And why is this? Because when MS even tries to include a web browser and a media player, they get their asses chewed out by the EU for anticompetitive behavior. You can't expect MS to provide nothing and everything at the same time...
Bundling isn't the problem, the problem was when Microsoft told OEMs they could install Microsoft products but not competitors' products. Way back when I would of liked the option between MS Word and Word Perfect, Internet Explorer and/or Netscape.
I do it on the command line - sometime in the next week or so I'll be putting Gentoo on my new machine. No clicks, all tappity-tappity on the keyboard.
Same here, but with Ubuntu Server. The past few days I've spent at least a few hours a day researching how best to install Ubuntu Server on my MacBook Pro. It'll take a couple of more days at least before I'm ready. Today I found what looks like a good book to install Ubuntu, but I'll probably need more.
The biggest advantage to Linux in my opinion is the ability to update the various tools you need with one click or command; in Windows you can't even update all of the Microsoft products with one click.
I've had to click, and reboot, more than once when I've updated Linux. That was a couple of years ago and things may be better now though.
On Windows XP, I haven't seen a BSOD in years on my personal system.
The first tyme I used XP it was on a brand new Dell. The Dell froze while booting up.
The ONLY times I reinstall Windows is due to hardware changes
I've bought 3 brand new PCs with Windows installed. Of them only on one I didn't have to reinstall Windows a number of tymes.
Of course, my experience with Linux has been the same: you really don't want to try to drop a whole new build without recompiling.
I want to install Ubuntu on the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on. Before I do I want to create a plan of action and get everything I need do lain out on paper. So I've spent at least a few hours a day the past few days mapping it out and I'm not ready yet. One of the things I keep coming up with is the suggestion that Ubuntu be installed in a VM using Parallels or VMWare.
on the one hand, we have an OS that works out of the box when bought from the shop, but on the other, an OS that requires a friend to come and set it up for them.
More than two years ago I bought a new PC with the OS preinstalled. When I got it home and plugged everything in I was able to immediately use it and connected to the net to download updates for the OS and software. Guess what OS was installed. Linux. Several years ago I bought another PC, with Windows installed, and hdd. When I was asked what the second drive was for I said it was to setup a dualboot PC and I wanted the second drive for the second OS, Linux. They asked me if I wanted them to install the hdd and Linux.
On the other hand, I've been thinking about setting the computer I'm typing this on, a MacBook Pro, to dualboot. I have Leopard on it now but would like to install Ubuntu as well. So I've spend a bunch of tyme this past week researching to see how best to do it and I'm still not ready.
I'm also leaving aside the "GIMP blows goats and has a terrible name" angle.
While I wouldn't use GIMP for professional photo editing, I like CinePaint, there are pro photographers who do use GIMP. Check out some of the discussions about GIMP on Photo.net.
yes the benchmarks do suck, they should add the following benchmarks to event it out a bit. 1. How long it takes to load GTA IV. 2. How long it takes to load MS Word. 3. How long it takes to compile a large project with MS Visual Studio 2005.
Does GTA IV or MS Visual Studio 2005 run in Linux?
It matters to me, the less hdd space the OS takes the more space I have for files.
I don't care how long it takes to install because I only do that once and I don't care how long it takes to boot-up because I leave my computers on.
I may bootup and shutdown 2 or 3 tymes a day.
Of the remaining two, I rarely if ever copy files from USB to HD
I do the opposite, copy files from the HDD to an external drive. I used to use a USB 2 drive, which was slow but now I use a Firewire 800 drive which is faster.
I have no idea how well this benchmark represents common task I perform such as browsing, movie watching and game playing.
My common tasks are browsing, design, programming, and photography.
Why in hell does it take over a minute to boot these systems? OSX on my older Mac Pro takes about 25 seconds. Shutdown takes like 4-5 seconds.
I haven't sat there and tymed it but my MacBook Pro 3,1 takes about a minute from pushing the power button to the desktop. Then again I have more than 1 user profile. Sometimes shutdown is quick but other tymes it may take longer. Because I've been thinking about installing Ubuntu on it to dualboot I may find out how long it takes for Ubuntu to bootup and shutdown.
So use another printer. CUPS, Common Unix Printing System, works with other printers. I had three different printers work with it, and all I did was plug them in.
Except that you can only sorta check your email or do word processing on Linux.
When I last used Linux I had no problem checking my email or doing word processing. That was about 1 1/2 years ago and things have gotten better. I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro and I do the same stuff on it. Actually the past few days I've been researching how to install Ubuntu on it to dualboot Leopard and Ubuntu.
Thunderbird does IMAP ok, but IMAP is not a replacement for all that Exchange does.
So? Thunderbird works for me and I don't need to use Exchange. When I do need something like it there's
OpenChange and others that are at least partially compatible.
