' of a jerk to use my code and withhold his own?
It's a choice, if you don't want to close your source you don't have to but those who want to can. It sounds like you don't want programmers to have that choice.
Two, even closed source code benefits people.
Yeah, but not programmers
Sure it does, all the programmers who work for Adobe benefit as do those who work for other closed source software companies. Or are you going to say all those programmers are starving? Microsoft hasn't a lot of programmers a lot of money? I bet many more programmers who worked for closed source companies were made wealthy than open source businesses did. MS made maybe half a dozen billionaires on Forbes list of 400 wealthiest people. How many of them on the list are there because of open source? And yes Bill Gates was a programmer. Larry Ellison, number 4, was a programmer too.
Falcon
Because you can place nuclear power closer to people's homes.
It still needs a massive distribution network. Two gigawatts of power needs to be distributed no matter how it is generated. Small scale generation can be located in more places as well as closer to some places that need it.
It isn't dependent on wind speed.
A national distribution network with a bunch of small scale generators wold help here. Geothermal, which is a steady energy source, can be used where feasible. The west and southwest has enough potential solar power it can provide the 48 continuous states with power. The Rockies too have enough potential wind power to do the same. However that's not all the conceivable wind energy. The "Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States" details more wind potential.
Now until storage is worked out the problem is having a baseload. Geothermal can serve as part of the baseload. As much as I hate to say it so can natural gas, unlike coal and nuclear power, it can be ramped up fast.
Just cooling water
Yeap, nuclear power needs more water than any other power generation system, well except maybe corn based ethanol. However as it is now water shortages are being experienced throughout the USA. For instance the water level of the Ogallala Aquifer which runs from South Dakota to Texas is is dropping fast. Yet T Boone Pickens of the Pickens Plan for wind wants to pump the water from his west Texas ranch and use the power of eminent domain to seize other people's land to pipe the water to Dallas.
Falcon
People who frequently exercise are less of an insurance risk. By pricing policies according to the amount of physical activity a person gets, insurance companies can offer discounts to healthier people, and put an appropriate cost penalty on basement-dwelling nerds, obese people, and other physically-unfit people.
I wish. If only health insurance premiums were at least partially based on the life styles of the insured. The one problem I have with it is that insurance companies will want to monitor people.
Falcon
Someone who drives 100K miles a year is going to have a lot more miles between accidents than someone who does 5K.
Where did you get your data and stats?
Falcon
Must be your insurance company.
I've had insurance through different insurers and they all asked for mileage.
Falcon
The big story is that the state of California wants to mandate pay-as-you-drive.
Where's your source? TFA doesn't say pay-as-you-go will be mandated.
Falcon
Easy. Give everyone insurance ID cards which must be scanned to purchase gas. Then, the computer system at the pump can introduce coefficients based on a backend database of IDs and their rates.
Big brother?
Falcon
You buy insurance on behalf of the people you don't think you're ever going to hit, which is why the government requires it.
I don't know how it is where you live but everywhere I lived, and owned a vehicle, personal injury protection, PIP, was required. In other words in the case of an accident the car owner's insurance has to pay the medical bills of those in the car. No matter who's at fault. I was once hit while riding my bike and rushed to the hospital. Did the driver who hit me, he cut me off and made a turn right in front of me, pay my medical bills? No, my auto insurance did, even though I was riding my bike not driving my car. I didn't even know that until my insurance company told me they paid.
Falcon
hands.
The answer is a shopping cart
Yea, like someone's going to get that shopping cart on a bus with it full of groceries.
There's also carsharing.
Carsharing is not that widely available or known about. I like the idea myself, for those who don't need or want vehicles much carsharing is terrific, but I am not willing to get rid of my car.
Falcon