I mean a single 30-second national TV ad costs a few hundred thousand dollars. For that you could get a month or two of steady work out of a top law firm.
And if you're on the receiving end of a lawsuit and you lose you can be liable for hundreds of millions of dollars. For small and medium businesses, as well as the self-employed, that can be the deathblow of the business.
Banks and lawyers. Two totally unnecessary services getting the most money from everything for nothing?!
Ah but banks are an important part of finance. Without banks saving money is difficult and people would find it harder to borrow money to buy their own homes.
Of course that's how socialists and others who want big government want it, a population dependent on government.
True but use of these will spread, and may be used in public spaces too. And while there is no privacy in public spaces, courts have ruled that at least, it can still stifle political speech.
Deployed at public gatherings, the super-mics could be zoomed in to eavesdrop on conversations between suspicious persons, or pretty much anyone the cops want to listen in on. Are you scared yet?
Are you afraid yet? Better not say something listening politicians don't like.
are very rarely, if any, removed once implemented.
That brings up one of the few things I liked in the Republicans' Pledge to America. It included this: "We will adhere to the Constitution and require every bill to cite its specific Constitutional Authority". I thought it also included a sunset clause for new laws, new laws would only be for a certain amount of tyme before they expired or were approved again, but I didn't find it this tyme.
Considering the alternative to a takedown notice is just opening up with a lawsuit, I'm not sure what about it is so evilly anti-consumer.
If your ISP is served a take-down notice because of what you uploaded, you have to prove you have the right to do so. If however a lawsuit is required they have to prove you're guilty. Personally I prefer innocent until proven guilty.
Aside from all the talk of Intellectual Property rights laws and protectionism, the video game company Turbine and the band Radiohead have a successful 'pay what you want' model that is profitable.
The Grateful Dead, who John Perry Barlow one of the founders of EFF was a lyricist for, allowed concert goers to record their music.
{US: For the purpose of this Agreement, Parties agree that patents do not fall within the scope of this Section.}
Patents was one of the sticking points, the US rep wanted to keep patents out but the Mexicans wanted patents in.
I say all of it needs to be revealed to everyone. Of course it won't be because they people would oppose it. Notice how the second article says it's an "executive agreement" instead of a "treaty." An agreement doesn't need senate approval.
Helium is going to run out, forever. Helium is a limited non-replaceable resource.
Helium is always being made anew. Alpha particles from radioactive decay is the nucleus of helium. Of course eventually radioactive particles won't last forever, but neither will humans.
an airship that can lift 150 tons has a lot of crossectional area, even if a sphere need some serious motors to keep it stable in crosswinds, updrafts etc
In addition, it might be time to encourage capture from out many natural gas wells.
Don't worry; when big oil sees dollar signs from doing so, it'll do so.
Except big oil already burns money. Those wells with gas flares are burning natural gas. It may take more infrastructure but I've often wondered why oil companies don't capture the gas then sell it too. Or they can use it to fuel generators, if there's a surplus they could sell electricity.
Sometimes it helps to stop and think before typing, you might try it sometime. When you do, in this case, the intelligent person would ask himself - how do you connect the beams on the bottom to the lifting point on the top. Then the intelligent person will re-read my message and note that I'd already mentioned that.
I read it, reread, then reread it again. Where is it where you mentioned it? Is it where you say:
"Both you and the OP are correct in different ways - and aptly illustrate why this is such a bad idea",
I don't see it there, maybe here,
"Buildings (and pretty much everything else on Earth) are mostly designed to resist compressive loads I.E. the force of gravity. Thus, if you want to move a structure using this method your pretty much have two major options: First, to move an existing structure you can build a heavy cage around it so you can lift it from the top. Second, to move a new structure you can design in massive reinforcements so you can lift it from the top. Both are expensive and add considerable parasitic loads to the structure and the lift" or "Not to mention, this idea has been floated a dozen times or more in the last fifty odd years, and always with the same result - a bankrupt company and penniless investors. While they've got some cool hacks in this scheme, they don't seem to have overcome the basic solution-in-search-of-problem problem. I.E. there doesn't actually seem to be a market"?