So if your netbook is just for reading then fine. If you ever think you're getting some work done on the airplane you're wrong. * I mean the business side of work not actual work like writing software.
I'm not sure what you mean but this, writing or programming software isn't a business? Of course I wouldn't want to use a netbook for that. I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro and though I carry it with me a lot there's nothing smaller I'd want, bigger but not smaller.
Because most people WANT TO RUN THEIR APPS and not dick around with Linux. When will people realise that vast majority of the mass market actually wants windows and will continue to want Windows for the foreseeable future.
I agree with the first part but not the second. I don't think people want Windows, they want something they are used to or what they use at work. And though Windows still has the biggest, by far, marketshare it's it is falling. I also think people aren't aware there are apps for the other OSes that can do what they want their apps to do. For instance how many people know there's a version of Office for Macs? Macs come with a 30 day trialware of Office. About 17 months ago I switched from Windows to OS X and before I did I made a list of what I wanted to do then looked to see if there was Mac software that did it.
If I am going to buy a netbook with a 1.6 GHz Atom CPU, 1 GB of RAM and integrated graphics, I'm going to want something that runs fast.
I think it's a mistake to buy a netbook to use to do anything that requires more speed than surfing the net. If you need something faster but portable then get a laptop.
If you have a hot water tank, perhaps an electric one without the heating elements connected*, you'd have hot water from the day before and have your warm/hot shower
To keep the water harm if not hot in a tank the water heater would have to continually cycle on and off just as refrigerators and freezers do. Every time a heater or cooler cycles on the power spikes, and the water isn't always being used. A point of use water heater only runs when the water is being used though. See the Tank-Type versus Tankless box.
If you mean you can use a solar water heater to heat water before a tank in conjunction with a point of use heater, then yes it may be more efficient. I thought I said that before, but I went up this tread and didn't see it so maybe I said it in another thread.
That $420 Billion would provide almost 3,000 gigawatts with PV technology, a lot more than even 400 Gigawatts.
Still have the difference between 'subsidy' and 'build' Don't forget the disadvantage solar has over nuclear when it comes to demand and capacity factors.
Nuclear power will need subsidies as well. Wall Street will not finance nuclear power plants without some subsides. Here's an article that first appeared in "Forbes" on 26 November 2007, "Hooked on Subsidies"
"Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power." Whereas coal generated electricity costs 3.53 cent per KWH and "clean coal" it's 3.55 cents per KWH, without subsidies nuclear power generated electricity cost 5.94 cents per KWH. If the subsidies for coal are removed coal is still cheaper, 3.79 cents and 4.37 cents for clean coal.
For a typical power system, the rule of thumb is that the base load power is usually 35-40% of the maximum load during the year.
Wow, that's more than I thought. If the Science Daily link you provided was right then the coal plants would all be needed but the LNG plants could be closed.
I'd say more engineering needs to be done; yes, they can use the waste sitting in casks and cooling ponds as fuel. Depending on design, you can even pull rods/fuel/waste from the plant and reprocess it to provide MORE fuel to the more standard plants.
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.
I wonder why France would build the BN-600 in Russia.
I'd expect Clearchannel to broadcast immediately on every frequency because they have the money to put up antennae very fast and begin to broadcast crap.
Not even Clear Channel has enough money to broadcast on every frequency everywhere. And from a business perspective that would be stupid to try. Even if they could though it would take a while, meanwhile pirate radio broadcasters would be able to legally broadcast. Businesses and people could even be barred from broadcasting on all frequencies.
As it is mass media broadcasters got as big as they did, and today's big broadcasters aren't the same as those 20 years ago, because government started requiring licenses, and it's hard to get a license without money.
Learned Hand, a famous American jurist, used "piracy" to describe copyright infringement in the wee years of the 20th century (I read the case in law school, but I can't find it off hand to cite for you; hopefully my positive karma creates at least a modicum of trust that I'm, at a minimum, not lying outright).
Oh, I agree some use "piracy" for copyright infringement but legally it isn't any more correct than it is to use "stealing" instead, which some also use.
The point is that our copyright system is so royally screwed up at this point that it is impossible for anyone who has the internet to not have infringed copyright at some point or another.
Not only is the copyright system messed up but the patent system is too.
Falcon
Oh gosh, before I submitted this I wanted to check to see if "Black's Law Dictionary" was online to see if it had "piracy". The fifth Google result is a torrent for it.
You WANT the tank to store hot water overnight, even if you never use the electric elements.
No I don't, by keeping water warm you're wasting energy, heating only the water used at the point of use saves energy.
That $420 Billion would provide almost 3,000 gigawatts with PV technology, a lot more than even 400 Gigawatts.
Source? I was simply using the number quoted by the 'grand plan'.
