I don't know about this treaty. But it does appear to be a pretty flimsy argument.
Yea a lot of treaties the US signed were flimsy as the US broke them.
If Yucca is used then I think vitrification should also be used. Another possible storage may be Sub-Seabed Disposal in Stable Clay Formations. I admit something needs to be done, the waste that's already been generated needs to be safely stored, but what I think needs to be done is to close operating nuclear power plants and use alternative renewable energy sources such as geothermal, solar, and wind. If there's going to be subsidies then these should be the ones subsidized.
NO! Who the hell invests their money for anything other than a nice stock price and/or dividend?
Warren Buffet "chooses stocks solely on the basis of their overall potential as a company - he looks at each as a whole."
Do you honestly expect Yahoo stock to hit the price MS was offering in a reasonable amount of time?
Not many will have the same opinion on this, what a reasonable tyme period for one person is too short for someone else and too long for a third person. Even traders are like this, besides the day trader people know about there's also swing traders and trend followers. Whereas a day trader sells stocks they bought during the day at the end of the day, they take an all cash position at the end of the day, trend followers take a long view and swing traders take the middle ground and look at both the short and long term.
It's funny how MS-bashers have created such a finely-honed and specific definition of "monopoly" that it only applies to Microsoft, as if no other company can be evil but them.
Speaking of MS bashers, I think it's funny the first post ranting about Microsoft and monopolies is yours.
Really? Look at the 1y or 2y graphs and let me know that isn't a "decline".
Google shows Yahoo!'s lowest price in 2007 was $22.73 and in 2006 was $23.21. That's a $1.48 decline, which isn't much of a decline especially when you look economic cycles. Unless you look at Google's rise.
I say "continue to decline" because they are almost $10 off their share price from only a year ago. That's a decline, last I checked.
On 4 May 2007 Yahoo closed at $30.98, Yahoo!'s 4th highest close in 2007. Today it closed at $25.72. The difference between them isn't $10, it's only half that.
Even the nuclear waste can be disposed off in a single location (that is, Yucca Mountain in Nevada).
Yea, let's bury nuclear waste in a seismically active area a couple of hundred miles from a supervolcano. The fact is is Yucca was selected due to political considerations. When the search for a permanent storage site started there were 5 places on the list, however because politically speaking it was the weakest state Nevada was chosen. Since then, in the 1970s, a building on Yucca mountain was damaged in an earthquake and several year ago the area was rattled by another earthquake. However that totally disregards a treaty the US signed, with the Western Shoshone Indians. The Treaty of Ruby Valley was signed in 1863 giving them Yucca Mountain. But just as the US has broken many other treaties this one will be broken as well.
We'd need some higher-voltage DC in our walls to make it really usable for everything without costing a fortune in wiring.
Not being wealthy most of those who go off the grid have to think about things like that and are able to get by, even if it means they have to change their life style from being wasteful to being conservative but which can save them money.
It seems to make sense for low-power devices like LED lights; when I go off-grid (it's on the roadmap...) then I intend to use as much low-power stuff as possible; the mini home theater with the LED projector, the SFF computers and laptops, low-power appliances, solar water heat, solar air heat, et cetera. I live in a rented passive solar home now
I rent where I live as well, and it's an energy hog. It's an old home that was converted into 4 apartments. Last year my sister, who owns the building, replaced all the old windows with more efficient ones. I plan on doing more myself. I'm on disability and don't work, so when enough of the mortgage principle is paid off she'll sell it to me where I'll take over the mortgage. After saving money for a few years I want to gut the building, add more insulation, and replace the appliances with energy efficient models.
It seems France is using Fast Breeder Reactors. From "Science Magazine" dated 1980 "Breeder Reactors in France". Ok, Sciam says France shut down it's breeder reactor, but it doesn't say why. However the nuclear waste, or reprocessed fuel, wasn't the only problem the Spectrum article said the French had, they also had all the toxic chemicals left over from reprocessing.
I admit research may solve all the problems with nuclear power, but so can research with alternative energy sources, geothermal, solar, wind, and others. And with these others, whereas nuclear power requires massive centralized plants that when decommissioned can't be used for anything else, they can have distributed and decentralized electrical generation. I think the energy problem comes from centralized power generation. Another is waste, conservation measures can cut the US's energy needs down a lot as well as waste heat going up smoke stacks when it can be recovered. As more and more Off Gridders are showing simple conservation measures can go a long way to satisfying US energy needs.
