Even when both user and dev are programmers of the same skill level there's a huge gulf in knowledge. A 5 hour patch for the user might be a 5 minute job for a dev since they've already learned the code. So I generally use my dev skills to give a really good description of the problem and test cases. Usually the only times I write a patch are when it's a feature specifically for me, or I've gone into so much detail finding the bug I already found the fix.
It may be a specific case but when I hear or read others asking how to get experience programming frequently some replies are to see what bugs have been submitted to FOSS projects, pick one, and submit a patch to the project leaders.
And that's a great idea to gain programming experience, just realize that it's more of a way to learn programming than a way to make a big contribution, you basically need to find a bug that's easy to fix (so you can handle it), and not a lot of people care about (or someone else would have made the easy patch first).
The best bet is to find some little one or two dev project on SF or something (try a niche end user project like a podcast manager), there the code should be easier to understand, the bugs should be easier to find and fix without side effects, and the work will be more important to the project since it's less likely to be an obscure function no-one uses.
I don't have much experience programming myself but I've been thinking about trying my hand with CinePaint, a fork of GIMP with deep color editing. It used to be included in Ubuntu but when Debian dropped it so did Ubuntu and that's what I use now. I could try something easier but I want to do deep color editing of my photographs, and GIMP does not do that. The only other bit map graphics software that does deep color is Krita but it's lacking as a photo editor.
I thought we were talking about the benefits of putting solar cells on the vehicle...
Putting solar panels on the car roof is not mentioned in the post you replied to.
I actually have been looking into installing solar panels on my home, though I probably won't charge my car from them (directly or time-shifted via the grid) because I charge my car pretty much entirely at work, from the chargers provided by my employer (Google):-)
In a previous reply I said at one tyme employers in CA were offering recharging stations as a fringe benefit to employees. For those whose employers don't offer that charging from the gird may be viable. Now if I had solar panels on my roof, with or without, grid enter-tie I wouldn't mind charging my EV batteries at night. But then again I'd like to have a wind genie, as part of a hybrid energy system, as well. The grid would only be there as a backup.
Even when both user and dev are programmers of the same skill level there's a huge gulf in knowledge. A 5 hour patch for the user might be a 5 minute job for a dev since they've already learned the code. So I generally use my dev skills to give a really good description of the problem and test cases. Usually the only times I write a patch are when it's a feature specifically for me, or I've gone into so much detail finding the bug I already found the fix.
It may be a specific case but when I hear or read others asking how to get experience programming frequently some replies are to see what bugs have been submitted to FOSS projects, pick one, and submit a patch to the project leaders.
I consider that to be a good contribution to the community and on projects I've managed in the past I really appreciated users who gave good bug reports.
I agree, however is there a documented methodology or procedure that is easy to find and use for those who want to submit bug reports? Of all the tymes I've read how users should submit bug reports I have not yet read how to submit these reports.
Users aren't complaining because they want to be whiny or difficult. They're complaining because they see a flaw. If you want your software to be widely accepted, listen. If your software is just coding for self satisfaction, and you don't care about user adoption, then don't listen.
The problem here is one person's flaw is another person's need, or want. It can drive a developer/programmer batty trying to satisfy everyone.
It seems like every couple of months some solar cell breaks a different barrier. A slashdot story from November (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/03/2010244/solar-panel-breaks-third-of-a-sun-efficiency-barrier) clocked some solar panel as being 33.5% efficient. Are they measuring on different scales or definitions of efficiency or something?
What gets me is that these stories have been posted to/. for years and years yet not many of these "break-throughs" lead to commercial applications. That is products buyers can actually buy in a store. Or an owner of hundreds of acres can build a solar farm with.
In my case, my LEAF is parked indoors basically 24x7, so solar panels on it wouldn't be worth much at all. I mostly drive it between my garage at home and the underground parking garage at work.
You could have solar PVs on your roof which feeds the grid during the day, then your LEAF is recharged off the grid at night. Also though I haven't heard about it in years a number of years ago employers were installing charging stations in their parking lots, as a fringe benefit to employees.
