The problem with subsidies is they force people to consume by punishing non-consumption.
In the post you replied to I did say "That's one reason why subsidies are bad, they favor some things over others, whether good or bad." I do oppose subsidies in general, they are only supposed to be used only temporarily but they are permanent.
First, I'd like to apologize for crashing your machine. I simply ended up closing the browser after a while. Today I saved the pdf before opening it, works fine. Apparently Adobe's downloading system is messed up.
That's alright. I tried to quit the browser but it wouldn't. For opening PDFs I don't have Adobe's reader. I have a Mac and Apple includes a previewer that opens PDFs. I've had trouble opening them a couple of tymes before but quiting worked before. When I used Windows I did have occasional trouble with PDFs though using Adobe's reader. Perhaps like you can download the PDF then open it.
Do you have a counter for the Berkeley study, showing that wind needing 10 times the steel and 4 times the concrete per MW?
First, I don't see a link to the Berkeley study on the CITRIS page. There is a link to a ppt and while it downloads preview shows nothing. The details provided on the pathsoflight.us page does say wind requires about 4 tymes as much concrete though. I'll try to find something more... Ump, I found a company that does concrete for both nuclear and wind power. On that page it says that concrete pours in excess of 500 cubic meters per base are common for wind but does not say the size of the wind turbines or how much concrete is used for nuclear power. Look some more... A Daily Kos page, "Nuclear vs. Wind - Mining impact and Capital Cost" says wind uses more concrete and steel than nuclear though both are comparable in mining and beat coal. Look more... I found "How much steel and how much concrete for the fabrication of windmills and nuclear reactors ?[.doc warning]" which say wind uses a hell of a lot more concrete and steel than nuclear.
Apparently I may of been wrong about how much concrete and steel nuclear uses vs wind.
Back on topic - Have you ever seen how much concrete goes into putting footings in for a simple chain link fence? Now consider your 5MW turbine.
As a kid perhaps but I don't recall how much was used. I do know how much concrete is used generally for footers, and slabs and walls though, I used to work in construction for a concrete and masonry subcontractor. We poored a bunch of things, including pylons and pads at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station for rockets.
And all the steel used to make the turbine, tower, and pylons would be less too. Even your link to the environmental effects of wind power "suggested a payback time of 1.1 years". That charter only considers CO2 not other environmental considerations also.
Probably up against not particularly efficient coal plant; I've already posted links showing that it takes less CO2 to produce power via nuclear than wind/solar.
I said other environmental concerns because you did address CO2. From what I found and included above about mining nuclear and wind are about the same as far as mining. That only leaves three reasons I generally oppose nuclear, if they can be dealt with I may be able to support nuclear power. They are, not in any particular order, subsidies, nuclear waste, and what happens to a plant when it is decommissioned.
You and others have given me plenty to research and think about.
The problem with equalizing subsidies is that its impossible to do.
That's one reason why subsidies are bad, they favor some things over others, whether good or bad.
Subsidies for PV are universally higher than for wind. There is a national database of subsidies for renewable energy - you can check any state. DESIRE is the name I believe.
Yea, I've got DSIRE bookmarked though I haven't gone through all the states and what they provide. The federal incentives listed don't have either solar or wind individually. Individual states list solar and wind separately and together. However it doesn't say what the incentives are or how much is offered. The individual links would have to be clicked then all of them added either by hand or with a spreadsheet. To go through every state and add them up could take some hours and I doubt many people including you have done that.
Ah, but how do we know it is not true? Since it is closed source we can never be completely certain and just have to take someone's word for it....which is really the whole point of the argument for OS.
Because 1) Microsoft documents the heredity of their code well. They're not stupid. And B) the source code is widely available, both through legitimate channels like Microsoft's shared source programs and channels that are a bit shadier like bit torrent. Don't you think someone would have pointed anything embarrassing to Microsoft like this by now?
If Microsoft is so good at documentation why haven't they documented those 238 MS patents Linux and OpenOffice violate for the world to see? Why did it take MS years to provide to the European Commission all those documents the EC asked for?
Who is going to go out on their roof every week and clean the panels?
Unless you live in a bad place you don't need to get on your roof every week to clean PVs. Also there are "Thin-film PV which are durable and flexible and is encased in a water-proof, self-cleaning polymer. It can be used in shingle form for roofing or in more unusual designs that exploit its flexibility."
Who is going to pay for the grid if everyone is net-free-ride-metering?
First, most people who have net metering are not paid for excess energy the same amount they have to pay, many are paid what's called the avoided cost, which is lower than retail cost. That is if the utility company can avoid having to produce one more unit of power then they pay that much. The utility still makes a profit. A person can produce more power than they use and they'll still pay.
PV subsidies are stratospheric - much higher than Wind for example. It's economically unsustainable.
I would hope we could curtail subsidies for foreign and dirty energy.
First, when I searched I didn't find data showing how much solar PV and wind get in subsidies, do you have data to back you up? Secondly, as I said in the post you replied to I either want all subsidies to end or I want solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources to get just as much in subsidies and coal, nuclear, and oil get. I said as much in this post.
I didn't exactly need links to such simple near universal construction materials as concrete, steel, cement, and such. I'm well aware of the nuclear cycle.
I try to provide links so I may support my position and so that people not simply assume I'm making stuff up.
It's not like wind doesn't need them either - and a stand alone solar complex will use them as well.