The link I provided, it's the print version of the SciAm article. Check where it says "Photovoltaic Farms", the second paragraph below it. "In our plan, by 2050 photovoltaic technology would provide almost 3,000 gigawatts (GW), or billions of watts, of power." Then about half way down to "Stage One: Present to 2020", in the paragraph below it says "The cumulative subsidy would total $420 billion" This would be spent between now and 2020 after which solar would become competitive.
I'm not sure if retrofitting or a tear down and rebuild is better, older buildings already have a lot of embedded energy.
My house also has things like cloth-wrapped electrical wiring, plaster and lathe walls, an overcomplicated roof, was already expanded three times, poorly laid out, etc...
It sounds like tear down and rebuild would be better for you. Maybe what you could do is keep the shell though.
you want to double our NG production, taking us from about ~50 years of capacity to less than 25.
Currently LNG generates 20% of the electricity in the US, that should be enough for the baseload.
With breeder reactors or proper reprocessing, we reduce the amount of waste by something like 90%
My memory may be wrong but I think you said you had worked at the Monju reactor in Japan. According to wiki, which I'll grant may be wrong, the only breeder reactors that were commercially operating was Monju and the BN-600 reactor in Russia. Monju was closed though and BN-600 has had a number of leaks. Every other breeder reactor I could find is only in the test stage, such as those in France and Japan. Are there any commercially operating breeder reactors actually other than the two above? Or is more research needed before they are put into production? If there are any in production can use the waste sitting in casks and cooling ponds at operating power plants be used as fuel for them?
What I'm puzzled about is I found this webpage that says BN-600 is France's. It also mentions France's Super-Phenix but it doesn't say whether it's in commercial operation or if it is a test reactor.
I was listening to NPR talking about how reducing CO2 emissions 80% by 2050 won't be enough. Coal->NG doesn't save 80% on CO2 emissions, and I'm still skeptical about the practicality of various sequestriation activities. Basically, I view them as time bombs as large or larger than nuclear waste would be.
I agree reducing emissions won't be enough, we need to stop emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases. I also don't think sequestration is a solution, instead it's used to justify continuing to emit GHGs. Some say the hydrogen economy is the answer however even that will emit a GHG, water vapour. Yes, it precipitates as rain and it has a short half life but more will be in the atmosphere.
Nuclear power CAN scale up and down fairly quickly, just not off and on
Do you have a link for this? I thought LNG could be ramped up or reduced quickly whereas nuclear could not.
I'm all for insulating buildings, I think I even mentioned tearing down and rebuilding houses occasionally making a lot of sense. Still, that's a long term solution at the fastest.
True, it would take a long tyme to retrofit old buildings with insulation that has a high R value.
My house already has all the insulation that's practical given it's design(though new windows would help some), I honestly assess it to be at the 'tear down and build fresh' state(for a multitude of reasons).
I'm not sure if retrofitting or a tear down and rebuild is better, older buildings already have a lot of embedded energy. Perhaps a case by case methodology would be best. Earlier I said I rented an apartment my sister owned and the plan was that she'd sell the building to me when I could qualify for a mortgage. What I'd like to do is to save up money and have an architect redesign the building, using as much of the material it was built with, to be as energy efficient as it could be within financial reason (one that I could afford). What I've been thinking is to gut out the building shell, remodel the interior, and put preformed concrete on the outside for more insulation. For heating I'd use radiant floor heating, either electric or geothermal, I'm not sure which would be better here. The building has gabled roofing but I'd rather the roof be flat. Then I'd be able to plant a garden on it. About a year and a half ago my sister replaced the windows so I don't know if it would be better to keep them or get more efficient windows.
I've recommended solar water heating to my relatives down in florida, but given my latitude and the resulting extra costs for solar water heating
I moved from Florida. I really miss being within an hour of the coast. What is you latitude? Solar hot water works in Oregon and Washington state. It works in Maine as well. But maybe it's out of your financing.
I think I'll stick to using the heat pump to provide hot water
I've thought of that, using geothermal energy to provide hot water, but I think I'd use a tankless point of use water heater. Perhaps a solar hot water heater can be used to preheat the water.
If I stay in the state when I leave my current job, I won't need the cooling part often, so it'll help when I want hot water in the summer.
I don't want to stay where I am, Minnesota, but I don't know where I'd move to. Wherever it is I have three things I'd like to be met, it be on the coast, be mountainous, and where I could garden 6 months of the year. However for the short term I want to go back to college and study abroad in Brazil for a year.
Another point would be that I think we should concentrate on getting people off of o
Ok, you obviously have a personal beef with the school system. And that's fine, there's a lot of fucked up stuff there. But that doesn't mean the answer is to tear down the system entirely.