Make solar cheaper per watt than coal plants (we're getting close now), and then watch all the rooftops in the country get covered with solar panels.
I bet if solar, and geothermal and wind, was subsidized as much as coal and nuclear power was they'd be cheaper. And yes, both coal and nuclear power is subsidized. Here's Rep Edward Markey in 2009 practically bragging that nuclear power got $145 Billion while solar and wind got $5 Billion in subsidies. He goes on the say his bill has "Huge Subsidies for Clean Coal".
If all subsidies for clean alternative energy was added together it would not be close to how much coal and nuclear power gets. If coal had to pay for pollution and nuclear power had to get it's money from a free market I doubt either one would be in business today.
If the input is virtually inexhaustible (sunlight), it doesn't matter how efficient it is. If you have half the efficiency, just double the solar panel area. Total cost per kW and per kWh becomes is more important. Mind you, the panels *don't* need to be on the car.
Efficiency does matter if area is a concern. A home may have enough roof space for solar PVs to charge a storage system or th power the home but may not have enough for both. Increasing efficiency may allow both to be done.
And that is if there is a battery bank big enough to allow an EV, Electric Vehicle, to have it's own battery system be charged over night. Of course with net metering the grid serves as storage during the day so the EV's batteries are charged at night from the grid.
The IEA report[pdf] linked by the NY Times article says there's an abundance of gas, which I mentioned before, but does not provide scientific data or links to support the idea that the US can become petroleum independent never mind an oil export. And a lot of the gas being pumped now was made possible by fracking. Now the ABC report, which also says the IEA report does not provide data, does say shale oil can be recovered from the Green River Formation of Colorado and Utah. However it also says that large amounts of water required to recover the oil are needed. That presents another problem. The Colorado River is the major source of water for all 7 states in the Colorado River Compact. The compact was created in 1922 when the river's water level was above average, so the river is over tapped now. One of the states that gets water from the river is California, and the river does not flow through the state. Instead through a system of canals water is pumped to the Imperial Valley in Southern CA. And by treaty Mexico is supposed to get some of the water from the river, after all the river is supposed to drain into the Sea of Cortez or Gulf of California, which is Mexican.
And while CO2 emissions are lower burning natural gas than burning coal, oil, and gas, it still emits CO2. Also the IEA report brings up alternative energy sources saying renewable sources can provide one third of the US's electricity. That is half of what an article in SciAm said was possible in 2050. A Grand Solar Plansays Solar power alone can provide 69% of the electricity and 35% of the total energy needs of the US. Elsewhere a study, sorry I don't have a link right now, based on the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States concluded wind energy from the Rocky Mountains alone can provide all the electricity for the 48 contiguous states. And that's just from the Rockies. The atlas shows other places in the US with abundant wind energy as well.
As you say "we will be fine energy-wise as long as people allow us to access it" applies to geothermal, solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources. Unfortunately NIMBYs block solar and wind throughout the US. Along the East Coast from Cape Hatteras to Cape Cod can provide significant amounts of energy. Using these sources, and increasing energy efficiency which the IEA report brings up, coal, nuclear, and petroleum can all be fazed out now. Not included here is natural gas fired power plants, that's because they are needed right now for baseline loads. Geothermal can be and is used for that also but can it supply all baseload needs? I don't know. And later storage technologies may enable mass energy to be stored economically.
Of course to bring all these electrical sources online requires the national electrical grid to be upgraded. While it will take Billions of Dollars, if not One Hundred Billion or more, US businesses lose about
Do you also believe that the gas companies send agents around the world to assassinate researchers every time they get close to discovering "free energy" or carburetors that will make any car in the world get 100 mpg?
De-chartering Unocal. Unocal has been accused of aiding and supporting human rights violations in Burma and with the Taliban in Afghanistan. In 2001 President Bush recognized almost immediately the leaders of the coup against the democratically elected president of Venezuela Chavez. Many people believe the Afghan and Iraqi invasions are for oil. Some think the same of the accusations against Iran.
Bio fuels should not be mistaken for the green, organic, nature lover's wet dream. It will require an awful lot of land to cover the energy needs of our current standard of living.