The Cold War was vastly more important than the East Timorese. There was no logical reason to choose them over Suharto, so we didn't.
Being human doesn't count? Let's see what the courts say if I start shooting people, after raping the women.
"For senior officials, the fate of a post-colonial East Timor paled in comparison to the strategic relationship with the anti-communist Suharto regime, especially in the wake of the communist victory in Vietnam, when Ford and Kissinger wanted to strengthen relations with anti-communists and check left-wing movements in the region."
To them and you maybe but people are important to me and genocide is genocide no matter who it's against.
My god, that is a genius statement. Other problems like what, exactly? We already know how to deal with every single one of the problems that arises from the generation of nuclear power.
Ok wise one, enlighten us. How do you mine uranium cleanly? How do you process it cleanly? How do you store it cleanly? And how do you take care of the buildings at their end of life cleanly?
To generate a lifetime of energy for all your personal needs, that is 80 years of power consumption, the amount of nuclear waste generated will fit inside your coffee cup. Using a coal fired plant or even natural gas would fill a football stadium.
Did you miss where I brought up Geothermal, solar, and wind power?
I hope you've heard of terms like Base load, intermediate load, and peak load?
So, what does that have to do with it, or didn't you read the "Scientific American" article? I guess they're morons who know nothing, at least according to you.
For base load, there are three options, Hydroelectric, Fossil fuel (NG/Coal), or Nuclear. Anything outside of those options for viable base load is some scientist who is looking for grant money.
Again do I need to point out Sciam's article? Or Geothermal? Despite what you say geothermal provides a base load as well. And while the sun does shine in one location for 24 hours, the wind blows day AND night.
Transmitting electricity as DC at high voltages reduces the loss.
It mskes sense to use DC in many applications, but transmission to homes and businesses isn't one of them, because of the added cost of conversion hardware per-customer.
My understanding is that using HVDC for distribution is usually less efficient than using AC due to the cost of conversion.
Of course where HVDC is used by the tyme it reaches the point of use it's been stepped down and converted to AC. And while there's a loss when converting, it's not as much a loss as what would be lost by transmitting it long distances over AC lines. It would actually be more efficient to use the DC instead of converting the DC electricity to AC and then using the AC. And it's compleatly possible to use the DC, those who build Off the Grid use DC instead of AC.
That's easy, spam is unsolicited commercial e-mail. I apply it to snail mail as well.
Then you have to apply it to sales-pitches on the street (and the handing out of fliers). And that activity is certainly protected by the First Amendment...
No I don't, I can and easily do avoid sales pitches on the street, but I can't avoid spam that makes it past my filter or is placed in my mailbox.
Mining and enrichment could theoretically be carbon-free if you used clean nuclear power as the power source.
Carbon isn't the only pollution. But if you want to go that route, solar can be theoretically carbon-free if you used solar as the power source, as can wind if you use wind as the energy source.
The disposition of nuclear waste is a political problem, not a technical one.
Tell that to the French where many people support nuclear power.
Nobody's suggesting that we don't use the available wind, geothermal, or tidal power. If that's not sufficient,
Ah but those alternatives are sufficient. Sciam, "Scientific American", published "A Solar Grand Plan" that details how solar power can provide 69% of the US's energy needs by 2050. If that isn't enough the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory published the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States showing the wind resources the US has, which is a lot. The Rocky has enough potential wind power to provide the 48 contiguous states with most if not all the energy needed. Another good energy source, in some locations, is Geothermal. Fact is is alternative energy sources like those above can provide the US with all of it's energy needs easily, technologically speaking.
Not a useful observation to make. Human activity is polluting. If you're not polluting, you're either dead or not doing anything.
There's a big difference between using resources in a manner that causes little if any harm and creating hugh natural problems like nuclear power does.
Huh? That's a 1986-style Greenpeace mantra. Nuclear power is not polluting unless someone very, very seriously screws up.
It most certainly is polluting. I suggest you check into the pollution caused by uranium mining. And a lot of the mining is done on Native lands, who are left to clean it up or live with it. Some Navajo have to live with physical ailments caused by the mining on their land.
It's like saying that airplanes kill civilians and destroy buildings.
You're right, it's people who kill other people and destroy buildings, and in the case of uranium it's those who demand uranium which results in the mining of it.