However neither solar nor wind should need nearly as much of either than a nuclear power plant will. Though I'm not sure I'd think 200 pylons for 5 megawatt wind turbines would use less concrete and steel than a 1 gigawatt nuclear power plant. And all the steel used to make the turbine, tower, and pylons would be less too. Even your link to the environmental effects of wind power "suggested a payback time of 1.1 years". That charter only considers CO2 not other environmental considerations also.
It offers no substance though, basically it's about greenwashing nuclear power.
Update - found it! - but doesn't want to download completely on my system.
It's not just you, I clicked on the link then the browser and preview stopped responding. I tried to force quit then the computer froze. I've had my Mac for almost 1 1/2 years and that's only the second or third tyme that happened. I wish I didn't have the problem, I'm not going to try again.
While Uranium mining and refining is fairly nasty, the trick is that you need so little of it - You'd end up mining more cadmium and other rare and nasty minerals for photovoltaic panels.
I'm not sure if it was you, or someone else who posted about it above, but someone brought up CSP, Concentrating solar power. While PVs are good for roofs, CSP is better in places like the US southwest.
But you lose the bonus points
Darn, that was stupid. Though I didn't try to get the bonus points I put the part about them in my post.
my article still has relevance, since 'Hooked on Subsidies' only mentions putting it up against coal, which I don't consider a viable clean alternative, even with 'clean' and carbon sequestration.
It may be relevant as far as subsidies are concerned, but I think that's part of the problem, subsidies. At most subsidies should only be used temporarily. Those I hate most are the farm subsidies. Take a look at the Farm bill congress passed last year. Enacted on 22 May 2008 it provided $288 billion in subsidies.
And yes, I do consider 'rebates' subsidies.
Subsidies are taxpayer money, in Germany's case it's not government paying it's the utilities. And like with the states that have net metering laws utilities enjoy an avoided cost.
Not that I necessarily object to all subsidies. For example, energy efficiency deductions. I don't think insulation and other energy saving measures should be factored into real estate taxes. Yes, I include solar panels and such in there. Call it my 'people shouldn't be penalized for owning a quality house'. Not a big house, not a fancy house, but a quality one - safe, efficient, well insulated, etc... People shouldn't be penalized for painting their shack and installing good windows.
Darn, I lied above. Actually I hadn't thought of this but I do support the subsidies
So if you want speeds faster than France, move to the one of the places listed above.
So, if you want broadband then move? I'd rather be able to build the broadband infrastructure so everyone can get it. And access providers have already been paid to buildout the infrastructure.
For some reason the second article linked to does not show, only some of the comments do. But the original article linked to though says the sea ice grew back fast. Googling "arctic sea ice" returns a lot of links saying the same. One of them though says "January Arctic Sea Ice Extent Sixth Lowest In History". So while the ice that came back may of come fast, not all of it did.
You cannot blame Bush for Saddam's behavior.
You're right but you can blame the Bush admin for calling Ritter a traitor. And what about the silence about those who said there were no WMDs? I clearly recall seeing then Secretary of State Colin Powell standing up in front the UN Security Council with a bunch of documents saying there were a number of weapons or factories that could make WMDs. But there wasn't anything denying this.
Nor was anything said about how the US helped Saddam when he did use WMDs. Yes, the US did help Saddam when he used WMDs. All through the Reagan years and part of the first Bush's term in office Reagan and Bush Sr supported Saddam. On 27 July 1987 Saddam used chemical weapons against a Kurdish city for instance. It was only after Saddam invaded Kuwait when support for him ended.
Unfortunately I don't have such a choice now, I rent an apartment.
Do the research, if you can make it make financial sense(remember, it'd be a deductible expense!), talk with your landlord. They might do it.
I have done some research. Hopefully in a few years I'll own the apartment building. My sister owns it now but when the mortgage is paid down enough so I can qualify for one the plan is that she will sell it to me and I'll take over the mortgage. Once I do own it I'll have an energy audit done, then save money to have an architect redesign the building.
in the sense of a 'carbon tax', nuclear power is lumped in right along with wind, solar, tidal, etc...
Except nuclear power isn't carbon free, the construction emits a lot of carbon. How? Nuclear power plants require vast amounts of concrete and steel. Both require a lot of energy to make, concrete is made from cement and cement is made from heating lime to 1450C in a kiln. A lot of heat is also required to make steel. More than likely that energy comes from a fossil fuel. Then there's uranium mining. These along with other things are called the nuclear cycle.
Oh, and when have I expressed anything but disdain for coal power?
When did I say you didn't?
I'm trying to remember, did you ever post a link showing just how much nuclear power is subsidized? Bonus points if it shows coal or nuclear above wind/solar per kwh.
Yes I have. "Hooked on Subsidies: Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power" is one. CATO, a Freemarket Institute, also has articles that say something about coal subsidies.
And it doesn't matter if the company making the solar panel doesn't get the subsidy if every customer who buys their product gets one.
You're right it's still a subsidy however the people have a choice as to who they buy from. When a subsidy is given to nuclear power people don't have that choice.
BTW, your first solar and nanosolar links go to the same spot.
Maybe I spoke too soon. Looking at that page you provide a link to though it doesn't say how much or what type of subsidy Nanosolar gets. The second link says Germany gave the company a subsidy for it's German plant. The "Spectrum" article " First Solar: Quest for the $1 Watt" says the subsidies are feed-in tariffs. Because it's not the government giving the money though I don't consider them subsidies. Perhaps "rebate" would be a better word.
PV. Again, you failed to include the energy to drive to someones house, sell them the system, fed ex the paperwork, power the sales office and the installation truck etc
Okay, so add another year to the payable.
roofs are warrantied for about 15 years so that system has to go up and down several times.