The answer is to offer choices, and yes that means tearing down the walls of monopoly. I'll say though it's not everyone, for instance I liked how my second grade teacher held class. When I had her it was her first year teaching, she'd just graduated from college. She had all sorts of teaching aids in class and allowed the students to learn at their own paces in some subjects; math, reading, and vocabulary are the ones I recall. She encouraged the students who were ahead to help slower students. Two friends of mine and I were compeating with each other to see who was ahead, every week we took a quiz or test to see how we were doing. By the end of the year all three of us were at the 6th grade level in those subjects that were self paced. It was a real downer when we were stuck in "regular" classes in third grade, if only we could have kept going self paced.
Sure, you got screwed on math courses, but you said you took a bunch of science. Presumably you had lab equipment that helped that experience, as well as teachers who were relatively specialized in their field.
Some parents who homeschool their children will have their children in school for part of the day, then homeschool them as well. This way kids can get science education and socializing.
Could your parents honestly have replicated either of those things, especially with a reduced income due to having one or both of them trying to work their time around the home schooling process?
A group of families could do this, yes. I was even given a chemistry lab kit with 101 or 1001 experiments as a gift. I went through that in short order. However I have not seen any of them in stores since 911, and I've looked for them.
It may be good to have a parent at home, but the number of households that have the option is in rapid decline.
Part of the reason is because people live beyond their means.
I do consider raising kids a real job, just not a very well-paying one
It isn't well paying true, so instead parents just dump their children in daycare or leave to be latchkey kids.
Anyway, I'd go absolutely insane if I had to stay home with kids all day instead of working with a group of peers, and if I feel that way I couldn't in good conscience ask my wife to give up the chance at a career outside the home.
It may not be true in your case but some couples are able to work and take care of children. The parents can work different hours besides working from home. I can't now myself but I had wanted to work from home myself.
As under-funded as they are, there's still a number of things that high school provides that you just can't replicate in the home unless you're obscenely wealthy.
If not for an adviser in jr high I would have been able to do better in school. Though I took 3 1/2 years of science in HS when only 1 year was required the most I took for math was algebra. When I was going into 7th grade an adviser told me because I didn't know how to do square roots I couldn't take algebra. So I spent from then until 10th grade taking as advanced a math class as I could without taking algebra. Then in the 3rd month of 10th grade the teacher I had for math held the homework paper I just turned in out in front of class then ripped it up. I blew up and went to see my counselor. I told her I had to get out of that class and after she looked at my school records she said I should have taken algebra. When I said I couldn't because I didn't know how to do square roots she told me that you learn to do them in algebra. If my head had been a volcano it would have been erupting then. Because it was too late she put me into a pre-algebra class. That still burns me up, if I had been allowed to take algebra in 7th grade I would have been able to take calculus in high school.
Okay, in advocating that there's enough NG to replace coal and nuclear you post a link that says "but LNG will not be a panacea for North American natural gas shortfall" ?
It wasn't meant as a permanent replacement for coal or nuclear, only as a way LNG can be used until there is a better method of generating a baseload of energy.
Second link - aren't we trying to gain energy independence from the middle east?
Both the first link and third list places where LNG come from that are not in the Middle East. The first one lists Trinidad and Tobago which is in the Caribbean. The third lists Barents Sea which is between Greenland and Northern Europe.
That's for the link, I didn't see that before. However as you quoted in your post as a baseline capacity it should not matter if LNG plants operate at a low capacity. They are after all only meant to serve for when alternative sources do not provide enough energy.
By the way, that also increases costs for people trying to heat their homes with 97% efficient NG systems.
Properly insulated building reduce if not eliminate the need to heat with LNG. There are other ways to heat as well. Former President Bush used geothermal heating to heat his Crawford, Texas ranch. People in New York City use geothermal heating. People also use solar thermal heating, even in Northern Europe.
We'd need 27 trillion cubic feet per year to replace the coal & nuclear plants.
Only if LNG were to replace coal and nuclear, but not if it is only used as a baseload. That means when alternative energy sources do not provide enough energy. However as I said earlier SciAm has the article "A Solar Grand Plan" that says "solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." For wind power, the Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind power to supple electricity to the 48 continuous states. On the East Coast Cape Cod, Cape Hatteras, and points in between the Carolinas and Mass are good places for offshore wind farms. On the West Coast, between British Columbia and southern California there are also good sites for wind, and solar power.
People like you are looking for the next big thing in energy when a bunch of different technologies can be used instead. You're focused on one solution when there are many others.
Slashdot Mirror
And why is this? Because when MS even tries to include a web browser and a media player, they get their asses chewed out by the EU for anticompetitive behavior. You can't expect MS to provide nothing and everything at the same time...
Bundling isn't the problem, the problem was when Microsoft told OEMs they could install Microsoft products but not competitors' products. Way back when I would of liked the option between MS Word and Word Perfect, Internet Explorer and/or Netscape.
Falcon
I do it on the command line - sometime in the next week or so I'll be putting Gentoo on my new machine. No clicks, all tappity-tappity on the keyboard.