One, most bio fuels are not organic, so organic nature lover's don't have wet dreams about them. Two, the negawatt is powerful. Turning off electrically powered when they are not needed and using more energy efficient energy users can have a big impact. Californians complain about how high home heating costs are yet a properly designed and built home uses very little energy compared to conventional homes, and yet do not cost much more to build than standard construction. Adding insulation and sealing thermal barriers significantly reduces heat loss when cold outside and heat gain when hot outside.
However other energy sources can provide a lot of energy as well. The Department of Defense (DoD) "could generate 7,000 megawatts (MW) of solar energy—equivalent to the output of seven nuclear power plants—on four military bases located in the California desert, according to a study released today by DoD’s Office of Installations and Environment." The article in SciAm A Grand Solar Plan says that by 2050 solar energy can produce 69% of the U.S.’s electricity and 35% of its total energy by 2050. I didn't find it but another online source said that just 10% of the land in Nevada could produce enough electricity to power the 48 contiguous states. And another said the wind potential in the Rocky Mountains was also enough. Thinking small scale and big scale along with building a national smart gird can allow coal and nuclear power plants to be shut down, leaving natural gas plants operating along with goethermal plants to serve as baseline electrical generators until storage improves.
Base load is simple there are two clean methods hydro that's pretty much tapped out.and atomic. The solution has been staring us in the face for decades build more long life reactors of a standard design.
In a free market nuclear does not work. Nuclear power 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."
Solar and wind and every other new-wave energy source is just a way to supplement base load. If you know anything about electricity generation, you should know that the world depends on base load energy: energy generated from reliable sources that accounts for like 70% of all energy usage, i.e. coal, gas and nuclear. Until we find a solution for base load energy like fusion or invent god-like batteries or power lines made of superconductors that cost $100 per mile, everything else is a pipe dream.
There already is a source for baseloads. Of course some are dirtier than others, but coal which is the dirtiest energy source can be dropped as a fuel. Natural gas can be used for baseloads, as can geothermal energy. And with a national smart grid while solar energy doesn't produce energy wind will somewhere, maybe even right next to a solar farm. But until energy storage technologies signficantly improve natural gas can be used, fazing out coal and nuclear power.
And as for nuclear power, in a free market it would not be used. Nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies. People complain regulations raise the costs of nuclear power in the US. However the world leader in nuclear power is France and even in France government not businesses decide what's built.
"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."
Well, if you wanted to really keep your energy usage down you'd grow a nitrogen fixing plant like peanuts every other year, avoiding the need for petroleum based fertilizers.
Nitrogen isn't the only nutrient plants need to grow. There are 3 major nutrients needed, nitrogen being one, but phosphorus and potassium are the others. Then there are many micro-nutrients needed as well.
Falcon
Don't you think it would be easier to get it in your backyard, considering that the US has tons of it?
Tons of what? Petroleum? The US does not have that much proven reserves of petroleum. Supposedly what the US does have a lot of is Natural Gas. There are other sources that can come from our own backyard. What the US has much more of is sunlight and wind. According to the study by Southern Methodist University SMU Geothermal Lab project: Vast clean energy source confirmed by Google.org-funded geothermal mapping geothermal sources are capable of producing "more than three million megawatts of green power – 10 times the installed capacity of coal power plants today." Relatively clean energy sources, as there are none that are compleatly clean and non-polluting, can prove all of the US's energy needs. The biggest problem, well one of them, is with the infrastructure. U.S. solar power potential untapped as infrastructure is lacking. Yearly cost of U.S. outages: At least $119 billion. If the US is losing this much a year then it would pay to build a new smart grid. Then alternative sources would be able to contribute easier.
Until the number of competitors come along, and the market gets filled, you will pay for leds in the same style you pay for Apple Products.
I don't understand. One, Apple does have competition, for every single product it sells. Two, while I haven't compared Apple pricing lately I compared the price of the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on to laptops from other OEMs before I bought this one. Comparing prices of laptops with comparable specs, I found one laptop $50 cheaper but others more. A Dell, or an Alienware which was owned by Dell, was $200 more for instance. A comparable HP and IBM was more too..