I don't see it there either, so maybe this:
"Not to mention, this idea has been floated a dozen times or more in the last fifty odd years, and always with the same result - a bankrupt company and penniless investors. While they've got some cool hacks in this scheme, they don't seem to have overcome the basic solution-in-search-of-problem problem. I.E. there doesn't actually seem to be a market."
The only tyme I even see the word "top" in your post is "to move an existing structure you can build a heavy cage around it so you can lift it from the top"? How about "bottom"? I see nothing in that post about lifting from the bottom.
Now how would I do it? Lift the building on a trailer much like is done now. But instead of the trailer being hitched to a semi have several cables hooked to various spots around the trailer, to spread the weight, which then run to I-beams above the building. If structurally needed reinforcing I-beams can be placed under the trailer then the cables can be anchored to them.
But we already have [relatively] cheap truck that are all but immune to weather to fill that niche - [very] expensive airships (which require considerable extra lifting infrastructure to transfer to loads from the bottom of the structure to the lifting point on top) which require fairly calm weather conditions are a poor replacement indeed.
Either way the structure has to be lifted, whether by truck or by airship. It can be lifted the same way too, with a trailer underneath. With the airship more cables can then be used to lift the trailer spreading out the payload. No lifting from top needed either.
We already have oceangoing tugboats more than capable of towing the ships to port in anything short of hurricane conditions. By the time an areostat has moved the cargo to another ship (assuming reasonable weather), the tug has already towed it to port much more cheaply.
By the time you've built the road to get the heavy machinery up to clear the area and build the foundation
For one thing the heavy machinery can be transported the same way. As can the building materials, tools, and workers. Even for the foundation, the hardest part there is the concrete. Just lift the whole concrete mixer with the airship. I used to do that, prior to my disability I worked in concrete construction. My crew mostly did foundations, pylons, and solid concrete walls. Need the ground cleared first? Drop some people in with axes, saws, and wedges and let them cut trees down. Heck you might even build a kiln on site to dry out the wood to use as building material.
I.E. you don't really understand what makes these kinds of construction expensive.
You don't really understand construction do you? I worked as a construction worker as did many of the people I grew up with.
if you want to move a structure using this method your pretty much have two major options:
I guess you've never seen buildings moved before then, I have a bunch of tymes. What they do is lift the building onto a flatbed trailer. The trailer is then driven down the road, and sometimes more than one lane has to be used thus blocking traffic. With this the building can be put on the trailer then the trailer is lifted off the ground and taken to wherever.
Not to mention, this idea has been floated a dozen times or more in the last fifty odd years, and always with the same result - a bankrupt company and penniless investors.
The idea of flying machines have been floating around for centuries always with the same results, until the Wright Brothers built and flew their airplane.
While they've got some cool hacks in this scheme, they don't seem to have overcome the basic solution-in-search-of-problem problem. I.E. there doesn't actually seem to be a market.
There were no markets for the Wright Brother's flying machine either, or for the microcomputers that led to the computer on your desk. The same logic can be applied to many other inventions.
using it would have to be a better deal than just schlepping the parts fairly close than airlifting them with ordinary heavy-lift helos.
"Heavy-transport helicopters, such as the Mil Mi-26 or Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane, address some of these difficulties, but their payloads are limited to 20 and nine tonnes, respectively, and the huge rotors create a powerful downdraft that makes handling that payload rather tricky. So people have long been looking for other ways round the problem."
They just had to make it look like a traditional Alien 'U.F.O.' didn't they?
TFA, the Economist article at least. It explains why a flying saucer shape is used. Unlike traditional balloons with cigar shapes the flying saucer shape can go in any direction. The Goodyear blimp has to be pointed in the direction it is supposed to go.
Please read my other comments on this thread and you'll see I'm talking about losses NOW
Try that yourself, read what I said. Right NOW AC transmission is losing power. Again that is NOW though it will continue in the future.
Edison transmitted low voltage DC over huge conductors with large losses which was a far inferior solution to AC. He was ultimately a far more evil and greedy bastard than Bill Gates will ever be - torturing an elephant to death and defaming Tesla as a mad scientist just to try to get some commercial advantage. Most of the weird voodoo evil genius vibe we get about Tesla today came directly from Edison's PR campaign.