Same here, but with Ubuntu Server. The past few days I've spent at least a few hours a day researching how best to install Ubuntu Server on my MacBook Pro. It'll take a couple of more days at least before I'm ready. Today I found what looks like a good book to install Ubuntu, but I'll probably need more.
Falcon
The biggest advantage to Linux in my opinion is the ability to update the various tools you need with one click or command; in Windows you can't even update all of the Microsoft products with one click.
I've had to click, and reboot, more than once when I've updated Linux. That was a couple of years ago and things may be better now though.
Falcon
On Windows XP, I haven't seen a BSOD in years on my personal system.
The first tyme I used XP it was on a brand new Dell. The Dell froze while booting up.
The ONLY times I reinstall Windows is due to hardware changes
I've bought 3 brand new PCs with Windows installed. Of them only on one I didn't have to reinstall Windows a number of tymes.
Of course, my experience with Linux has been the same: you really don't want to try to drop a whole new build without recompiling.
I want to install Ubuntu on the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on. Before I do I want to create a plan of action and get everything I need do lain out on paper. So I've spent at least a few hours a day the past few days mapping it out and I'm not ready yet. One of the things I keep coming up with is the suggestion that Ubuntu be installed in a VM using Parallels or VMWare.
Falcon
on the one hand, we have an OS that works out of the box when bought from the shop, but on the other, an OS that requires a friend to come and set it up for them.
More than two years ago I bought a new PC with the OS preinstalled. When I got it home and plugged everything in I was able to immediately use it and connected to the net to download updates for the OS and software. Guess what OS was installed. Linux. Several years ago I bought another PC, with Windows installed, and hdd. When I was asked what the second drive was for I said it was to setup a dualboot PC and I wanted the second drive for the second OS, Linux. They asked me if I wanted them to install the hdd and Linux.
On the other hand, I've been thinking about setting the computer I'm typing this on, a MacBook Pro, to dualboot. I have Leopard on it now but would like to install Ubuntu as well. So I've spend a bunch of tyme this past week researching to see how best to do it and I'm still not ready.
Falcon
I'm also leaving aside the "GIMP blows goats and has a terrible name" angle.
While I wouldn't use GIMP for professional photo editing, I like CinePaint, there are pro photographers who do use GIMP. Check out some of the discussions about GIMP on Photo.net.
Falcon
yes the benchmarks do suck, they should add the following benchmarks to event it out a bit. 1. How long it takes to load GTA IV. 2. How long it takes to load MS Word. 3. How long it takes to compile a large project with MS Visual Studio 2005.
Does GTA IV or MS Visual Studio 2005 run in Linux?
Falcon
I don't care how much space the install takes up
It matters to me, the less hdd space the OS takes the more space I have for files.
I don't care how long it takes to install because I only do that once and I don't care how long it takes to boot-up because I leave my computers on.
I may bootup and shutdown 2 or 3 tymes a day.
Of the remaining two, I rarely if ever copy files from USB to HD
I do the opposite, copy files from the HDD to an external drive. I used to use a USB 2 drive, which was slow but now I use a Firewire 800 drive which is faster.
I have no idea how well this benchmark represents common task I perform such as browsing, movie watching and game playing.
My common tasks are browsing, design, programming, and photography.
Falcon
Why in hell does it take over a minute to boot these systems? OSX on my older Mac Pro takes about 25 seconds. Shutdown takes like 4-5 seconds.
I haven't sat there and tymed it but my MacBook Pro 3,1 takes about a minute from pushing the power button to the desktop. Then again I have more than 1 user profile. Sometimes shutdown is quick but other tymes it may take longer. Because I've been thinking about installing Ubuntu on it to dualboot I may find out how long it takes for Ubuntu to bootup and shutdown.
Falcon
So use another printer. CUPS, Common Unix Printing System, works with other printers. I had three different printers work with it, and all I did was plug them in.
Falcon
Except that you can only sorta check your email or do word processing on Linux.
When I last used Linux I had no problem checking my email or doing word processing. That was about 1 1/2 years ago and things have gotten better. I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro and I do the same stuff on it. Actually the past few days I've been researching how to install Ubuntu on it to dualboot Leopard and Ubuntu.
Thunderbird does IMAP ok, but IMAP is not a replacement for all that Exchange does.
So? Thunderbird works for me and I don't need to use Exchange. When I do need something like it there's OpenChange and others that are at least partially compatible.
So if your netbook is just for reading then fine. If you ever think you're getting some work done on the airplane you're wrong. * I mean the business side of work not actual work like writing software.
I'm not sure what you mean but this, writing or programming software isn't a business? Of course I wouldn't want to use a netbook for that. I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro and though I carry it with me a lot there's nothing smaller I'd want, bigger but not smaller.