Tell you what, if you support nuclear power how about supporting a free market in it? Let's see how fast companies will want to build nuclear power plants when they have to buy insurance on their own, The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act shields plants from liability. So let's see if LLoyds of London would insure them, as in a free market there would be no shield. No less than the libertarian free market CATO Institute says of nuclear power "the costs of nuclear power are shared by the public but the profits are enjoyed privately." It goes on about how an investment banking and financial services firm concluded that if 3 subsidies came to an end the nuclear power industry would ground to a halt, one of them being Price Anderson.
Now I hope you're not going to say how CATO is a Greenpeace like environmental organization.
if permafrost "defrosts" it will reduce albedo and will rise CO2 levels by itself;
With the permafrost melting the CO2 released isn't as big a concern as the release of methane will be. Decomposing dead plants sinking into lakes creates a lot of methane which is 20 tymes more effective as a Greenhouse Gas than CO2.
Another fact that some don't know about is that high CO2 levels in the atmosphere turn the oceans acidic which threatens marine animals adversely, especially shellfish. The acid eats the shells.
Planting trees in cold climates would increase warming not decrease or slow it.
Hmmm... hadn't thought of that. Are tundra areas typically covered with snow most of the time?
It depends on where the tundra is I guess. Arizona has tundra, approximately five square kilometers of alpine tundra exist above 3,500 meters on Mt. Humphreys in the San Francisco Peaks, yet I somehow don't think it's covered with snow most of the tyme.
I just had a look in wikipedia and a lot of the examples were more rocky than snowy, and also with grasses and small plants.
Also check the Google image search results for tundra biome. I may be wrong but I wouldn't think the rocks would adsorb as much heat as trees and the grass and small plants don't have the mass a tree does.
It also depends on how much difference a few trees would make to the albedo of the earth at that latitube vs the lower carbon footprint of the data center (due to less cooling requirements)
Actually the heat generated in the server rooms could be used to heat the rest of the buildings.
and the carbon that the trees themselves are sucking out of the air.
Ah but because printing is, er was, so expensive if there were no computers there'd be less documents.
I addressed that in the following paragraph that you didn't quote...
Sorry, I missed it 'til too late.
While I have no real evidence to back up this belief, I think you're probably in the minority there... most people do NOT print articles to read them.
I print them because as I said, reading more than a couple of pages online at once bothers my eyes. I realize I'm in a minority there.
I really meant ALL hardware - my car, telephone, fridge, camera and computer hardware all came with softcopy manuals.
When I bought a new car, well used as I've bought several and only the last one was new, I also bought the Chilton's Repair Manual for it as well. I used to do my own car repairs and oil changes, including rebuilding the engine when needed, but I can't now.
note that I don't own a TV and haven't for about 7 years
The last TV I bought I got about 8 years ago. Now I'm looking for an HDTV, see I'm on disability and don't get out much.
If people would just start thinking realistically about these problems and allow the building of Nuclear Power plants, this problem would be solved.
Then you'd just be exchanging one set of problems for another.
And while on the subject, I used to think that these people were simply "NIMBY's", the age old Not In My Back Yard type of folks. But these people aren't NIMBY's, These people are BANANAS! Build Almost Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. They are flat out anti-progress and they do it in the nicest way "we're trying to help".
I and a lot of other people are all for building geothermal and solar power plants as well as wind farms, even in their own back yards. The state I live in, Minnesota, has a number of wind farms and I'm all for building more. Not only is it relatively clean but it also creates a new income stream for farmers. If I lived in California near Yellowstone I'd be just as supportive of building geothermal plants there as is currently done in Hawaii. And if I lived in Cape Cod I'd be just as supportive of building off shore wind farms.
I say BULLSHIT! You have three choices: Nuclear Power, Agrarian Society, Global Warming. Pick one.
What's BULLSHIT is this. The Rocky Mountains along have almost enough potential wind power to provide all of the lower 48 states with electricity. And as that Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States shows other states have a lot of potential wind power as well. In "A Solar Grand Plan" Sciam lays out how solar power can provide "69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity" by 2050. In "Hot Rocks: Tapping an Underutilized Renewable Resource" Sciam reports how geothermal power plants can provide a lot of energy as well. Since 2000 "a geothermal power plant in northern California" has been powering 750,000 homes. Yellowstone is capable of generating more. In Hawaii geothermal provides the Big Island (Puna) with 30% of it's electricity.