Comp asphalt shingles over two plies of paper + felt.
Will sheet over the "swale drains" to provide a sloped run off the roof, and will install gutters to the appropriate edges of the roof (bypassing the built-in drains). 20-25 year warranty.
No one will invest in PV without government subsidies
No one invests in coal or nuclear without subsidies either.
Betcha those who think Wind is cheap are ignoring the losses of transmission.
From one of my own posts, about using wind as a baseload: The wind may be blowing somewhere but where?
"The further electricity has to be transmitted the more power is lost even with HVDC, High-voltage direct current [wikipedia.org]. Now I'm not against alternative energy sources like solar and wind, I'd like to build a home Off the Grid [offthegrid.com] powered by solar and/or wind, but there has to be a baseload of power. For Off the Grid applications batteries are used."
My bets are on CSP and Wave energy
My bets are on a combination of different alternative energy sources.
but first plug the leaks, and end the subsidies for oil - nothing like price to fix an addiction.
Either end all subsidies or give alternative energy the same subsidies.
Not standard - according to the Apple store it's $19 bucks extra.
I didn't pay extra for the remote control that came with mine. Actually I'd rather have saved the money by not getting it.
"MacBook Pros have an Expresscard/34 you can get an eSata card for."
Again, you have to purchase it - it comes standard on my laptop.
Did yours also come with an Expresscard graphics card? I'd have one of those than an eSata card.
"Before I got the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on I compared it's price to the prices of various Windows OEM laptops with similar configurations and it was competitive to their prices. An HP was $50 less and Dell was $200 more."
I don't know where you looked, but as stated right above you in this comment: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1121323&cid=26802763 I took the $999 Macbook and compared it to my $999 DV9825NR at base configuration and BLEW the Macbook out of the water.
science is studying the climate and attempting to make some predictions. Thus far they've been wrong.
That's right, some predictions are wrong. Such as the one about the Arctic being ice free by 2100, now it might be ice free by 2030. The second largest loss of ice in the Arctic during the summer since records have been kept happened in 2008, only the 2007 summer beat it.
The ones who are practicing good principals have not yet decided what's going on with our climate, and whether or not there is a problem that we can fix.
I agree more research needs to be done but I don't want to wait to do something until it's too late. And I don't think doing something will mean harming the economy, instead I believe greening the economy will improve it.
Sorry I forgot to answer your question about the WMDs. The fact is that nearly everyone believed Iraq had WMDs.
Nearly everyone but some said Saddam it not have WMDs Their voice was drowned out though, and not just by government, but by the media as well. The Bush admin even called the chief UN Weapons inspector Scott Ritter a traitor when he said Iraq did not have WMDs. Disagreements are one thing but to call someone a traitor because he knows differently?
Students are more likely to be used to or open to using something else.
Cant agree. Students like getting non-free stuff for free or cheap.
I can't agree, since they aren't locked in yet students are more likely to try something else. Here's a thread on/. about how Teachers Are Obstacles To Linux In Education. That was from December 2008. But more recently there was one about how a student was punished, kicked out of school I think, for using Linux. Here's an article about how students were asking a teacher about Linux.
In most schools, what you're paying for tuition is only a small fraction of what it costs to have you as a student. The rest comes from state allocations, donations, indirect cost funding from grants, etc.
That's why college is getting more expensive, states don't want to give more money to colleges. That has been going on for years, about 20 years ago in Florida the state lottery was billed as a way to increase educational funding.
See, I can't stand XP compared to Linux but I like Vista better than anything else. XP always looked kinda bad to me, like a little too cute, and I liked it only really because it was a Windows NT kernel that was good for games.
Windows NT, 4.0, is the only version of Windows I liked. It also gave me the least amount of trouble, maybe that's why I preferred it.
I have both Vista and Ubuntu running on the same machine, each with its own drive, and I think Vista just blows Ubuntu out of the water.
What don't you like about Ubuntu? After getting sick and tired of Windows crashing on me, and MS wanting to treat users like criminals, I switched from Windows to OS X. When it came tyme to get a new computer I bought a Mac, when I had been using Windows for 10 years. I'm been seriously considering installing Ubuntu on my Mac to make it dualboot.
I program, and I've always been leaning towards Linux because its more C++ friendly
That's partially why I'd like to install Ubuntu on my Mac, development and programming. While there's X Code for Macs it's strictly for Macs and right now I'm using Eclipse for Java. I also want to work with Perl and maybe PHP, Apache, and Ruby. I thought about setting up LAMP but I'm not sure about MySQL, I've been thinking of trying Firebird instead.
there are so many zealots in the Linux camp
The same can be said of the Microsoft camp, as well as the Apple camp.
It's as futile as George Bush trying to make liberals happy, or Barrack Obama trying to make conservatives happy. You just can't.
I'm not sure I want Obama to prevail, and I voted for him. I don't like the idea of giving large businesses more taxpayer money. What needs to be done is to get government out of the way.
I'm not making excuses for Linux. Fact is is marketing, which Linus distros do little of, has a big impact of what people buy. If advertizing, part of marketing, didn't have an impact then businesses would not spend a lot on it. And yes, businesses do spend a lot on marketing. pharmaceutical companies [pdf warning] spend more on marketing than on research.
Ubuntu is not as a good as a desktop operating system as Windows Vista. It's just not.
Ubuntu may not be good to you but it is to plenty of other users. And there are plenty who do not like Vista, if people liked it then OEMs would not offer a downgrade path from Vista to XP. It also offers competition, and without competition things hardly improve.