Now I know you didn't bother to read my post as you just repeated what I just said, though without the Bill Gates part. I even named and provided a link to wiki page on the elephant, Topsy.
I see no reason to continue, you accuse me of doing what you did.
The fact is, that within the continental USA, because we are electrified, the ONLY places that Solar pays for itself is on extreme rural areas
The fact is is solar may be more competitive if it received as much in subsidies as conventional energy gets. Coal receive billions of dollars in subsidies. Add in external costs, such as co2 and mercury emissions, and coal will cost more. Require nuclear power to buy it's own insurance, get rid of the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, and make companies pay their own disposal costs and nuclear power will cost more too.
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
you are mixing up everything in here. Yet, they are all different issues.
I am not mixing things up. To use coal, it has to be mined, burned, then the slag has to disposed of. And that's just the use of coal, not building the power plant, maintaining it, then decommissioning it. All are related to the use of coal as a fuel. Without reprocessing nuclear power has those and other requirements. Natural gas doesn't have all the same requirements but pipelines are needed.
As to using what is 'best', well, Geo-thermal appears to be usable everywhere.
Sure geothermal can be used everywhere, but it does not make economic sense to use it in some places as compared to other energy sources. Otherwise the same can be said about solar and wind.
With enough money solar can be used at the poles, North and South. Alaska, along with much of Canada, has good wind potential. In the 48 contiguous US states the Rocky Mountains from Canada through to northern Texas alone has enough potential wind energy to electrify the US from coast to coast. However that's not the only places with good potential. All along the Pacific coast from British Colombia to southern CA wind potential is good. Actually while there was the energy crisis in California with the rolling blackouts, there was also an idle wind farm capable of producing 10 megawatthours, 240 megawatts per day. Hook an eastward turn in SC and go through AZ, NM, into west Texas. That route has good potential as well. Over on the east, Atlantic, coast from Maine on down to Cape Hatteras is good offshore. Onshore through the Appalachian, Catskills, and other mountain ranges of NY is good too.
For solar there are good places too. California may be the Saudi Arabia of Solar but Nevada may have more potential. Quite simply different energy sources can be used in different places. What ties them all together though is that their use will require a national smart grid. High Voltage Direct Current powerlines running from coast to coast and Canada to Mexico will be needed. Even better, hook up Canada's and Mexico's grid.
Then expand net metering. Originally I wanted to build my own home off the grid, and I may still but right now I'd like to remodel an existing place. If so then I'd like to use geothermal or solar thermal heating, space and water, depending on which may be more effective in my area. I know both are used around here now. I may also install solar PVs.
Not in Long Beach... out here, there are oil wells all the frack over the city, not terribly well hidden. There's one right out behind our office, and some nice-looking houses right on the other side of a small fence from it. They just installed one up the hill from my apartment, too.
I bet many people don't realize how much oil Long Beach produces though. And those wells that are visible can be hidden from view. Build a small building around one and plant some shrubs, vines, around that. Landscaping can it less noticeable if not "invisible".
You might want to read above from the poster talking about a local Geothermal plant near his home that has huge issues with Arsenic clogging up the turbines - and the truly scary "EPA Approved" methods for cleaning and encapsulating it. It seems that Geothermal can bring with it a host of heavy metal issues:-(
Unfortunately all energy sources have problems and introduce pollution. You say what those are for geothermal, for solar there's toxic soups, and for wind rare earth metals are needed. Which China is a major producer of, however China is restricting their export. Even hydroelectric dams have problems, they too need have blades cleaned. Because water flow is restricted silt builds up at the base and has to be removed. The Hoove Dam on the Colorado River was used as an example of American prowess and the capability of dams for electrical generation. However water shortages may put it out of commission.
Quite simply, there is no truly clean or non-polluting energy source, some produce less than others, that's it.
In the end, you have to pick your poison on where you are going to get your energy. Myself? I will take geo-thermal.