I think the anecdotal evidence is pretty strong in that the vast majority of people I know print less than 10% of their "documents" (be it email, manuals, ebooks, or whatever else). One can only really assume that if it weren't for computers, 100% of this would be "printed".
Ah but because printing is, er was, so expensive if there were no computers there'd be less documents. It like what some people brought up multiple tymes on/. about copyrights. Their point was that computers and the interest have brought down the cost of publishing so much so that copyrights are no longer needed. Instead of relying on a big publisher, a writer can self publish. They can create a pdf of a book and use the net to distribute it. Then if a reader likes it and wants to support the writer they could just order a printed and signed copy of the book from the writer, who can either print the books him or her self or go to an on demand printer.
But, for example, do you print all the Slashdot comments before reading and replying? Or every email you receive? Or the user manuals for the new hardware you buy that normally comes on CD? Or the user manuals for the new hardware you buy that normally comes on CD?
I haven't seen any/. posts that are more than a couple of pages, so no I don't print them. But I do print articles longer than a couple of pages. Just as with/. posts, none of the emails I get are long, actually most are only a paragraph or two. As for manuals for hardware, the only hardware I've bought in a few years is the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on that I got last summer and a tower PC I got about a year earlier. For the MBP I bought two books and for the PC I didn't need much.
Oh well, looks like SolarHost is not a good choice.... could be because it is 3:47 am in Florida... still dark:)
Umph, "The website address you entered could not be found". I first heard about it several years ago, maybe they went out of business. I wonder why WebHostingStuff still has that page, the date in the upper right corner says May 4, 2008.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea politics matters more than science.
I don't know about this treaty. But it does appear to be a pretty flimsy argument.
Yea a lot of treaties the US signed were flimsy as the US broke them.
If Yucca is used then I think vitrification should also be used. Another possible storage may be Sub-Seabed Disposal in Stable Clay Formations. I admit something needs to be done, the waste that's already been generated needs to be safely stored, but what I think needs to be done is to close operating nuclear power plants and use alternative renewable energy sources such as geothermal, solar, and wind. If there's going to be subsidies then these should be the ones subsidized.
FalconNO! Who the hell invests their money for anything other than a nice stock price and/or dividend?
Warren Buffet "chooses stocks solely on the basis of their overall potential as a company - he looks at each as a whole."
Do you honestly expect Yahoo stock to hit the price MS was offering in a reasonable amount of time?
Not many will have the same opinion on this, what a reasonable tyme period for one person is too short for someone else and too long for a third person. Even traders are like this, besides the day trader people know about there's also swing traders and trend followers. Whereas a day trader sells stocks they bought during the day at the end of the day, they take an all cash position at the end of the day, trend followers take a long view and swing traders take the middle ground and look at both the short and long term.
FalconI do not (and never have believed) that Jerry Yang and the rest of the Yahoo board was ever were serious about selling the company.
First there were no negotiations, Microsoft simply extended an offer which the Yahoo! board turned down.
For example, look at the actions the board and management took right after the offer was announced.
The board didn't want to be eaten so they took steps they thought would slow down an acquirer.
They enacted huge employee termination compensation plans, including golden parachutes for management.
That's standard practice in business, and has been for a long tyme businesswise.
They tried to make a deal to acquire a portion of AOL
Citation please.
FalconIt's funny how MS-bashers have created such a finely-honed and specific definition of "monopoly" that it only applies to Microsoft, as if no other company can be evil but them.
Speaking of MS bashers, I think it's funny the first post ranting about Microsoft and monopolies is yours.
FalconReally? Look at the 1y or 2y graphs and let me know that isn't a "decline".
Google shows Yahoo!'s lowest price in 2007 was $22.73 and in 2006 was $23.21. That's a $1.48 decline, which isn't much of a decline especially when you look economic cycles. Unless you look at Google's rise.
I say "continue to decline" because they are almost $10 off their share price from only a year ago. That's a decline, last I checked.
On 4 May 2007 Yahoo closed at $30.98, Yahoo!'s 4th highest close in 2007. Today it closed at $25.72. The difference between them isn't $10, it's only half that.
FalconEven the nuclear waste can be disposed off in a single location (that is, Yucca Mountain in Nevada).