I agree, GIMP is a BITCH to use. I can use it, but Photoshop's UI just obliterates GIMP's. It's not just that I have to learn something new, it's much harder to learn with a confusing approach to how to use tools.
If Photoshop works for you and you can afford it that's great. If however the GUI is holding you back there's a version of GIMP who's GUI is like Photoshop's, GIMPShop. I tried GIMP years ago and I wouldn't use it now except for basic editing. The only reason I thought if using anything other than Photoshop, like CinePaint, is because of the cost. I'm disabled and on disability so just Photoshop CS, not a suite, costs as much as one month of disability. If after I try CinePaint I find it does not work for me then I'd have to try to find a way to pay for Photoshop. Perhaps buy an older but upgradeable version off of eBay.
Yeah, and I've never, ever, ever heard anyone ever say "photog" ever, and it does sound stupid.
Google returns more than 2,500,000 results with photog. One of them is a freelance photographer, notice the domain name.
Corn Ethanol? uses more energy to produce than it provides.
No, corn ethanol's EROEI, Energy Returned on Energy Invested, is about 1.5 or 1.6 to 1 or 1.2 or 1.5 to 1, about the same as oil sands. While it does make more energy than the energy required to make it, it doesn't even double the energy. Brazil gets from 8 to 10 units per unit of energy used from sugarcane.
PV
PV's produce as much energy in 5 years as it takes to make. PVs are warrantied for from 10 to 30 years depending on the manufacturer, so over their life they produce more energy than they need for manufacturing.
Wind - sure if you're lucky to live where it's windy and you use energy in the spring and fall (you don't).
Wind blows year round not just in the spring and fall. Wind also blows in a lot of places. As the Picken's Plan details the Rocky Mountains alone have enough potential wind energy to provide the 48 continuous states in the US with energy. That's not all though, the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States gives wind's potential in other parts of the US. The Pacific Coast from British Columbia to Southern California has an abundance of potential, along with Southern CA eastward to Texas. In the east the Appalachias and Cascades have good potential as it does off the coast between Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras.
I'm looking at an upgrade - installing a heat pump system this summer, assuming I can get good price information and ordering ability on line. Last time they were 'out of stock'. That might be your best option, as well. 3X the heating ability per kwh, even over tankless.
Unfortunately I don't have such a choice now, I rent an apartment.
if you put a carbon tax in coal gets slaughtered. Even clean coal
If carbon emissions were taxed alternative energy wouldn't look as expensive. And there are no clean coal plants in commercial production, what plants there are are for research. Even then though I doubt nuclear power would be profitable without subsidies.
Hmm, also disagrees with the cost for clean coal
I agree too, coal can not be clean. Sure emissions can be cleaned up but mining is far from being clean. A lot of coal is mined by mountain top removal. Google as some good photos of what it looks like.
So the tech isn't ready. To reduce the waste that's already there I may agree to reprocess it so it can be used in power plants that have already been built but I don't think I could agree to building more nuclear power plants.
Engineering always needs to be done. Basically, we're putting solar, wind, and other experimental electricity generation systems up left and right.
Yes, engineering always needs to be done but they are not being subsidized at the same amount as coal or nuclear. They may have but I doubt either First Solar or Nanosolar received subsidies directly. You could say Germany's Nanosolar order is one, and it might be, but I don't think of it so much as a subsidy anymore than first adopters subsidize research and development.
Hydrologically, Lakes Michigan and Huron are one body of water.
Maybe they are hydrologically.
By the data you submit,
"Volume of Michiga/Huron: 4,920 km^3 (Michigan) + 3,540 km^3 (Huron) = 8,460 km^3"
and "Volume of Lake Baikal: 23,600 km^3",
Lake Baikal has almost 3 tymes the volume of water.
How about the fact I can take my video card out of my laptop and upgrade it?
I could not upgrade the graphics on either of my Windows laptops.
I also get a remote control for my laptop
MacBooks come with a remote control also.
and an extra expansion port should I wish to use eSATA or other high-speed data devices.
MacBook Pros have an Expresscard/34 you can get an eSata card for.
Sorry, for the price of what I paid for, you won't find my full hardware suite on a Mac laptop without paying at LEAST 2-1/2 thousand dollars
Before I got the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on I compared it's price to the prices of various Windows OEM laptops with similar configurations and it was competitive to their prices. An HP was $50 less and Dell was $200 more.
Actually, they do have a monopoly. If you buy an Mac you have to buy parts from Apple;
No they don't, I don't have to buy parts from Apple. The HDD in the Mac I'm using now is a Seagate I bought from Micro Center. I can buy more RAM from them, Best Buy, or whoever and install it myself.
Much agreement. Additionally, I think the clone segment will actually help Apple.
Apple already tried Mac clones. Apple lost more in hardware sells than it made in selling the Mac OS. And that totally disregards Microsoft. If Apple were to start selling OS X to any OEM, Original Equipment Manufacturer it would be entering MS's space And like it not even Mac users rely on MS Office, MS had already threatened to discontinue Office for Macs.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with subsidies is they force people to consume by punishing non-consumption.
In the post you replied to I did say "That's one reason why subsidies are bad, they favor some things over others, whether good or bad." I do oppose subsidies in general, they are only supposed to be used only temporarily but they are permanent.
Falcon
First, I'd like to apologize for crashing your machine. I simply ended up closing the browser after a while. Today I saved the pdf before opening it, works fine. Apparently Adobe's downloading system is messed up.