Of course a person can't start with a PC from some OEM like Dell or HP then compare it to a Mac because Apple does not offer all the configuration options the other companies do.
What's really bad now is that Apple has not released a new Mac Pro in more than 2 1/2 years. All Apple has done is bump up the CPU speed. While the 2011 MacBook Pro included the Thunderbolt interface the Mac Pro still does not have it. Tim Cook promised a new Mac Pro in 2013, but he didn't say when other than that. And as my MBP is more than 5 years old I wanted to replace it with another one, however Apple dropped 17" MBP, which is what I have and wanted to replace it with.
My first one, bought around 1997, lasted one week. They weren't cheap back then either.
I bought my first one about 10 years earlier, in the late 1980s. And it wasn't cheap, it cost about $20, but it lasted me more than 15 years without a problem. In that tyme I moved once across country and four tymes across town, bringing it with me.
I'll replace my CFL with LED light bulbs when they are as good as CFLs for area lighting and do not cost much more than them.
Just curious how you'd calculate the proffered life expectancy of LED's over CFL's. In theory they should last 5-10x as long, but that doesn't translate into a 5-10x price premium, counting the time value of money.
As things are now I wouldn't count on life expectancy as I have to watch, keep track of, my budget. I'm on disability and haven't worked for more than 10 years. I hope I can start working again soon, though I don't what I'd do. I hope I can work as a photographer, but my eyesight isn't really good enough for that I think. That's the least of my problems though.
I'm also skeptical that any electronics manufactured today will last 50 years - maybe 20 years if I'm lucky and that won't command a 4x price multiple on CFL's (assuming they last 5 years which the old decent ones do).
True. The US is a disposable society. What's worse is the rest of the world is following in the US's footsteps.
And 3 years ago CFL's were going for as high as $10+ per bulb.
They still are if you want the fancy dimmable 3-way type. But like today, I was buying 6-packs of decent CFL's for $15. I'll be happy to replace them all with LED's at $10 (2012) per equivalent light output.
I'll replace my CFL with LED light bulbs when they are as good as CFLs for area lighting and do not cost much more than them.
The reduced cooling should help in lowering the costs of the LED versus the CFL and the reduced energy consumption will be a help as well.
Yesterday I went to Walmart to get new light bulbs, old CFLs I had burned out. There Walmart had LED bulbs in stock, at around $20 a bulb. I ended up going to Sam's to get CFLs, an 8 pack cost less than $6.
Falcon
And 3 years ago CFL's were going for as high as $10+ per bulb.
There are still $10 CFL bulbs, Walmart has bulbs for $12 as well as under a dollar.
So far equally good experience with two LED bulbs ($$$). Especially like the new warm white LEDs from Philips.
Once LEDs are good for area lighting and drop in price I'll start replacing my burnt out CFLs with them. But for now I don't see a reason to replace what I have now, I don't use spotlights.
Yesterday I went to Walmart to get new light bulbs, old CFLs I had burned out. There Walmart had LED bulbs in stock, at around $20 a bulb. I ended up going to Sam's to get CFLs, an 8 pack cost less than $6.
Paying $6 for eight of them might explain why they 'burn out'...
I guess you didn't understand what I said. The 8 bulbs I paid $6 for were to replace bulbs I bought years ago that eventually burned out. Just for the heck of it, I thing tomorrow I'll label new bulbs with the date as I replace older ones. Then I can keep track of exactly how long they last me. But I know I haven't had a CFL last less than 5 years.
Slashdot Mirror
The second sentence of the post I responded to:
My mistake, but you're wrong too. I missed it until you pointed it out but it was the third sentence not second.
That's pretty significant IMHO, that would be worth adding solar panels to the car, even if you have a place to park and charge it at night.
Falcon
Even when both user and dev are programmers of the same skill level there's a huge gulf in knowledge. A 5 hour patch for the user might be a 5 minute job for a dev since they've already learned the code. So I generally use my dev skills to give a really good description of the problem and test cases. Usually the only times I write a patch are when it's a feature specifically for me, or I've gone into so much detail finding the bug I already found the fix.
