I notice you did not comment on my limited resources refutation.
I didn't because that applies to virtually everything whether "green"or not. We haven't gotten to the point where we can get more energy out of hydrogen than what is put into making it.
I thought your characterization of NIMBYs had some merit.
Ted Kennedy who I had mentioned before was one of the NIMBYs who opposed an offshore wind farm in Cape Cod.
photocells: a more sophisticated approach as to how we make our living is that we increase the energy density in the productive process.
I don't know for fact but I think concentrated solar power has a higher efficiency than PVs. It also doesn't need as much rare earth metals I read in a science article. PVs can be used in smaller areas though.
I oppose general power supplies from solar power. Too low density to be really helpful for our continued existence.
Do you know more about solar power than those who write for SciAm? A Solar Grand Plan estimates solar power can "supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." In the article Sunny Outlook: Can Sunshine Provide All U.S. Electricity? it is claimed solar can provide all of California's and Texas' electricity. It goes on: "The entire energy use of 2006, the current technology including storage would use a patch of land 92 miles by 92 miles," O'Donnell says. "Ten percent of the [Bureau of Land Management] land in Nevada is enough."
Now on to sanity. suppose we had a nuclear spasm.
would you classify that as sane? If not, why not? If not sane, how do classify the people who advocated this?
How do you classify the people whose policies led to this?
Sane? I don't consider nuclear power sane. As for those whose policies favored nuclear power, ump. Ike, Dwight D Eisenhower, favored policies friendly to nuclear power. He also warned about the military industrial complex, yet he made them powerful, with his push against democracy in Viet Nam. Yes he opposed democracy in Viet Nam. By 1954-55 the French and North and South Vietnam came to an agreement whereby the people in Viet Nam would vote for reunification. Ike sent then Colonel Edward Lansdale to South Vietnam to arm and train Vietnamese who opposed reunification. If it hadn't been for that military contractors may never have gotten so big. They had a new war, the Vietnam War.
Perhaps, but it won't exempt you from considerations of distance and transport between your place of gathering/creating that energy and the places where people need it.
But it applies no matter the energy source. If energy can be generated locally it doesn't have to be transported far. Generate geothermal, solar, tidal, and wind where feasible. While geothermal may not be feasible everywhere wind pretty well covers the nation. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the
United States details where wind is good and where it's not. For instance start in the Northwest. Along the Pacific Coast from Alaska to Baja California wind is good. In Southern CA make a hook and turn east to western Texas and it continues. Now the Rockies, start in Canada and continue to northern Texas. Then go to the East, Atlantic, Coast. The Appalachians , Catskills, and Poconos Mountains have good locations. Offshore is good from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras. Solar is also good along the Pacific Coast and on to Texas. An article I recently read said 10 percent of the land the US government owns in Nevada can produce enough electricity for the US.
The idea is to generate electricity locally but have a national grid so that when one region can't generate enough then other regions will make up for it.
So are the bids the discount?
I'm assuming the bonds have a set face value, with a variable price (less than face value).
If the bids represent price, selling to the lowest bidder would seem to accomplish the opposite of the treasury's goal to raise money at low interest.
I hadn't though of it that way, you're right. I was thinking more along the lines that bidders bid on interest not the discount value. It might be done both ways depending on what it is, there are different debt instruments the government sells. There are four instruments the US government uses. Most people probably know about Treasury bonds but I doubt most people know about the others, Treasury bills, Treasury notes, and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities. That last one I didn't know myself though I know the bills and notes.
Seems to me that a reasonably well designed OS would lock after 4 password attempts. How are they entering all these passwords w/o the system balking?
I thought the same at first, however if you copy or clone the disk then run the cracker program on the PS3 what can stop it? No program on the original computer is needed. I thought then that decrypters would need to know what algorithm was used to encrypt the data, but even here I don't really know if it's needed or not.
Have you read any of his books? I haven't yet but I've thought of buying one. From what I've heard or read about him I'd like him on the US Supreme Court as a Justice.
There are actually 95 typable characters on a US keyboard. (26 letters + 10 numbers +11 symbols) x2 (with shift key) + spacebar.
There are 112 typeable characters on the keyboard of my Mac. I can also type special characters such as those with accents, diphthongs, umlauts, and others. When I want to I can type "Français" and "hola!" and "ß". There are literally hundreds of others I can type as well. However do encryption programs allow them to be used?
put punctuation inside your words to break them up (without forming words), e.g. metr[opo;%litan8, and you've pretty much defeated the dictionary attack.
I tried that once and was told I could not use a punctuation mark. I mix alphanumeric characters though.