That's alright. I tried to quit the browser but it wouldn't. For opening PDFs I don't have Adobe's reader. I have a Mac and Apple includes a previewer that opens PDFs. I've had trouble opening them a couple of tymes before but quiting worked before. When I used Windows I did have occasional trouble with PDFs though using Adobe's reader. Perhaps like you can download the PDF then open it.
Do you have a counter for the Berkeley study, showing that wind needing 10 times the steel and 4 times the concrete per MW?
First, I don't see a link to the Berkeley study on the CITRIS page. There is a link to a ppt and while it downloads preview shows nothing. The details provided on the pathsoflight.us page does say wind requires about 4 tymes as much concrete though. I'll try to find something more... Ump, I found a company that does concrete for both nuclear and wind power. On that page it says that concrete pours in excess of 500 cubic meters per base are common for wind but does not say the size of the wind turbines or how much concrete is used for nuclear power. Look some more... A Daily Kos page, "Nuclear vs. Wind - Mining impact and Capital Cost" says wind uses more concrete and steel than nuclear though both are comparable in mining and beat coal. Look more... I found "How much steel and how much concrete for the fabrication of windmills and nuclear reactors ?[.doc warning]" which say wind uses a hell of a lot more concrete and steel than nuclear.
Apparently I may of been wrong about how much concrete and steel nuclear uses vs wind.
Back on topic - Have you ever seen how much concrete goes into putting footings in for a simple chain link fence? Now consider your 5MW turbine.
As a kid perhaps but I don't recall how much was used. I do know how much concrete is used generally for footers, and slabs and walls though, I used to work in construction for a concrete and masonry subcontractor. We poored a bunch of things, including pylons and pads at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station for rockets.
And all the steel used to make the turbine, tower, and pylons would be less too. Even your link to the environmental effects of wind power "suggested a payback time of 1.1 years". That charter only considers CO2 not other environmental considerations also.
Probably up against not particularly efficient coal plant; I've already posted links showing that it takes less CO2 to produce power via nuclear than wind/solar.
I said other environmental concerns because you did address CO2. From what I found and included above about mining nuclear and wind are about the same as far as mining. That only leaves three reasons I generally oppose nuclear, if they can be dealt with I may be able to support nuclear power. They are, not in any particular order, subsidies, nuclear waste, and what happens to a plant when it is decommissioned.
You and others have given me plenty to research and think about.
Falcon
The problem with equalizing subsidies is that its impossible to do.
That's one reason why subsidies are bad, they favor some things over others, whether good or bad.
Subsidies for PV are universally higher than for wind. There is a national database of subsidies for renewable energy - you can check any state. DESIRE is the name I believe.
Yea, I've got DSIRE bookmarked though I haven't gone through all the states and what they provide. The federal incentives listed don't have either solar or wind individually. Individual states list solar and wind separately and together. However it doesn't say what the incentives are or how much is offered. The individual links would have to be clicked then all of them added either by hand or with a spreadsheet. To go through every state and add them up could take some hours and I doubt many people including you have done that.
Falcon
Ah, but how do we know it is not true? Since it is closed source we can never be completely certain and just have to take someone's word for it....which is really the whole point of the argument for OS.
Because 1) Microsoft documents the heredity of their code well. They're not stupid. And B) the source code is widely available, both through legitimate channels like Microsoft's shared source programs and channels that are a bit shadier like bit torrent. Don't you think someone would have pointed anything embarrassing to Microsoft like this by now?
If Microsoft is so good at documentation why haven't they documented those 238 MS patents Linux and OpenOffice violate for the world to see? Why did it take MS years to provide to the European Commission all those documents the EC asked for?
Falcon
Who is going to go out on their roof every week and clean the panels?
Unless you live in a bad place you don't need to get on your roof every week to clean PVs. Also there are "Thin-film PV which are durable and flexible and is encased in a water-proof, self-cleaning polymer. It can be used in shingle form for roofing or in more unusual designs that exploit its flexibility."
Who is going to pay for the grid if everyone is net-free-ride-metering?
First, most people who have net metering are not paid for excess energy the same amount they have to pay, many are paid what's called the avoided cost, which is lower than retail cost. That is if the utility company can avoid having to produce one more unit of power then they pay that much. The utility still makes a profit. A person can produce more power than they use and they'll still pay.
PV subsidies are stratospheric - much higher than Wind for example. It's economically unsustainable.
I would hope we could curtail subsidies for foreign and dirty energy.
First, when I searched I didn't find data showing how much solar PV and wind get in subsidies, do you have data to back you up? Secondly, as I said in the post you replied to I either want all subsidies to end or I want solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources to get just as much in subsidies and coal, nuclear, and oil get. I said as much in this post.
Falcon
I didn't exactly need links to such simple near universal construction materials as concrete, steel, cement, and such. I'm well aware of the nuclear cycle.
I try to provide links so I may support my position and so that people not simply assume I'm making stuff up.
It's not like wind doesn't need them either - and a stand alone solar complex will use them as well.
However neither solar nor wind should need nearly as much of either than a nuclear power plant will. Though I'm not sure I'd think 200 pylons for 5 megawatt wind turbines would use less concrete and steel than a 1 gigawatt nuclear power plant. And all the steel used to make the turbine, tower, and pylons would be less too. Even your link to the environmental effects of wind power "suggested a payback time of 1.1 years". That charter only considers CO2 not other environmental considerations also.
Interesting article on green nuclear power
It offers no substance though, basically it's about greenwashing nuclear power.
Update - found it! - but doesn't want to download completely on my system.
It's not just you, I clicked on the link then the browser and preview stopped responding. I tried to force quit then the computer froze. I've had my Mac for almost 1 1/2 years and that's only the second or third tyme that happened. I wish I didn't have the problem, I'm not going to try again.