Falcon
Because most people WANT TO RUN THEIR APPS and not dick around with Linux. When will people realise that vast majority of the mass market actually wants windows and will continue to want Windows for the foreseeable future.
I agree with the first part but not the second. I don't think people want Windows, they want something they are used to or what they use at work. And though Windows still has the biggest, by far, marketshare it's it is falling. I also think people aren't aware there are apps for the other OSes that can do what they want their apps to do. For instance how many people know there's a version of Office for Macs? Macs come with a 30 day trialware of Office. About 17 months ago I switched from Windows to OS X and before I did I made a list of what I wanted to do then looked to see if there was Mac software that did it.
Falcon
If I am going to buy a netbook with a 1.6 GHz Atom CPU, 1 GB of RAM and integrated graphics, I'm going to want something that runs fast.
I think it's a mistake to buy a netbook to use to do anything that requires more speed than surfing the net. If you need something faster but portable then get a laptop.
Falcon
If you have a hot water tank, perhaps an electric one without the heating elements connected*, you'd have hot water from the day before and have your warm/hot shower
To keep the water harm if not hot in a tank the water heater would have to continually cycle on and off just as refrigerators and freezers do. Every time a heater or cooler cycles on the power spikes, and the water isn't always being used. A point of use water heater only runs when the water is being used though. See the Tank-Type versus Tankless box.
If you mean you can use a solar water heater to heat water before a tank in conjunction with a point of use heater, then yes it may be more efficient. I thought I said that before, but I went up this tread and didn't see it so maybe I said it in another thread.
That $420 Billion would provide almost 3,000 gigawatts with PV technology, a lot more than even 400 Gigawatts.
Still have the difference between 'subsidy' and 'build' Don't forget the disadvantage solar has over nuclear when it comes to demand and capacity factors.
Nuclear power will need subsidies as well. Wall Street will not finance nuclear power plants without some subsides. Here's an article that first appeared in "Forbes" on 26 November 2007, "Hooked on Subsidies"
"Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power." Whereas coal generated electricity costs 3.53 cent per KWH and "clean coal" it's 3.55 cents per KWH, without subsidies nuclear power generated electricity cost 5.94 cents per KWH. If the subsidies for coal are removed coal is still cheaper, 3.79 cents and 4.37 cents for clean coal.
For a typical power system, the rule of thumb is that the base load power is usually 35-40% of the maximum load during the year.
Wow, that's more than I thought. If the Science Daily link you provided was right then the coal plants would all be needed but the LNG plants could be closed.
I'd say more engineering needs to be done; yes, they can use the waste sitting in casks and cooling ponds as fuel. Depending on design, you can even pull rods/fuel/waste from the plant and reprocess it to provide MORE fuel to the more standard plants.
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.
I wonder why France would build the BN-600 in Russia.
Falcon
I'd expect Clearchannel to broadcast immediately on every frequency because they have the money to put up antennae very fast and begin to broadcast crap.
Not even Clear Channel has enough money to broadcast on every frequency everywhere. And from a business perspective that would be stupid to try. Even if they could though it would take a while, meanwhile pirate radio broadcasters would be able to legally broadcast. Businesses and people could even be barred from broadcasting on all frequencies.
As it is mass media broadcasters got as big as they did, and today's big broadcasters aren't the same as those 20 years ago, because government started requiring licenses, and it's hard to get a license without money.
Falcon
I wouldn't say MP/RIAAs business model is dead but they do need to modify it.
The publisher is no longer required to publish the music, the creators of the music can simply do it themselves.
I think that some local bands around here do, publish their own stuff. Actually some release vinyl records.
The time period in history for charging for 'dead' music rather than live music is over
If I had a turntable, I hope to get one RSN, there are old albums I'd buy such as BTO, Beatles, ZZ Top and others.
So distributed music media is going the direction of the vinyl record.
Those vinyl records are making a comeback. "Back to the future: Vinyl record sales double in '08, CDs down". Best Buy is selling records in some stores.
Falcon
Learned Hand, a famous American jurist, used "piracy" to describe copyright infringement in the wee years of the 20th century (I read the case in law school, but I can't find it off hand to cite for you; hopefully my positive karma creates at least a modicum of trust that I'm, at a minimum, not lying outright).
Oh, I agree some use "piracy" for copyright infringement but legally it isn't any more correct than it is to use "stealing" instead, which some also use.
The point is that our copyright system is so royally screwed up at this point that it is impossible for anyone who has the internet to not have infringed copyright at some point or another.
Not only is the copyright system messed up but the patent system is too.
Falcon
Oh gosh, before I submitted this I wanted to check to see if "Black's Law Dictionary" was online to see if it had "piracy". The fifth Google result is a torrent for it.
You WANT the tank to store hot water overnight, even if you never use the electric elements.
No I don't, by keeping water warm you're wasting energy, heating only the water used at the point of use saves energy.