It may be a specific case but when I hear or read others asking how to get experience programming frequently some replies are to see what bugs have been submitted to FOSS projects, pick one, and submit a patch to the project leaders.
And that's a great idea to gain programming experience, just realize that it's more of a way to learn programming than a way to make a big contribution, you basically need to find a bug that's easy to fix (so you can handle it), and not a lot of people care about (or someone else would have made the easy patch first).
The best bet is to find some little one or two dev project on SF or something (try a niche end user project like a podcast manager), there the code should be easier to understand, the bugs should be easier to find and fix without side effects, and the work will be more important to the project since it's less likely to be an obscure function no-one uses.
I don't have much experience programming myself but I've been thinking about trying my hand with CinePaint, a fork of GIMP with deep color editing. It used to be included in Ubuntu but when Debian dropped it so did Ubuntu and that's what I use now. I could try something easier but I want to do deep color editing of my photographs, and GIMP does not do that. The only other bit map graphics software that does deep color is Krita but it's lacking as a photo editor.
Falcon
I thought we were talking about the benefits of putting solar cells on the vehicle...
Putting solar panels on the car roof is not mentioned in the post you replied to.
I actually have been looking into installing solar panels on my home, though I probably won't charge my car from them (directly or time-shifted via the grid) because I charge my car pretty much entirely at work, from the chargers provided by my employer (Google) :-)
In a previous reply I said at one tyme employers in CA were offering recharging stations as a fringe benefit to employees. For those whose employers don't offer that charging from the gird may be viable. Now if I had solar panels on my roof, with or without, grid enter-tie I wouldn't mind charging my EV batteries at night. But then again I'd like to have a wind genie, as part of a hybrid energy system, as well. The grid would only be there as a backup.
Falcon
Even when both user and dev are programmers of the same skill level there's a huge gulf in knowledge. A 5 hour patch for the user might be a 5 minute job for a dev since they've already learned the code. So I generally use my dev skills to give a really good description of the problem and test cases. Usually the only times I write a patch are when it's a feature specifically for me, or I've gone into so much detail finding the bug I already found the fix.
It may be a specific case but when I hear or read others asking how to get experience programming frequently some replies are to see what bugs have been submitted to FOSS projects, pick one, and submit a patch to the project leaders.
I consider that to be a good contribution to the community and on projects I've managed in the past I really appreciated users who gave good bug reports.
I agree, however is there a documented methodology or procedure that is easy to find and use for those who want to submit bug reports? Of all the tymes I've read how users should submit bug reports I have not yet read how to submit these reports.
Falcon
Users aren't complaining because they want to be whiny or difficult. They're complaining because they see a flaw. If you want your software to be widely accepted, listen. If your software is just coding for self satisfaction, and you don't care about user adoption, then don't listen.
The problem here is one person's flaw is another person's need, or want. It can drive a developer/programmer batty trying to satisfy everyone.
Falcon
It seems like every couple of months some solar cell breaks a different barrier. A slashdot story from November (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/03/2010244/solar-panel-breaks-third-of-a-sun-efficiency-barrier) clocked some solar panel as being 33.5% efficient. Are they measuring on different scales or definitions of efficiency or something?
What gets me is that these stories have been posted to /. for years and years yet not many of these "break-throughs" lead to commercial applications. That is products buyers can actually buy in a store. Or an owner of hundreds of acres can build a solar farm with.
Falcon
In my case, my LEAF is parked indoors basically 24x7, so solar panels on it wouldn't be worth much at all. I mostly drive it between my garage at home and the underground parking garage at work.
You could have solar PVs on your roof which feeds the grid during the day, then your LEAF is recharged off the grid at night. Also though I haven't heard about it in years a number of years ago employers were installing charging stations in their parking lots, as a fringe benefit to employees.
Falcon
Make solar cheaper per watt than coal plants (we're getting close now), and then watch all the rooftops in the country get covered with solar panels.