How long they are 'guaranteed' for is completely and utterly irrelevant. In the first place, trusting in that means trusting the company offering the guarantee will be around and will honor it, and in the second place that the owner will remember to invoke the 'guarantee' and obtain replacements.
If people don't stand up for thenselves nothing is relevant, people usually have to stand up for themselves, no matter what it's over. This is no different. People need to investigate installers and the products they use if they are not specified. Plenty of people have built off the grid and share information and their experiences. There are a number of publications, magazines, touching on various things these people do or are interested in. I've personally been reading magazines like Homepower, Backwoods Home, and Solar Today for 10 or 20 years if not more.
Even if the 'guarantee' exists, and is honored, that still doesn't change what I said. Panels that need replacement for whatever reason mean new panels need to be manufactured.
This doesn't change the fact that old panels can be recycled and that new one have better efficiency so less are needed to supply the same amount of power if not more.
We already know that fusion power is a comercially viable final product.
Can you name one plant where fusion is used commercially to generate electricity? I hope it becomes economically feasible soon but I know of no plants in commercial operation.
I think you'll find it's more those who want more of the same old same old who criticize alternative or renewable energy sources. Of there are the NIMBY pambies like the deceased Ted Kennedy that oppose some plans as well.
I consider myself a bit of an environmentalist. I would like to see some big environmental projects. For instance, biology did not finish its job on earth. I would like to see the Sahara irrigated and converted into something useful for man.
It's not environmentally friendly to green the Sahara, some forms of life require the arid conditions of deserts. Stopping areas that are converting to desert conditions though is another matter.
We need to have a new mental disease classification just for greenies.
That doesn't sound any better than a new classification of mental disease for those who want to green the Sahara.
Except that you need to get your electricity from the Death Valley to where it's needed, and a lot can get lost in the process, plus it costs infrastructure money.
The US electric infrastructure has to be rebuilt anyway. That's true no matter where electricity comes from, whether it be coal, nuclear, solar, or wind. According to the US Department of Energy [pdf] the US loses billions of dollars a year due to power blackout, brownouts, and poor quality of electricity. In 2000 when the "Chicago Board of Trade lost power for an hour during the summer of 2000, trades worth about $20 trillion could not be executed."
Even with solar being taken seriously, you'd be using up a lot of land (hopefuly not arable) to be able to provide enough to satisfy household + industrial need.
Just as almost everyone else does, you're concentrating on the One Big Energy Source instead of looking at what sources can be harvested in different locations. The "Economist" has the article A new look at solar power about a solar farm in the Mojave Desert in CA. Both it and the article Sunny Outlook: Can Sunshine Provide All U.S. Electricity? says it produces 350 megawatts of energy, enough to power 90,000 homes. According to the SciAm article using the technology available in 2006 building solar farms on a piece of land 92 miles squared in Nevada, that's just 10& the Bureau of Land Management's land, would produce almost all of the electricity of the US.
That's just solar power. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details the wind potential of different regions of the US. The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind energy to supply all of the 48 continuous states with electricity. Then there's geothermal, which is a baseload provider, hydroelectric, and tidal power sources. One geothermal power plant on Hawaii's Big Island provides 25% of the island's electricity. Geothermal generated 13 terawatts hours of electricity in California. Combine these with a rebuilt smart national electric grid, which needs to be done anyways, and almost every coal, Natural Gas, and Nuclear power plant can be closed. Until the bulk energy storage problem is solved some plants can be kept running for more of the baseload.
Oh really? Payback period: The Energy Information Administration lists average U.S. residential electricity prices at 11.23 cents per kwh, as of February 2009. A turbine that puts out 2000 kwh a year saves $224.60 annually at that price, making the payback period just under 20 years on a $4500 panel. (The government rebate would lower the payback period to about 14 years.)" 3.5.4 Payback
"The detailed analysis done regarding the payback shows that with good wind resource at the installed site, the payback for a 15kW wind turbine will normally be about 10 years. Further with the usage of additional storage facilities like battery would increase an additional payback period of 13 years."
Meanwhile the nuclear power industry is Hooked on Subsides. "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."
if you don't think this impetus should come from the public sector, well, perhaps you should remember where the Internet came from - just one example of a multitude of technologies that have been borne out of public sector research.
In the US how many people disagree with the internet versus those who disagree with nuclear power? Eventually a network like the internet would have been developed but would any nuclear power plants have been built if left up to a free market? The nuclear industry is hooked on subsides. Without subsidies CompuServe was created by an insurance company in 1969. Then throughout the 1970s Bulletin board systems or BSSes sprang up. Also during the '70s a number of different online services started operating.