That $420 Billion would provide almost 3,000 gigawatts with PV technology, a lot more than even 400 Gigawatts.
Source? I was simply using the number quoted by the 'grand plan'.
The link I provided, it's the print version of the SciAm article. Check where it says "Photovoltaic Farms", the second paragraph below it. "In our plan, by 2050 photovoltaic technology would provide almost 3,000 gigawatts (GW), or billions of watts, of power." Then about half way down to "Stage One: Present to 2020", in the paragraph below it says "The cumulative subsidy would total $420 billion" This would be spent between now and 2020 after which solar would become competitive.
Falcon
I'm not sure if retrofitting or a tear down and rebuild is better, older buildings already have a lot of embedded energy.
My house also has things like cloth-wrapped electrical wiring, plaster and lathe walls, an overcomplicated roof, was already expanded three times, poorly laid out, etc...
It sounds like tear down and rebuild would be better for you. Maybe what you could do is keep the shell though.
Falcon
you want to double our NG production, taking us from about ~50 years of capacity to less than 25.
Currently LNG generates 20% of the electricity in the US, that should be enough for the baseload.
With breeder reactors or proper reprocessing, we reduce the amount of waste by something like 90%
My memory may be wrong but I think you said you had worked at the Monju reactor in Japan. According to wiki, which I'll grant may be wrong, the only breeder reactors that were commercially operating was Monju and the BN-600 reactor in Russia. Monju was closed though and BN-600 has had a number of leaks. Every other breeder reactor I could find is only in the test stage, such as those in France and Japan. Are there any commercially operating breeder reactors actually other than the two above? Or is more research needed before they are put into production? If there are any in production can use the waste sitting in casks and cooling ponds at operating power plants be used as fuel for them?
What I'm puzzled about is I found this webpage that says BN-600 is France's. It also mentions France's Super-Phenix but it doesn't say whether it's in commercial operation or if it is a test reactor.
Falcon
Can't we just force the patent examiners to use Google search instead?
That's already patented.
Falcon
I was listening to NPR talking about how reducing CO2 emissions 80% by 2050 won't be enough. Coal->NG doesn't save 80% on CO2 emissions, and I'm still skeptical about the practicality of various sequestriation activities. Basically, I view them as time bombs as large or larger than nuclear waste would be.
I agree reducing emissions won't be enough, we need to stop emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases. I also don't think sequestration is a solution, instead it's used to justify continuing to emit GHGs. Some say the hydrogen economy is the answer however even that will emit a GHG, water vapour. Yes, it precipitates as rain and it has a short half life but more will be in the atmosphere.
Nuclear power CAN scale up and down fairly quickly, just not off and on
Do you have a link for this? I thought LNG could be ramped up or reduced quickly whereas nuclear could not.
I'm all for insulating buildings, I think I even mentioned tearing down and rebuilding houses occasionally making a lot of sense. Still, that's a long term solution at the fastest.
True, it would take a long tyme to retrofit old buildings with insulation that has a high R value.
My house already has all the insulation that's practical given it's design(though new windows would help some), I honestly assess it to be at the 'tear down and build fresh' state(for a multitude of reasons).
I'm not sure if retrofitting or a tear down and rebuild is better, older buildings already have a lot of embedded energy. Perhaps a case by case methodology would be best. Earlier I said I rented an apartment my sister owned and the plan was that she'd sell the building to me when I could qualify for a mortgage. What I'd like to do is to save up money and have an architect redesign the building, using as much of the material it was built with, to be as energy efficient as it could be within financial reason (one that I could afford). What I've been thinking is to gut out the building shell, remodel the interior, and put preformed concrete on the outside for more insulation. For heating I'd use radiant floor heating, either electric or geothermal, I'm not sure which would be better here. The building has gabled roofing but I'd rather the roof be flat. Then I'd be able to plant a garden on it. About a year and a half ago my sister replaced the windows so I don't know if it would be better to keep them or get more efficient windows.
I've recommended solar water heating to my relatives down in florida, but given my latitude and the resulting extra costs for solar water heating
I moved from Florida. I really miss being within an hour of the coast. What is you latitude? Solar hot water works in Oregon and Washington state. It works in Maine as well. But maybe it's out of your financing.
I think I'll stick to using the heat pump to provide hot water
I've thought of that, using geothermal energy to provide hot water, but I think I'd use a tankless point of use water heater. Perhaps a solar hot water heater can be used to preheat the water.
If I stay in the state when I leave my current job, I won't need the cooling part often, so it'll help when I want hot water in the summer.
I don't want to stay where I am, Minnesota, but I don't know where I'd move to. Wherever it is I have three things I'd like to be met, it be on the coast, be mountainous, and where I could garden 6 months of the year. However for the short term I want to go back to college and study abroad in Brazil for a year.