I bet if solar, and geothermal and wind, was subsidized as much as coal and nuclear power was they'd be cheaper. And yes, both coal and nuclear power is subsidized. Here's Rep Edward Markey in 2009 practically bragging that nuclear power got $145 Billion while solar and wind got $5 Billion in subsidies. He goes on the say his bill has "Huge Subsidies for Clean Coal".
If all subsidies for clean alternative energy was added together it would not be close to how much coal and nuclear power gets. If coal had to pay for pollution and nuclear power had to get it's money from a free market I doubt either one would be in business today.
Falcon
If the input is virtually inexhaustible (sunlight), it doesn't matter how efficient it is. If you have half the efficiency, just double the solar panel area. Total cost per kW and per kWh becomes is more important. Mind you, the panels *don't* need to be on the car.
Efficiency does matter if area is a concern. A home may have enough roof space for solar PVs to charge a storage system or th power the home but may not have enough for both. Increasing efficiency may allow both to be done.
And that is if there is a battery bank big enough to allow an EV, Electric Vehicle, to have it's own battery system be charged over night. Of course with net metering the grid serves as storage during the day so the EV's batteries are charged at night from the grid.
Falcon
No, we have tons that we can't access due to environmental restriction. But we are gaining more access to oil as technology improves. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/energy-environment/report-sees-us-as-top-oil-producer-in-5-years.html?_r=0. This is partially due to shale reserves. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-find-holds-oil-opec/story?id=17536852. We have even more if we can hydrofrack. In short, we will be fine energy-wise as long as people allow us to access it.
The IEA report[pdf] linked by the NY Times article says there's an abundance of gas, which I mentioned before, but does not provide scientific data or links to support the idea that the US can become petroleum independent never mind an oil export. And a lot of the gas being pumped now was made possible by fracking. Now the ABC report, which also says the IEA report does not provide data, does say shale oil can be recovered from the Green River Formation of Colorado and Utah. However it also says that large amounts of water required to recover the oil are needed. That presents another problem. The Colorado River is the major source of water for all 7 states in the Colorado River Compact. The compact was created in 1922 when the river's water level was above average, so the river is over tapped now. One of the states that gets water from the river is California, and the river does not flow through the state. Instead through a system of canals water is pumped to the Imperial Valley in Southern CA. And by treaty Mexico is supposed to get some of the water from the river, after all the river is supposed to drain into the Sea of Cortez or Gulf of California, which is Mexican.
And while CO2 emissions are lower burning natural gas than burning coal, oil, and gas, it still emits CO2. Also the IEA report brings up alternative energy sources saying renewable sources can provide one third of the US's electricity. That is half of what an article in SciAm said was possible in 2050. A Grand Solar Plansays Solar power alone can provide 69% of the electricity and 35% of the total energy needs of the US. Elsewhere a study, sorry I don't have a link right now, based on the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States concluded wind energy from the Rocky Mountains alone can provide all the electricity for the 48 contiguous states. And that's just from the Rockies. The atlas shows other places in the US with abundant wind energy as well.
As you say "we will be fine energy-wise as long as people allow us to access it" applies to geothermal, solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources. Unfortunately NIMBYs block solar and wind throughout the US. Along the East Coast from Cape Hatteras to Cape Cod can provide significant amounts of energy. Using these sources, and increasing energy efficiency which the IEA report brings up, coal, nuclear, and petroleum can all be fazed out now. Not included here is natural gas fired power plants, that's because they are needed right now for baseline loads. Geothermal can be and is used for that also but can it supply all baseload needs? I don't know. And later storage technologies may enable mass energy to be stored economically.
Of course to bring all these electrical sources online requires the national electrical grid to be upgraded. While it will take Billions of Dollars, if not One Hundred Billion or more, US businesses lose about
You mean green chips?
Falcon
Do you also believe that the gas companies send agents around the world to assassinate researchers every time they get close to discovering "free energy" or carburetors that will make any car in the world get 100 mpg?
De-chartering Unocal. Unocal has been accused of aiding and supporting human rights violations in Burma and with the Taliban in Afghanistan. In 2001 President Bush recognized almost immediately the leaders of the coup against the democratically elected president of Venezuela Chavez. Many people believe the Afghan and Iraqi invasions are for oil. Some think the same of the accusations against Iran.