You pick the energy source by what's available in any given location. Use geothermal where it is available, solar, where it is sunny, and wind where it's windy. The one advantage geothermal has over others is that it can provide a baseload, it can constantly generate electricity.
Ideally, we would allow all energy to compete on a level field, rather than allowing politicians to pick it by who lines their pockets.
Transmission losses ARE a big deal NOW since most lines are made of aluminium and consumers may be 1000km from a power source.
Electrical transmission losses over long distances is only a problem if the electricity is AC. Over long distances the losses from transmission is much lower using High Voltage Direct Current, HVDC. Now there are losses for conversion from AC to DC but those losses are less than the losses from transmitting via AC. And conversion is getting more efficient. But using the right stuff what is converted can be reduced. That computer you're using, it's power supply converts the AC power from the wall socket to DC. Radios and TVs do the same. Those who build Off the Grid take all that into consideration when designing their system.
Heck, Thomas Edison's Con Edison power company transmitted DC. It was only after Nicoli Tesla came along when AC was used. In an attempt to discredit AC Edison went so far as to electrocute an elephant, Topsy. Because Topsy had killed 3 men she was sentenced to death and Edison saw that as a good way to show how dangerous AC was. However he was not successful right away, Topsy had to be executed a few tymes before she died, in agony.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean a single 30-second national TV ad costs a few hundred thousand dollars. For that you could get a month or two of steady work out of a top law firm.
And if you're on the receiving end of a lawsuit and you lose you can be liable for hundreds of millions of dollars. For small and medium businesses, as well as the self-employed, that can be the deathblow of the business.
Falcon
Well at least somebody wins... (the lawyers)
Banks and lawyers. Two totally unnecessary services getting the most money from everything for nothing?!
Ah but banks are an important part of finance. Without banks saving money is difficult and people would find it harder to borrow money to buy their own homes.
Of course that's how socialists and others who want big government want it, a population dependent on government.
Falcon
True but use of these will spread, and may be used in public spaces too. And while there is no privacy in public spaces, courts have ruled that at least, it can still stifle political speech.
Falcon
I'd be interested to see if this could be used in a football stadium (domed or not) with all the extra noise and people.
The sound in a basketball stadium can be just as loud as in a football stadium.
Falcon
Deployed at public gatherings, the super-mics could be zoomed in to eavesdrop on conversations between suspicious persons, or pretty much anyone the cops want to listen in on. Are you scared yet?
Are you afraid yet? Better not say something listening politicians don't like.
Falcon
are very rarely, if any, removed once implemented.
That brings up one of the few things I liked in the Republicans' Pledge to America. It included this: "We will adhere to the Constitution and require every bill to cite its specific Constitutional Authority". I thought it also included a sunset clause for new laws, new laws would only be for a certain amount of tyme before they expired or were approved again, but I didn't find it this tyme.
Falcon
Considering the alternative to a takedown notice is just opening up with a lawsuit, I'm not sure what about it is so evilly anti-consumer.
If your ISP is served a take-down notice because of what you uploaded, you have to prove you have the right to do so. If however a lawsuit is required they have to prove you're guilty. Personally I prefer innocent until proven guilty.
Falcon
Aside from all the talk of Intellectual Property rights laws and protectionism, the video game company Turbine and the band Radiohead have a successful 'pay what you want' model that is profitable.
The Grateful Dead, who John Perry Barlow one of the founders of EFF was a lyricist for, allowed concert goers to record their music.
Falcon
{US: For the purpose of this Agreement, Parties agree that patents do not fall within the scope of this Section.}
Patents was one of the sticking points, the US rep wanted to keep patents out but the Mexicans wanted patents in.
I say all of it needs to be revealed to everyone. Of course it won't be because they people would oppose it. Notice how the second article says it's an "executive agreement" instead of a "treaty." An agreement doesn't need senate approval.
Falcon
Helium is going to run out, forever. Helium is a limited non-replaceable resource.
Helium is always being made anew. Alpha particles from radioactive decay is the nucleus of helium. Of course eventually radioactive particles won't last forever, but neither will humans.