There is one exception though: There are people that propose building solar panels in the Sahara desert, and then building long power lines to Europe to transfer the generated power. It sounds fine until you realize that it means that Muammar Qaddafi and his pals can turn off the light in your home if he gets worked up for some reason.
Europe can also use geothermal, tidal, and wind power. Every region should use energy sources that are plentiful in those areas. The problem is with an area that does not have a plentiful source of energy. Then though they may trade.
Slashdot Mirror
I notice you did not comment on my limited resources refutation.
I didn't because that applies to virtually everything whether "green"or not. We haven't gotten to the point where we can get more energy out of hydrogen than what is put into making it.
I thought your characterization of NIMBYs had some merit.
Ted Kennedy who I had mentioned before was one of the NIMBYs who opposed an offshore wind farm in Cape Cod.
photocells: a more sophisticated approach as to how we make our living is that we increase the energy density in the productive process.
I don't know for fact but I think concentrated solar power has a higher efficiency than PVs. It also doesn't need as much rare earth metals I read in a science article. PVs can be used in smaller areas though.
I oppose general power supplies from solar power. Too low density to be really helpful for our continued existence.
Do you know more about solar power than those who write for SciAm? A Solar Grand Plan estimates solar power can "supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." In the article Sunny Outlook: Can Sunshine Provide All U.S. Electricity? it is claimed solar can provide all of California's and Texas' electricity. It goes on: "The entire energy use of 2006, the current technology including storage would use a patch of land 92 miles by 92 miles," O'Donnell says. "Ten percent of the [Bureau of Land Management] land in Nevada is enough."
Now on to sanity. suppose we had a nuclear spasm.
would you classify that as sane? If not, why not? If not sane, how do classify the people who advocated this?
How do you classify the people whose policies led to this?
Sane? I don't consider nuclear power sane. As for those whose policies favored nuclear power, ump. Ike, Dwight D Eisenhower, favored policies friendly to nuclear power. He also warned about the military industrial complex, yet he made them powerful, with his push against democracy in Viet Nam. Yes he opposed democracy in Viet Nam. By 1954-55 the French and North and South Vietnam came to an agreement whereby the people in Viet Nam would vote for reunification. Ike sent then Colonel Edward Lansdale to South Vietnam to arm and train Vietnamese who opposed reunification. If it hadn't been for that military contractors may never have gotten so big. They had a new war, the Vietnam War.
Falcon
Perhaps, but it won't exempt you from considerations of distance and transport between your place of gathering/creating that energy and the places where people need it.
But it applies no matter the energy source. If energy can be generated locally it doesn't have to be transported far. Generate geothermal, solar, tidal, and wind where feasible. While geothermal may not be feasible everywhere wind pretty well covers the nation. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details where wind is good and where it's not. For instance start in the Northwest. Along the Pacific Coast from Alaska to Baja California wind is good. In Southern CA make a hook and turn east to western Texas and it continues. Now the Rockies, start in Canada and continue to northern Texas. Then go to the East, Atlantic, Coast. The Appalachians , Catskills, and Poconos Mountains have good locations. Offshore is good from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras. Solar is also good along the Pacific Coast and on to Texas. An article I recently read said 10 percent of the land the US government owns in Nevada can produce enough electricity for the US.
The idea is to generate electricity locally but have a national grid so that when one region can't generate enough then other regions will make up for it.
Falcon Falcon
So are the bids the discount?
I'm assuming the bonds have a set face value, with a variable price (less than face value).
If the bids represent price, selling to the lowest bidder would seem to accomplish the opposite of the treasury's goal to raise money at low interest.
I hadn't though of it that way, you're right. I was thinking more along the lines that bidders bid on interest not the discount value. It might be done both ways depending on what it is, there are different debt instruments the government sells. There are four instruments the US government uses. Most people probably know about Treasury bonds but I doubt most people know about the others, Treasury bills, Treasury notes, and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities. That last one I didn't know myself though I know the bills and notes.
Falcon
Seems to me that a reasonably well designed OS would lock after 4 password attempts. How are they entering all these passwords w/o the system balking?
I thought the same at first, however if you copy or clone the disk then run the cracker program on the PS3 what can stop it? No program on the original computer is needed. I thought then that decrypters would need to know what algorithm was used to encrypt the data, but even here I don't really know if it's needed or not.
Falcon
TrueCrypt is open source and is available for download from Source Forge, which hosts open source projects. And here's the downloadable source code.
Falcon
Have you read any of his books? I haven't yet but I've thought of buying one. From what I've heard or read about him I'd like him on the US Supreme Court as a Justice.