Falcon
Bio fuels should not be mistaken for the green, organic, nature lover's wet dream. It will require an awful lot of land to cover the energy needs of our current standard of living.
One, most bio fuels are not organic, so organic nature lover's don't have wet dreams about them. Two, the negawatt is powerful. Turning off electrically powered when they are not needed and using more energy efficient energy users can have a big impact. Californians complain about how high home heating costs are yet a properly designed and built home uses very little energy compared to conventional homes, and yet do not cost much more to build than standard construction. Adding insulation and sealing thermal barriers significantly reduces heat loss when cold outside and heat gain when hot outside.
However other energy sources can provide a lot of energy as well. The Department of Defense (DoD) "could generate 7,000 megawatts (MW) of solar energy—equivalent to the output of seven nuclear power plants—on four military bases located in the California desert, according to a study released today by DoD’s Office of Installations and Environment." The article in SciAm A Grand Solar Plan says that by 2050 solar energy can produce 69% of the U.S.’s electricity and 35% of its total energy by 2050. I didn't find it but another online source said that just 10% of the land in Nevada could produce enough electricity to power the 48 contiguous states. And another said the wind potential in the Rocky Mountains was also enough. Thinking small scale and big scale along with building a national smart gird can allow coal and nuclear power plants to be shut down, leaving natural gas plants operating along with goethermal plants to serve as baseline electrical generators until storage improves.
Falcon
Base load is simple there are two clean methods hydro that's pretty much tapped out.and atomic. The solution has been staring us in the face for decades build more long life reactors of a standard design.
In a free market nuclear does not work. Nuclear power 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
Solar and wind and every other new-wave energy source is just a way to supplement base load. If you know anything about electricity generation, you should know that the world depends on base load energy: energy generated from reliable sources that accounts for like 70% of all energy usage, i.e. coal, gas and nuclear. Until we find a solution for base load energy like fusion or invent god-like batteries or power lines made of superconductors that cost $100 per mile, everything else is a pipe dream.
There already is a source for baseloads. Of course some are dirtier than others, but coal which is the dirtiest energy source can be dropped as a fuel. Natural gas can be used for baseloads, as can geothermal energy. And with a national smart grid while solar energy doesn't produce energy wind will somewhere, maybe even right next to a solar farm. But until energy storage technologies signficantly improve natural gas can be used, fazing out coal and nuclear power.
And as for nuclear power, in a free market it would not be used. Nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies. People complain regulations raise the costs of nuclear power in the US. However the world leader in nuclear power is France and even in France government not businesses decide what's built.
"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
Well, if you wanted to really keep your energy usage down you'd grow a nitrogen fixing plant like peanuts every other year, avoiding the need for petroleum based fertilizers.
Nitrogen isn't the only nutrient plants need to grow. There are 3 major nutrients needed, nitrogen being one, but phosphorus and potassium are the others. Then there are many micro-nutrients needed as well. Falcon
Don't you think it would be easier to get it in your backyard, considering that the US has tons of it?
Tons of what? Petroleum? The US does not have that much proven reserves of petroleum. Supposedly what the US does have a lot of is Natural Gas. There are other sources that can come from our own backyard. What the US has much more of is sunlight and wind. According to the study by Southern Methodist University SMU Geothermal Lab project: Vast clean energy source confirmed by Google.org-funded geothermal mapping geothermal sources are capable of producing "more than three million megawatts of green power – 10 times the installed capacity of coal power plants today." Relatively clean energy sources, as there are none that are compleatly clean and non-polluting, can prove all of the US's energy needs. The biggest problem, well one of them, is with the infrastructure. U.S. solar power potential untapped as infrastructure is lacking. Yearly cost of U.S. outages: At least $119 billion. If the US is losing this much a year then it would pay to build a new smart grid. Then alternative sources would be able to contribute easier.
Falcon
Until the number of competitors come along, and the market gets filled, you will pay for leds in the same style you pay for Apple Products.