Falcon
an airship that can lift 150 tons has a lot of crossectional area, even if a sphere need some serious motors to keep it stable in crosswinds, updrafts etc
So only use airships when the weather permits.
Falcon
In addition, it might be time to encourage capture from out many natural gas wells.
Don't worry; when big oil sees dollar signs from doing so, it'll do so.
Except big oil already burns money. Those wells with gas flares are burning natural gas. It may take more infrastructure but I've often wondered why oil companies don't capture the gas then sell it too. Or they can use it to fuel generators, if there's a surplus they could sell electricity.
Falcon
Sometimes it helps to stop and think before typing, you might try it sometime. When you do, in this case, the intelligent person would ask himself - how do you connect the beams on the bottom to the lifting point on the top. Then the intelligent person will re-read my message and note that I'd already mentioned that.
I read it, reread, then reread it again. Where is it where you mentioned it? Is it where you say:
"Both you and the OP are correct in different ways - and aptly illustrate why this is such a bad idea",
I don't see it there, maybe here,
"Buildings (and pretty much everything else on Earth) are mostly designed to resist compressive loads I.E. the force of gravity. Thus, if you want to move a structure using this method your pretty much have two major options: First, to move an existing structure you can build a heavy cage around it so you can lift it from the top. Second, to move a new structure you can design in massive reinforcements so you can lift it from the top. Both are expensive and add considerable parasitic loads to the structure and the lift" or "Not to mention, this idea has been floated a dozen times or more in the last fifty odd years, and always with the same result - a bankrupt company and penniless investors. While they've got some cool hacks in this scheme, they don't seem to have overcome the basic solution-in-search-of-problem problem. I.E. there doesn't actually seem to be a market"?
I don't see it there either, so maybe this:
"Not to mention, this idea has been floated a dozen times or more in the last fifty odd years, and always with the same result - a bankrupt company and penniless investors. While they've got some cool hacks in this scheme, they don't seem to have overcome the basic solution-in-search-of-problem problem. I.E. there doesn't actually seem to be a market."
The only tyme I even see the word "top" in your post is "to move an existing structure you can build a heavy cage around it so you can lift it from the top"? How about "bottom"? I see nothing in that post about lifting from the bottom.
Now how would I do it? Lift the building on a trailer much like is done now. But instead of the trailer being hitched to a semi have several cables hooked to various spots around the trailer, to spread the weight, which then run to I-beams above the building. If structurally needed reinforcing I-beams can be placed under the trailer then the cables can be anchored to them.
Falcon
But we already have [relatively] cheap truck that are all but immune to weather to fill that niche - [very] expensive airships (which require considerable extra lifting infrastructure to transfer to loads from the bottom of the structure to the lifting point on top) which require fairly calm weather conditions are a poor replacement indeed.
Either way the structure has to be lifted, whether by truck or by airship. It can be lifted the same way too, with a trailer underneath. With the airship more cables can then be used to lift the trailer spreading out the payload. No lifting from top needed either.
We already have oceangoing tugboats more than capable of towing the ships to port in anything short of hurricane conditions. By the time an areostat has moved the cargo to another ship (assuming reasonable weather), the tug has already towed it to port much more cheaply.
Citation needed.
Falcon
By the time you've built the road to get the heavy machinery up to clear the area and build the foundation
For one thing the heavy machinery can be transported the same way. As can the building materials, tools, and workers. Even for the foundation, the hardest part there is the concrete. Just lift the whole concrete mixer with the airship. I used to do that, prior to my disability I worked in concrete construction. My crew mostly did foundations, pylons, and solid concrete walls. Need the ground cleared first? Drop some people in with axes, saws, and wedges and let them cut trees down. Heck you might even build a kiln on site to dry out the wood to use as building material.
I.E. you don't really understand what makes these kinds of construction expensive.
You don't really understand construction do you? I worked as a construction worker as did many of the people I grew up with.
Falcon
if you want to move a structure using this method your pretty much have two major options:
I guess you've never seen buildings moved before then, I have a bunch of tymes. What they do is lift the building onto a flatbed trailer. The trailer is then driven down the road, and sometimes more than one lane has to be used thus blocking traffic. With this the building can be put on the trailer then the trailer is lifted off the ground and taken to wherever.