Another point would be that I think we should concentrate on getting people off of o
Ok, you obviously have a personal beef with the school system. And that's fine, there's a lot of fucked up stuff there. But that doesn't mean the answer is to tear down the system entirely.
The answer is to offer choices, and yes that means tearing down the walls of monopoly. I'll say though it's not everyone, for instance I liked how my second grade teacher held class. When I had her it was her first year teaching, she'd just graduated from college. She had all sorts of teaching aids in class and allowed the students to learn at their own paces in some subjects; math, reading, and vocabulary are the ones I recall. She encouraged the students who were ahead to help slower students. Two friends of mine and I were compeating with each other to see who was ahead, every week we took a quiz or test to see how we were doing. By the end of the year all three of us were at the 6th grade level in those subjects that were self paced. It was a real downer when we were stuck in "regular" classes in third grade, if only we could have kept going self paced.
Sure, you got screwed on math courses, but you said you took a bunch of science. Presumably you had lab equipment that helped that experience, as well as teachers who were relatively specialized in their field.
Some parents who homeschool their children will have their children in school for part of the day, then homeschool them as well. This way kids can get science education and socializing.
Could your parents honestly have replicated either of those things, especially with a reduced income due to having one or both of them trying to work their time around the home schooling process?
A group of families could do this, yes. I was even given a chemistry lab kit with 101 or 1001 experiments as a gift. I went through that in short order. However I have not seen any of them in stores since 911, and I've looked for them.
Falcon
It may be good to have a parent at home, but the number of households that have the option is in rapid decline.
Part of the reason is because people live beyond their means.
I do consider raising kids a real job, just not a very well-paying one
It isn't well paying true, so instead parents just dump their children in daycare or leave to be latchkey kids.
Anyway, I'd go absolutely insane if I had to stay home with kids all day instead of working with a group of peers, and if I feel that way I couldn't in good conscience ask my wife to give up the chance at a career outside the home.
It may not be true in your case but some couples are able to work and take care of children. The parents can work different hours besides working from home. I can't now myself but I had wanted to work from home myself.
As under-funded as they are, there's still a number of things that high school provides that you just can't replicate in the home unless you're obscenely wealthy.
If not for an adviser in jr high I would have been able to do better in school. Though I took 3 1/2 years of science in HS when only 1 year was required the most I took for math was algebra. When I was going into 7th grade an adviser told me because I didn't know how to do square roots I couldn't take algebra. So I spent from then until 10th grade taking as advanced a math class as I could without taking algebra. Then in the 3rd month of 10th grade the teacher I had for math held the homework paper I just turned in out in front of class then ripped it up. I blew up and went to see my counselor. I told her I had to get out of that class and after she looked at my school records she said I should have taken algebra. When I said I couldn't because I didn't know how to do square roots she told me that you learn to do them in algebra. If my head had been a volcano it would have been erupting then. Because it was too late she put me into a pre-algebra class. That still burns me up, if I had been allowed to take algebra in 7th grade I would have been able to take calculus in high school.
Falcon
Okay, in advocating that there's enough NG to replace coal and nuclear you post a link that says "but LNG will not be a panacea for North American natural gas shortfall" ?
It wasn't meant as a permanent replacement for coal or nuclear, only as a way LNG can be used until there is a better method of generating a baseload of energy.
Second link - aren't we trying to gain energy independence from the middle east?
Both the first link and third list places where LNG come from that are not in the Middle East. The first one lists Trinidad and Tobago which is in the Caribbean. The third lists Barents Sea which is between Greenland and Northern Europe.
Besides - Natural Gas Imported To US For Electricity Generation May Be Environmentally Worse Than Coal.
That's for the link, I didn't see that before. However as you quoted in your post as a baseline capacity it should not matter if LNG plants operate at a low capacity. They are after all only meant to serve for when alternative sources do not provide enough energy.
By the way, that also increases costs for people trying to heat their homes with 97% efficient NG systems.
Properly insulated building reduce if not eliminate the need to heat with LNG. There are other ways to heat as well. Former President Bush used geothermal heating to heat his Crawford, Texas ranch. People in New York City use geothermal heating. People also use solar thermal heating, even in Northern Europe.
We'd need 27 trillion cubic feet per year to replace the coal & nuclear plants.
Only if LNG were to replace coal and nuclear, but not if it is only used as a baseload. That means when alternative energy sources do not provide enough energy. However as I said earlier SciAm has the article "A Solar Grand Plan" that says "solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." For wind power, the Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind power to supple electricity to the 48 continuous states. On the East Coast Cape Cod, Cape Hatteras, and points in between the Carolinas and Mass are good places for offshore wind farms. On the West Coast, between British Columbia and southern California there are also good sites for wind, and solar power.
People like you are looking for the next big thing in energy when a bunch of different technologies can be used instead. You're focused on one solution when there are many others.
Falcon