I don't understand. One, Apple does have competition, for every single product it sells. Two, while I haven't compared Apple pricing lately I compared the price of the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on to laptops from other OEMs before I bought this one. Comparing prices of laptops with comparable specs, I found one laptop $50 cheaper but others more. A Dell, or an Alienware which was owned by Dell, was $200 more for instance. A comparable HP and IBM was more too..
Of course a person can't start with a PC from some OEM like Dell or HP then compare it to a Mac because Apple does not offer all the configuration options the other companies do.
What's really bad now is that Apple has not released a new Mac Pro in more than 2 1/2 years. All Apple has done is bump up the CPU speed. While the 2011 MacBook Pro included the Thunderbolt interface the Mac Pro still does not have it. Tim Cook promised a new Mac Pro in 2013, but he didn't say when other than that. And as my MBP is more than 5 years old I wanted to replace it with another one, however Apple dropped 17" MBP, which is what I have and wanted to replace it with.
Falcon
My first one, bought around 1997, lasted one week. They weren't cheap back then either.
I bought my first one about 10 years earlier, in the late 1980s. And it wasn't cheap, it cost about $20, but it lasted me more than 15 years without a problem. In that tyme I moved once across country and four tymes across town, bringing it with me.
Falcon
I'd buy LEDs at a significant premium over CFLs since I have had poor experience with CFLs
Other have said the same thing, but I haven't had trouble with CFLs. And I bought my first one about 25 years ago.
Falcon
I'll replace my CFL with LED light bulbs when they are as good as CFLs for area lighting and do not cost much more than them.
Just curious how you'd calculate the proffered life expectancy of LED's over CFL's. In theory they should last 5-10x as long, but that doesn't translate into a 5-10x price premium, counting the time value of money.
As things are now I wouldn't count on life expectancy as I have to watch, keep track of, my budget. I'm on disability and haven't worked for more than 10 years. I hope I can start working again soon, though I don't what I'd do. I hope I can work as a photographer, but my eyesight isn't really good enough for that I think. That's the least of my problems though.
I'm also skeptical that any electronics manufactured today will last 50 years - maybe 20 years if I'm lucky and that won't command a 4x price multiple on CFL's (assuming they last 5 years which the old decent ones do).
True. The US is a disposable society. What's worse is the rest of the world is following in the US's footsteps.
Falcon
And 3 years ago CFL's were going for as high as $10+ per bulb.
They still are if you want the fancy dimmable 3-way type. But like today, I was buying 6-packs of decent CFL's for $15. I'll be happy to replace them all with LED's at $10 (2012) per equivalent light output.
I'll replace my CFL with LED light bulbs when they are as good as CFLs for area lighting and do not cost much more than them.
Falcon
The reduced cooling should help in lowering the costs of the LED versus the CFL and the reduced energy consumption will be a help as well.
Yesterday I went to Walmart to get new light bulbs, old CFLs I had burned out. There Walmart had LED bulbs in stock, at around $20 a bulb. I ended up going to Sam's to get CFLs, an 8 pack cost less than $6.
Falcon
And 3 years ago CFL's were going for as high as $10+ per bulb.
There are still $10 CFL bulbs, Walmart has bulbs for $12 as well as under a dollar.
Falcon
So far equally good experience with two LED bulbs ($$$). Especially like the new warm white LEDs from Philips.
Once LEDs are good for area lighting and drop in price I'll start replacing my burnt out CFLs with them. But for now I don't see a reason to replace what I have now, I don't use spotlights.
Falcon
Yesterday I went to Walmart to get new light bulbs, old CFLs I had burned out. There Walmart had LED bulbs in stock, at around $20 a bulb. I ended up going to Sam's to get CFLs, an 8 pack cost less than $6.
Paying $6 for eight of them might explain why they 'burn out'...
I guess you didn't understand what I said. The 8 bulbs I paid $6 for were to replace bulbs I bought years ago that eventually burned out. Just for the heck of it, I thing tomorrow I'll label new bulbs with the date as I replace older ones. Then I can keep track of exactly how long they last me. But I know I haven't had a CFL last less than 5 years.
Falcon