Not to mention, this idea has been floated a dozen times or more in the last fifty odd years, and always with the same result - a bankrupt company and penniless investors.
The idea of flying machines have been floating around for centuries always with the same results, until the Wright Brothers built and flew their airplane.
While they've got some cool hacks in this scheme, they don't seem to have overcome the basic solution-in-search-of-problem problem. I.E. there doesn't actually seem to be a market.
There were no markets for the Wright Brother's flying machine either, or for the microcomputers that led to the computer on your desk. The same logic can be applied to many other inventions.
Falcon
using it would have to be a better deal than just schlepping the parts fairly close than airlifting them with ordinary heavy-lift helos.
"Heavy-transport helicopters, such as the Mil Mi-26 or Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane, address some of these difficulties, but their payloads are limited to 20 and nine tonnes, respectively, and the huge rotors create a powerful downdraft that makes handling that payload rather tricky. So people have long been looking for other ways round the problem."
Falcon
They just had to make it look like a traditional Alien 'U.F.O.' didn't they?
TFA, the Economist article at least. It explains why a flying saucer shape is used. Unlike traditional balloons with cigar shapes the flying saucer shape can go in any direction. The Goodyear blimp has to be pointed in the direction it is supposed to go.
Falcon
Please read my other comments on this thread and you'll see I'm talking about losses NOW
Try that yourself, read what I said. Right NOW AC transmission is losing power. Again that is NOW though it will continue in the future.
Edison transmitted low voltage DC over huge conductors with large losses which was a far inferior solution to AC. He was ultimately a far more evil and greedy bastard than Bill Gates will ever be - torturing an elephant to death and defaming Tesla as a mad scientist just to try to get some commercial advantage. Most of the weird voodoo evil genius vibe we get about Tesla today came directly from Edison's PR campaign.
Now I know you didn't bother to read my post as you just repeated what I just said, though without the Bill Gates part. I even named and provided a link to wiki page on the elephant, Topsy.
I see no reason to continue, you accuse me of doing what you did.
Falcon
The fact is, that within the continental USA, because we are electrified, the ONLY places that Solar pays for itself is on extreme rural areas
The fact is is solar may be more competitive if it received as much in subsidies as conventional energy gets. Coal receive billions of dollars in subsidies. Add in external costs, such as co2 and mercury emissions, and coal will cost more. Require nuclear power to buy it's own insurance, get rid of the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, and make companies pay their own disposal costs and nuclear power will cost more too.
Between 2002 and 2008 coal received around $17 billion in subsidies. Obama's 2011 budget proposal even cuts coal subsidies $2.3 billion over the next decade. But it's hard to see exactly how much subsidies are, as State coal subsidies and US subsidies of oil and coal more than double the subsidies of renewable energy says, it's hard to add up all the subsidies because while some are purely handouts on taxpayer dollars others are deductions on taxes owed. And nuclear power would not exist without subsidies, it is Hooked on Subsidies:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Falcon
you are mixing up everything in here. Yet, they are all different issues.
I am not mixing things up. To use coal, it has to be mined, burned, then the slag has to disposed of. And that's just the use of coal, not building the power plant, maintaining it, then decommissioning it. All are related to the use of coal as a fuel. Without reprocessing nuclear power has those and other requirements. Natural gas doesn't have all the same requirements but pipelines are needed.
As to using what is 'best', well, Geo-thermal appears to be usable everywhere.
Sure geothermal can be used everywhere, but it does not make economic sense to use it in some places as compared to other energy sources. Otherwise the same can be said about solar and wind.
With enough money solar can be used at the poles, North and South. Alaska, along with much of Canada, has good wind potential. In the 48 contiguous US states the Rocky Mountains from Canada through to northern Texas alone has enough potential wind energy to electrify the US from coast to coast. However that's not the only places with good potential. All along the Pacific coast from British Colombia to southern CA wind potential is good. Actually while there was the energy crisis in California with the rolling blackouts, there was also an idle wind farm capable of producing 10 megawatthours, 240 megawatts per day. Hook an eastward turn in SC and go through AZ, NM, into west Texas. That route has good potential as well. Over on the east, Atlantic, coast from Maine on down to Cape Hatteras is good offshore. Onshore through the Appalachian, Catskills, and other mountain ranges of NY is good too.