Yea, let's bury nuclear waste in a seismically active area a couple of hundred miles from a supervolcano. The fact is is Yucca was selected due to political considerations. When the search for a permanent storage site started there were 5 places on the list, however because politically speaking it was the weakest state Nevada was chosen. Since then, in the 1970s, a building on Yucca mountain was damaged in an earthquake and several year ago the area was rattled by another earthquake. However that totally disregards a treaty the US signed, with the Western Shoshone Indians. The Treaty of Ruby Valley was signed in 1863 giving them Yucca Mountain. But just as the US has broken many other treaties this one will be broken as well.
FalconWe'd need some higher-voltage DC in our walls to make it really usable for everything without costing a fortune in wiring.
Not being wealthy most of those who go off the grid have to think about things like that and are able to get by, even if it means they have to change their life style from being wasteful to being conservative but which can save them money.
It seems to make sense for low-power devices like LED lights; when I go off-grid (it's on the roadmap...) then I intend to use as much low-power stuff as possible; the mini home theater with the LED projector, the SFF computers and laptops, low-power appliances, solar water heat, solar air heat, et cetera. I live in a rented passive solar home now
I rent where I live as well, and it's an energy hog. It's an old home that was converted into 4 apartments. Last year my sister, who owns the building, replaced all the old windows with more efficient ones. I plan on doing more myself. I'm on disability and don't work, so when enough of the mortgage principle is paid off she'll sell it to me where I'll take over the mortgage. After saving money for a few years I want to gut the building, add more insulation, and replace the appliances with energy efficient models.
FalconIt seems France is using Fast Breeder Reactors. From "Science Magazine" dated 1980 "Breeder Reactors in France". Ok, Sciam says France shut down it's breeder reactor, but it doesn't say why. However the nuclear waste, or reprocessed fuel, wasn't the only problem the Spectrum article said the French had, they also had all the toxic chemicals left over from reprocessing.
I admit research may solve all the problems with nuclear power, but so can research with alternative energy sources, geothermal, solar, wind, and others. And with these others, whereas nuclear power requires massive centralized plants that when decommissioned can't be used for anything else, they can have distributed and decentralized electrical generation. I think the energy problem comes from centralized power generation. Another is waste, conservation measures can cut the US's energy needs down a lot as well as waste heat going up smoke stacks when it can be recovered. As more and more Off Gridders are showing simple conservation measures can go a long way to satisfying US energy needs.
FalconThe Cold War was vastly more important than the East Timorese. There was no logical reason to choose them over Suharto, so we didn't.
Being human doesn't count? Let's see what the courts say if I start shooting people, after raping the women.
"For senior officials, the fate of a post-colonial East Timor paled in comparison to the strategic relationship with the anti-communist Suharto regime, especially in the wake of the communist victory in Vietnam, when Ford and Kissinger wanted to strengthen relations with anti-communists and check left-wing movements in the region."
To them and you maybe but people are important to me and genocide is genocide no matter who it's against.
FalconMy god, that is a genius statement. Other problems like what, exactly? We already know how to deal with every single one of the problems that arises from the generation of nuclear power.
Ok wise one, enlighten us. How do you mine uranium cleanly? How do you process it cleanly? How do you store it cleanly? And how do you take care of the buildings at their end of life cleanly?
To generate a lifetime of energy for all your personal needs, that is 80 years of power consumption, the amount of nuclear waste generated will fit inside your coffee cup. Using a coal fired plant or even natural gas would fill a football stadium.
Did you miss where I brought up Geothermal, solar, and wind power?
I hope you've heard of terms like Base load, intermediate load, and peak load?
So, what does that have to do with it, or didn't you read the "Scientific American" article? I guess they're morons who know nothing, at least according to you.
For base load, there are three options, Hydroelectric, Fossil fuel (NG/Coal), or Nuclear. Anything outside of those options for viable base load is some scientist who is looking for grant money.
Again do I need to point out Sciam's article? Or Geothermal? Despite what you say geothermal provides a base load as well. And while the sun does shine in one location for 24 hours, the wind blows day AND night.
FalconTransmitting electricity as DC at high voltages reduces the loss.
It mskes sense to use DC in many applications, but transmission to homes and businesses isn't one of them, because of the added cost of conversion hardware per-customer.
My understanding is that using HVDC for distribution is usually less efficient than using AC due to the cost of conversion.
Of course where HVDC is used by the tyme it reaches the point of use it's been stepped down and converted to AC. And while there's a loss when converting, it's not as much a loss as what would be lost by transmitting it long distances over AC lines. It would actually be more efficient to use the DC instead of converting the DC electricity to AC and then using the AC. And it's compleatly possible to use the DC, those who build Off the Grid use DC instead of AC.