While Uranium mining and refining is fairly nasty, the trick is that you need so little of it - You'd end up mining more cadmium and other rare and nasty minerals for photovoltaic panels.
I'm not sure if it was you, or someone else who posted about it above, but someone brought up CSP, Concentrating solar power. While PVs are good for roofs, CSP is better in places like the US southwest.
But you lose the bonus points
Darn, that was stupid. Though I didn't try to get the bonus points I put the part about them in my post.
my article still has relevance, since 'Hooked on Subsidies' only mentions putting it up against coal, which I don't consider a viable clean alternative, even with 'clean' and carbon sequestration.
It may be relevant as far as subsidies are concerned, but I think that's part of the problem, subsidies. At most subsidies should only be used temporarily. Those I hate most are the farm subsidies. Take a look at the Farm bill congress passed last year. Enacted on 22 May 2008 it provided $288 billion in subsidies.
And yes, I do consider 'rebates' subsidies.
Subsidies are taxpayer money, in Germany's case it's not government paying it's the utilities. And like with the states that have net metering laws utilities enjoy an avoided cost.
Not that I necessarily object to all subsidies. For example, energy efficiency deductions. I don't think insulation and other energy saving measures should be factored into real estate taxes. Yes, I include solar panels and such in there. Call it my 'people shouldn't be penalized for owning a quality house'. Not a big house, not a fancy house, but a quality one - safe, efficient, well insulated, etc... People shouldn't be penalized for painting their shack and installing good windows.
Darn, I lied above. Actually I hadn't thought of this but I do support the subsidies
So if you want speeds faster than France, move to the one of the places listed above.
So, if you want broadband then move? I'd rather be able to build the broadband infrastructure so everyone can get it. And access providers have already been paid to buildout the infrastructure.
Falcon
Actually, the major problem with the US is distance.
The lack of broadband in some areas and cities belies that statement. There are areas of major cities that do not have broadband access.
Falcon
Arctic Ice? See this
For some reason the second article linked to does not show, only some of the comments do. But the original article linked to though says the sea ice grew back fast. Googling "arctic sea ice" returns a lot of links saying the same. One of them though says "January Arctic Sea Ice Extent Sixth Lowest In History". So while the ice that came back may of come fast, not all of it did.
You cannot blame Bush for Saddam's behavior.
You're right but you can blame the Bush admin for calling Ritter a traitor. And what about the silence about those who said there were no WMDs? I clearly recall seeing then Secretary of State Colin Powell standing up in front the UN Security Council with a bunch of documents saying there were a number of weapons or factories that could make WMDs. But there wasn't anything denying this.
Nor was anything said about how the US helped Saddam when he did use WMDs. Yes, the US did help Saddam when he used WMDs. All through the Reagan years and part of the first Bush's term in office Reagan and Bush Sr supported Saddam. On 27 July 1987 Saddam used chemical weapons against a Kurdish city for instance. It was only after Saddam invaded Kuwait when support for him ended.
Falcon
Unfortunately I don't have such a choice now, I rent an apartment.
Do the research, if you can make it make financial sense(remember, it'd be a deductible expense!), talk with your landlord. They might do it.
I have done some research. Hopefully in a few years I'll own the apartment building. My sister owns it now but when the mortgage is paid down enough so I can qualify for one the plan is that she will sell it to me and I'll take over the mortgage. Once I do own it I'll have an energy audit done, then save money to have an architect redesign the building.
in the sense of a 'carbon tax', nuclear power is lumped in right along with wind, solar, tidal, etc...
Except nuclear power isn't carbon free, the construction emits a lot of carbon. How? Nuclear power plants require vast amounts of concrete and steel. Both require a lot of energy to make, concrete is made from cement and cement is made from heating lime to 1450C in a kiln. A lot of heat is also required to make steel. More than likely that energy comes from a fossil fuel. Then there's uranium mining. These along with other things are called the nuclear cycle.
Oh, and when have I expressed anything but disdain for coal power?
When did I say you didn't?
I'm trying to remember, did you ever post a link showing just how much nuclear power is subsidized? Bonus points if it shows coal or nuclear above wind/solar per kwh.
Yes I have. "Hooked on Subsidies: Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power" is one. CATO, a Freemarket Institute, also has articles that say something about coal subsidies.
And it doesn't matter if the company making the solar panel doesn't get the subsidy if every customer who buys their product gets one.
You're right it's still a subsidy however the people have a choice as to who they buy from. When a subsidy is given to nuclear power people don't have that choice.
BTW, your first solar and nanosolar links go to the same spot.
Oops I cut and pasted wrong, NanoSolar.
Nanosolar gets government subsidies
Maybe I spoke too soon. Looking at that page you provide a link to though it doesn't say how much or what type of subsidy Nanosolar gets. The second link says Germany gave the company a subsidy for it's German plant. The "Spectrum" article " First Solar: Quest for the $1 Watt" says the subsidies are feed-in tariffs. Because it's not the government giving the money though I don't consider them subsidies. Perhaps "rebate" would be a better word.
Falcon
PV. Again, you failed to include the energy to drive to someones house, sell them the system, fed ex the paperwork, power the sales office and the installation truck etc
Okay, so add another year to the payable.
roofs are warrantied for about 15 years so that system has to go up and down several times.
For all your roofing needs.
LIFE TIME WARRANTY ON WORKMANSHIP
We install 25 year to 50 year roofing.
Comp asphalt shingles over two plies of paper + felt.