For solar there are good places too. California may be the Saudi Arabia of Solar but Nevada may have more potential. Quite simply different energy sources can be used in different places. What ties them all together though is that their use will require a national smart grid. High Voltage Direct Current powerlines running from coast to coast and Canada to Mexico will be needed. Even better, hook up Canada's and Mexico's grid.
Then expand net metering. Originally I wanted to build my own home off the grid, and I may still but right now I'd like to remodel an existing place. If so then I'd like to use geothermal or solar thermal heating, space and water, depending on which may be more effective in my area. I know both are used around here now. I may also install solar PVs.
Falcon
Not in Long Beach... out here, there are oil wells all the frack over the city, not terribly well hidden. There's one right out behind our office, and some nice-looking houses right on the other side of a small fence from it. They just installed one up the hill from my apartment, too.
I bet many people don't realize how much oil Long Beach produces though. And those wells that are visible can be hidden from view. Build a small building around one and plant some shrubs, vines, around that. Landscaping can it less noticeable if not "invisible".
Falcon
You might want to read above from the poster talking about a local Geothermal plant near his home that has huge issues with Arsenic clogging up the turbines - and the truly scary "EPA Approved" methods for cleaning and encapsulating it. It seems that Geothermal can bring with it a host of heavy metal issues :-(
Unfortunately all energy sources have problems and introduce pollution. You say what those are for geothermal, for solar there's toxic soups, and for wind rare earth metals are needed. Which China is a major producer of, however China is restricting their export. Even hydroelectric dams have problems, they too need have blades cleaned. Because water flow is restricted silt builds up at the base and has to be removed. The Hoove Dam on the Colorado River was used as an example of American prowess and the capability of dams for electrical generation. However water shortages may put it out of commission.
Quite simply, there is no truly clean or non-polluting energy source, some produce less than others, that's it.
Falcon
Mining normally involves tailings, except for Coal. With coal, they simply strip mine it as you have pointed out.
Tell that to people in Roane County, Tennessee, who's land was contaminated by the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill in 2008, the coal s Tell that tolurry spill in southern Belmont County, Ohio last week, or any number of other coal slurry spills. Tell that to those who see mountain removal in action. Google has some before and after photos of it. Or tell it to those miners trapped in that Chilean mine. How about the 13 miners who died when the Sago Mine Disaster happened in West Virginia in 2006.
In the end, you have to pick your poison on where you are going to get your energy. Myself? I will take geo-thermal.
You pick the energy source by what's available in any given location. Use geothermal where it is available, solar, where it is sunny, and wind where it's windy. The one advantage geothermal has over others is that it can provide a baseload, it can constantly generate electricity.
Ideally, we would allow all energy to compete on a level field, rather than allowing politicians to pick it by who lines their pockets.
That is something I've been advocating for years.
Falcon
Transmission losses ARE a big deal NOW since most lines are made of aluminium and consumers may be 1000km from a power source.
Electrical transmission losses over long distances is only a problem if the electricity is AC. Over long distances the losses from transmission is much lower using High Voltage Direct Current, HVDC. Now there are losses for conversion from AC to DC but those losses are less than the losses from transmitting via AC. And conversion is getting more efficient. But using the right stuff what is converted can be reduced. That computer you're using, it's power supply converts the AC power from the wall socket to DC. Radios and TVs do the same. Those who build Off the Grid take all that into consideration when designing their system.
Heck, Thomas Edison's Con Edison power company transmitted DC. It was only after Nicoli Tesla came along when AC was used. In an attempt to discredit AC Edison went so far as to electrocute an elephant, Topsy. Because Topsy had killed 3 men she was sentenced to death and Edison saw that as a good way to show how dangerous AC was. However he was not successful right away, Topsy had to be executed a few tymes before she died, in agony.
Falcon