FalconThat's easy, spam is unsolicited commercial e-mail. I apply it to snail mail as well.
Then you have to apply it to sales-pitches on the street (and the handing out of fliers). And that activity is certainly protected by the First Amendment...
No I don't, I can and easily do avoid sales pitches on the street, but I can't avoid spam that makes it past my filter or is placed in my mailbox.
FalconDO you have any stats to back this up with?
How many people do you know who print every email they send and receive ?
That doesn't answer the question about stats.
FalconMining and enrichment could theoretically be carbon-free if you used clean nuclear power as the power source.
Carbon isn't the only pollution. But if you want to go that route, solar can be theoretically carbon-free if you used solar as the power source, as can wind if you use wind as the energy source.
FalconThe disposition of nuclear waste is a political problem, not a technical one.
Tell that to the French where many people support nuclear power.
Nobody's suggesting that we don't use the available wind, geothermal, or tidal power. If that's not sufficient,
Ah but those alternatives are sufficient. Sciam, "Scientific American", published "A Solar Grand Plan" that details how solar power can provide 69% of the US's energy needs by 2050. If that isn't enough the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory published the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States showing the wind resources the US has, which is a lot. The Rocky has enough potential wind power to provide the 48 contiguous states with most if not all the energy needed. Another good energy source, in some locations, is Geothermal. Fact is is alternative energy sources like those above can provide the US with all of it's energy needs easily, technologically speaking.
FalconNot a useful observation to make. Human activity is polluting. If you're not polluting, you're either dead or not doing anything.
There's a big difference between using resources in a manner that causes little if any harm and creating hugh natural problems like nuclear power does.
FalconHuh? That's a 1986-style Greenpeace mantra. Nuclear power is not polluting unless someone very, very seriously screws up.
It most certainly is polluting. I suggest you check into the pollution caused by uranium mining. And a lot of the mining is done on Native lands, who are left to clean it up or live with it. Some Navajo have to live with physical ailments caused by the mining on their land.
It's like saying that airplanes kill civilians and destroy buildings.
You're right, it's people who kill other people and destroy buildings, and in the case of uranium it's those who demand uranium which results in the mining of it.
Tell you what, if you support nuclear power how about supporting a free market in it? Let's see how fast companies will want to build nuclear power plants when they have to buy insurance on their own, The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act shields plants from liability. So let's see if LLoyds of London would insure them, as in a free market there would be no shield. No less than the libertarian free market CATO Institute says of nuclear power "the costs of nuclear power are shared by the public but the profits are enjoyed privately." It goes on about how an investment banking and financial services firm concluded that if 3 subsidies came to an end the nuclear power industry would ground to a halt, one of them being Price Anderson.
Now I hope you're not going to say how CATO is a Greenpeace like environmental organization.
Falconif permafrost "defrosts" it will reduce albedo and will rise CO2 levels by itself;
With the permafrost melting the CO2 released isn't as big a concern as the release of methane will be. Decomposing dead plants sinking into lakes creates a lot of methane which is 20 tymes more effective as a Greenhouse Gas than CO2.
Another fact that some don't know about is that high CO2 levels in the atmosphere turn the oceans acidic which threatens marine animals adversely, especially shellfish. The acid eats the shells.
FalconPlanting trees in cold climates would increase warming not decrease or slow it.
Hmmm... hadn't thought of that. Are tundra areas typically covered with snow most of the time?
It depends on where the tundra is I guess. Arizona has tundra, approximately five square kilometers of alpine tundra exist above 3,500 meters on Mt. Humphreys in the San Francisco Peaks, yet I somehow don't think it's covered with snow most of the tyme.
I just had a look in wikipedia and a lot of the examples were more rocky than snowy, and also with grasses and small plants.
Also check the Google image search results for tundra biome. I may be wrong but I wouldn't think the rocks would adsorb as much heat as trees and the grass and small plants don't have the mass a tree does.
It also depends on how much difference a few trees would make to the albedo of the earth at that latitube vs the lower carbon footprint of the data center (due to less cooling requirements)
Actually the heat generated in the server rooms could be used to heat the rest of the buildings.
and the carbon that the trees themselves are sucking out of the air.
The effects o CO2 levels on tree growth appears to be varied, some research is showing some trees grow slower in CO2 rich environs while others show some plants grow faster. Poison Ivy is one of the plants that grows faster, ready to be itchier and have more rashes?