Will sheet over the "swale drains" to provide a sloped run off the roof, and will install gutters to the appropriate edges of the roof (bypassing the built-in drains). 20-25 year warranty.
Choosing The Right Warranty
Warranties up to 50 years.
No one will invest in PV without government subsidies
No one invests in coal or nuclear without subsidies either.
Betcha those who think Wind is cheap are ignoring the losses of transmission.
From one of my own posts, about using wind as a baseload: The wind may be blowing somewhere but where?
"The further electricity has to be transmitted the more power is lost even with HVDC, High-voltage direct current [wikipedia.org]. Now I'm not against alternative energy sources like solar and wind, I'd like to build a home Off the Grid [offthegrid.com] powered by solar and/or wind, but there has to be a baseload of power. For Off the Grid applications batteries are used."
My bets are on CSP and Wave energy
My bets are on a combination of different alternative energy sources.
but first plug the leaks, and end the subsidies for oil - nothing like price to fix an addiction.
Either end all subsidies or give alternative energy the same subsidies.
Falcon
"MacBooks come with a remote control also."
Not standard - according to the Apple store it's $19 bucks extra.
I didn't pay extra for the remote control that came with mine. Actually I'd rather have saved the money by not getting it.
"MacBook Pros have an Expresscard/34 you can get an eSata card for."
Again, you have to purchase it - it comes standard on my laptop.
Did yours also come with an Expresscard graphics card? I'd have one of those than an eSata card.
"Before I got the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on I compared it's price to the prices of various Windows OEM laptops with similar configurations and it was competitive to their prices. An HP was $50 less and Dell was $200 more."
I don't know where you looked, but as stated right above you in this comment: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1121323&cid=26802763 I took the $999 Macbook and compared it to my $999 DV9825NR at base configuration and BLEW the Macbook out of the water.
I checked with Compaq, Dell, HP, and others.
Falcon
I'll reply to both of your posts in this one.
science is studying the climate and attempting to make some predictions. Thus far they've been wrong.
That's right, some predictions are wrong. Such as the one about the Arctic being ice free by 2100, now it might be ice free by 2030. The second largest loss of ice in the Arctic during the summer since records have been kept happened in 2008, only the 2007 summer beat it.
The ones who are practicing good principals have not yet decided what's going on with our climate, and whether or not there is a problem that we can fix.
I agree more research needs to be done but I don't want to wait to do something until it's too late. And I don't think doing something will mean harming the economy, instead I believe greening the economy will improve it.
Sorry I forgot to answer your question about the WMDs. The fact is that nearly everyone believed Iraq had WMDs.
Nearly everyone but some said Saddam it not have WMDs Their voice was drowned out though, and not just by government, but by the media as well. The Bush admin even called the chief UN Weapons inspector Scott Ritter a traitor when he said Iraq did not have WMDs. Disagreements are one thing but to call someone a traitor because he knows differently?
Falcon
Students are more likely to be used to or open to using something else.
Cant agree. Students like getting non-free stuff for free or cheap.
I can't agree, since they aren't locked in yet students are more likely to try something else. Here's a thread on /. about how Teachers Are Obstacles To Linux In Education. That was from December 2008. But more recently there was one about how a student was punished, kicked out of school I think, for using Linux. Here's an article about how students were asking a teacher about Linux.
In most schools, what you're paying for tuition is only a small fraction of what it costs to have you as a student. The rest comes from state allocations, donations, indirect cost funding from grants, etc.
That's why college is getting more expensive, states don't want to give more money to colleges. That has been going on for years, about 20 years ago in Florida the state lottery was billed as a way to increase educational funding.
Falcon
See, I can't stand XP compared to Linux but I like Vista better than anything else. XP always looked kinda bad to me, like a little too cute, and I liked it only really because it was a Windows NT kernel that was good for games.
Windows NT, 4.0, is the only version of Windows I liked. It also gave me the least amount of trouble, maybe that's why I preferred it.
I have both Vista and Ubuntu running on the same machine, each with its own drive, and I think Vista just blows Ubuntu out of the water.
What don't you like about Ubuntu? After getting sick and tired of Windows crashing on me, and MS wanting to treat users like criminals, I switched from Windows to OS X. When it came tyme to get a new computer I bought a Mac, when I had been using Windows for 10 years. I'm been seriously considering installing Ubuntu on my Mac to make it dualboot.
I program, and I've always been leaning towards Linux because its more C++ friendly
That's partially why I'd like to install Ubuntu on my Mac, development and programming. While there's X Code for Macs it's strictly for Macs and right now I'm using Eclipse for Java. I also want to work with Perl and maybe PHP, Apache, and Ruby. I thought about setting up LAMP but I'm not sure about MySQL, I've been thinking of trying Firebird instead.
there are so many zealots in the Linux camp
The same can be said of the Microsoft camp, as well as the Apple camp.
It's as futile as George Bush trying to make liberals happy, or Barrack Obama trying to make conservatives happy. You just can't.
I'm not sure I want Obama to prevail, and I voted for him. I don't like the idea of giving large businesses more taxpayer money. What needs to be done is to get government out of the way.
Falcon
I'm not making excuses for Linux. Fact is is marketing, which Linus distros do little of, has a big impact of what people buy. If advertizing, part of marketing, didn't have an impact then businesses would not spend a lot on it. And yes, businesses do spend a lot on marketing. pharmaceutical companies [pdf warning] spend more on marketing than on research.
Ubuntu is not as a good as a desktop operating system as Windows Vista. It's just not.