Falconhttp://www.solarhost.com/ looks like it is extremely unreliable.
Seeing as how my ISP couldn't find it I'd say it's totally unreliable. However I found it about 10 years ago and it was up for years.
FalconAh but because printing is, er was, so expensive if there were no computers there'd be less documents.
I addressed that in the following paragraph that you didn't quote...
Sorry, I missed it 'til too late.
While I have no real evidence to back up this belief, I think you're probably in the minority there... most people do NOT print articles to read them.
I print them because as I said, reading more than a couple of pages online at once bothers my eyes. I realize I'm in a minority there.
I really meant ALL hardware - my car, telephone, fridge, camera and computer hardware all came with softcopy manuals.
When I bought a new car, well used as I've bought several and only the last one was new, I also bought the Chilton's Repair Manual for it as well. I used to do my own car repairs and oil changes, including rebuilding the engine when needed, but I can't now.
note that I don't own a TV and haven't for about 7 years
The last TV I bought I got about 8 years ago. Now I'm looking for an HDTV, see I'm on disability and don't get out much.
If people would just start thinking realistically about these problems and allow the building of Nuclear Power plants, this problem would be solved.
Then you'd just be exchanging one set of problems for another.
And while on the subject, I used to think that these people were simply "NIMBY's", the age old Not In My Back Yard type of folks. But these people aren't NIMBY's, These people are BANANAS! Build Almost Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. They are flat out anti-progress and they do it in the nicest way "we're trying to help".
I and a lot of other people are all for building geothermal and solar power plants as well as wind farms, even in their own back yards. The state I live in, Minnesota, has a number of wind farms and I'm all for building more. Not only is it relatively clean but it also creates a new income stream for farmers. If I lived in California near Yellowstone I'd be just as supportive of building geothermal plants there as is currently done in Hawaii. And if I lived in Cape Cod I'd be just as supportive of building off shore wind farms.
I say BULLSHIT! You have three choices: Nuclear Power, Agrarian Society, Global Warming. Pick one.
What's BULLSHIT is this. The Rocky Mountains along have almost enough potential wind power to provide all of the lower 48 states with electricity. And as that Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States shows other states have a lot of potential wind power as well. In "A Solar Grand Plan" Sciam lays out how solar power can provide "69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity" by 2050. In "Hot Rocks: Tapping an Underutilized Renewable Resource" Sciam reports how geothermal power plants can provide a lot of energy as well. Since 2000 "a geothermal power plant in northern California" has been powering 750,000 homes. Yellowstone is capable of generating more. In Hawaii geothermal provides the Big Island (Puna) with 30% of it's electricity.
FalconI think the anecdotal evidence is pretty strong in that the vast majority of people I know print less than 10% of their "documents" (be it email, manuals, ebooks, or whatever else). One can only really assume that if it weren't for computers, 100% of this would be "printed".
Ah but because printing is, er was, so expensive if there were no computers there'd be less documents. It like what some people brought up multiple tymes on /. about copyrights. Their point was that computers and the interest have brought down the cost of publishing so much so that copyrights are no longer needed. Instead of relying on a big publisher, a writer can self publish. They can create a pdf of a book and use the net to distribute it. Then if a reader likes it and wants to support the writer they could just order a printed and signed copy of the book from the writer, who can either print the books him or her self or go to an on demand printer.
But, for example, do you print all the Slashdot comments before reading and replying? Or every email you receive? Or the user manuals for the new hardware you buy that normally comes on CD? Or the user manuals for the new hardware you buy that normally comes on CD?
I haven't seen any /. posts that are more than a couple of pages, so no I don't print them. But I do print articles longer than a couple of pages. Just as with /. posts, none of the emails I get are long, actually most are only a paragraph or two. As for manuals for hardware, the only hardware I've bought in a few years is the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on that I got last summer and a tower PC I got about a year earlier. For the MBP I bought two books and for the PC I didn't need much.
FalconHow about we build some refineries for the short term and nuke plants for the long term, and solve everything?
You mean create more problems to be solved don't you?
FalconOh well, looks like SolarHost is not a good choice.... could be because it is 3:47 am in Florida ... still dark :)
Umph, "The website address you entered could not be found". I first heard about it several years ago, maybe they went out of business. I wonder why WebHostingStuff still has that page, the date in the upper right corner says May 4, 2008.