Ubuntu may not be good to you but it is to plenty of other users. And there are plenty who do not like Vista, if people liked it then OEMs would not offer a downgrade path from Vista to XP. It also offers competition, and without competition things hardly improve.
Falcon
I agree, GIMP is a BITCH to use. I can use it, but Photoshop's UI just obliterates GIMP's. It's not just that I have to learn something new, it's much harder to learn with a confusing approach to how to use tools.
If Photoshop works for you and you can afford it that's great. If however the GUI is holding you back there's a version of GIMP who's GUI is like Photoshop's, GIMPShop. I tried GIMP years ago and I wouldn't use it now except for basic editing. The only reason I thought if using anything other than Photoshop, like CinePaint, is because of the cost. I'm disabled and on disability so just Photoshop CS, not a suite, costs as much as one month of disability. If after I try CinePaint I find it does not work for me then I'd have to try to find a way to pay for Photoshop. Perhaps buy an older but upgradeable version off of eBay.
Yeah, and I've never, ever, ever heard anyone ever say "photog" ever, and it does sound stupid.
Google returns more than 2,500,000 results with photog. One of them is a freelance photographer, notice the domain name.
Falcon
Corn Ethanol? uses more energy to produce than it provides.
No, corn ethanol's EROEI, Energy Returned on Energy Invested, is about 1.5 or 1.6 to 1 or 1.2 or 1.5 to 1, about the same as oil sands. While it does make more energy than the energy required to make it, it doesn't even double the energy. Brazil gets from 8 to 10 units per unit of energy used from sugarcane.
PV
PV's produce as much energy in 5 years as it takes to make. PVs are warrantied for from 10 to 30 years depending on the manufacturer, so over their life they produce more energy than they need for manufacturing.
Wind - sure if you're lucky to live where it's windy and you use energy in the spring and fall (you don't).
Wind blows year round not just in the spring and fall. Wind also blows in a lot of places. As the Picken's Plan details the Rocky Mountains alone have enough potential wind energy to provide the 48 continuous states in the US with energy. That's not all though, the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States gives wind's potential in other parts of the US. The Pacific Coast from British Columbia to Southern California has an abundance of potential, along with Southern CA eastward to Texas. In the east the Appalachias and Cascades have good potential as it does off the coast between Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras.
Falcon
I'm looking at an upgrade - installing a heat pump system this summer, assuming I can get good price information and ordering ability on line. Last time they were 'out of stock'. That might be your best option, as well. 3X the heating ability per kwh, even over tankless.
Unfortunately I don't have such a choice now, I rent an apartment.
if you put a carbon tax in coal gets slaughtered. Even clean coal
If carbon emissions were taxed alternative energy wouldn't look as expensive. And there are no clean coal plants in commercial production, what plants there are are for research. Even then though I doubt nuclear power would be profitable without subsidies.
Hmm, also disagrees with the cost for clean coal
I agree too, coal can not be clean. Sure emissions can be cleaned up but mining is far from being clean. A lot of coal is mined by mountain top removal. Google as some good photos of what it looks like.
So the tech isn't ready. To reduce the waste that's already there I may agree to reprocess it so it can be used in power plants that have already been built but I don't think I could agree to building more nuclear power plants.
Engineering always needs to be done. Basically, we're putting solar, wind, and other experimental electricity generation systems up left and right.
Yes, engineering always needs to be done but they are not being subsidized at the same amount as coal or nuclear. They may have but I doubt either First Solar or Nanosolar received subsidies directly. You could say Germany's Nanosolar order is one, and it might be, but I don't think of it so much as a subsidy anymore than first adopters subsidize research and development.
Falcon
I think they probably added support in 3 and not 3.0.1
I looked at 3 and it required X11.
Falcon
Hydrologically, Lakes Michigan and Huron are one body of water.
Maybe they are hydrologically.
By the data you submit,
"Volume of Michiga/Huron: 4,920 km^3 (Michigan) + 3,540 km^3 (Huron) = 8,460 km^3"
and "Volume of Lake Baikal: 23,600 km^3",
Lake Baikal has almost 3 tymes the volume of water.
Falcon
How about the fact I can take my video card out of my laptop and upgrade it?
I could not upgrade the graphics on either of my Windows laptops.
I also get a remote control for my laptop
MacBooks come with a remote control also.
and an extra expansion port should I wish to use eSATA or other high-speed data devices.
MacBook Pros have an Expresscard/34 you can get an eSata card for.
Sorry, for the price of what I paid for, you won't find my full hardware suite on a Mac laptop without paying at LEAST 2-1/2 thousand dollars
Before I got the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on I compared it's price to the prices of various Windows OEM laptops with similar configurations and it was competitive to their prices. An HP was $50 less and Dell was $200 more.
Fslcon
Actually, they do have a monopoly. If you buy an Mac you have to buy parts from Apple;
No they don't, I don't have to buy parts from Apple. The HDD in the Mac I'm using now is a Seagate I bought from Micro Center. I can buy more RAM from them, Best Buy, or whoever and install it myself.
Falcon
I don't think Apple will lose much in the way of hardware sales
Once upon a tyme Apple did authorize Mac Clones, and Apple lost money because of them.
Falcon
Much agreement. Additionally, I think the clone segment will actually help Apple.
Apple already tried Mac clones. Apple lost more in hardware sells than it made in selling the Mac OS. And that totally disregards Microsoft. If Apple were to start selling OS X to any OEM, Original Equipment Manufacturer it would be entering MS's space And like it not even Mac users rely on MS Office, MS had already threatened to discontinue Office for Macs.
Falcon