Falcon
There are actually 95 typable characters on a US keyboard. (26 letters + 10 numbers +11 symbols) x2 (with shift key) + spacebar.
There are 112 typeable characters on the keyboard of my Mac. I can also type special characters such as those with accents, diphthongs, umlauts, and others. When I want to I can type "Français" and "hola!" and "ß". There are literally hundreds of others I can type as well. However do encryption programs allow them to be used?
Æ Ê OE Ø ð
Falcon
If memory servers, the cell platform in a PS3 doesn't allow you to use all of the cores when you're running linux
It's the hardware Sony includes on PS3s that don't work well with Linux. IBM supports Linux on Cells.
Falcon
Democratic People's Republic of Korea ... and they've abandoned democracy, a republic, and their people ...
No, North Korea is still a republic, there is no monarchy in North Korea.
Falcon
PS3s use the Cell microprocessor.
Falcon
A speedy trial once your charged. They can spend decades collecting evidence before charging you.
Only on charges for which there is no statute of limitations.
Falcon
put punctuation inside your words to break them up (without forming words), e.g. metr[opo;%litan8, and you've pretty much defeated the dictionary attack.
I tried that once and was told I could not use a punctuation mark. I mix alphanumeric characters though.
While TrueCrypt encrypts what makes it real good is it hides files.
Falcon
How long they are 'guaranteed' for is completely and utterly irrelevant. In the first place, trusting in that means trusting the company offering the guarantee will be around and will honor it, and in the second place that the owner will remember to invoke the 'guarantee' and obtain replacements.
If people don't stand up for thenselves nothing is relevant, people usually have to stand up for themselves, no matter what it's over. This is no different. People need to investigate installers and the products they use if they are not specified. Plenty of people have built off the grid and share information and their experiences. There are a number of publications, magazines, touching on various things these people do or are interested in. I've personally been reading magazines like Homepower, Backwoods Home, and Solar Today for 10 or 20 years if not more.
Even if the 'guarantee' exists, and is honored, that still doesn't change what I said. Panels that need replacement for whatever reason mean new panels need to be manufactured.
This doesn't change the fact that old panels can be recycled and that new one have better efficiency so less are needed to supply the same amount of power if not more.
Learn to think, rather than parroting.
I suggest you do the same, PV Panel Disposal and Recycling, The Value and Feasibility of Proactive Recycling.
Falcon
We already know that fusion power is a comercially viable final product.
Can you name one plant where fusion is used commercially to generate electricity? I hope it becomes economically feasible soon but I know of no plants in commercial operation.
Falcon
I'll take in my Backyard, I'll take it over ANY Coal fired plant.
As long they build a containment vessel and don't let Russian yahoos run it I am fine with it.
Oh do you mean like any of these:
Falcon
What is it with greenies and such.
I think you'll find it's more those who want more of the same old same old who criticize alternative or renewable energy sources. Of there are the NIMBY pambies like the deceased Ted Kennedy that oppose some plans as well.
I consider myself a bit of an environmentalist. I would like to see some big environmental projects. For instance, biology did not finish its job on earth. I would like to see the Sahara irrigated and converted into something useful for man.
It's not environmentally friendly to green the Sahara, some forms of life require the arid conditions of deserts. Stopping areas that are converting to desert conditions though is another matter.
We need to have a new mental disease classification just for greenies.
That doesn't sound any better than a new classification of mental disease for those who want to green the Sahara.
Falcon
Except that you need to get your electricity from the Death Valley to where it's needed, and a lot can get lost in the process, plus it costs infrastructure money.
The US electric infrastructure has to be rebuilt anyway. That's true no matter where electricity comes from, whether it be coal, nuclear, solar, or wind. According to the US Department of Energy [pdf] the US loses billions of dollars a year due to power blackout, brownouts, and poor quality of electricity. In 2000 when the "Chicago Board of Trade lost power for an hour during the summer of 2000, trades worth about $20 trillion could not be executed."
Even with solar being taken seriously, you'd be using up a lot of land (hopefuly not arable) to be able to provide enough to satisfy household + industrial need.
Just as almost everyone else does, you're concentrating on the One Big Energy Source instead of looking at what sources can be harvested in different locations. The "Economist" has the article A new look at solar power about a solar farm in the Mojave Desert in CA. Both it and the article Sunny Outlook: Can Sunshine Provide All U.S. Electricity? says it produces 350 megawatts of energy, enough to power 90,000 homes. According to the SciAm article using the technology available in 2006 building solar farms on a piece of land 92 miles squared in Nevada, that's just 10& the Bureau of Land Management's land, would produce almost all of the electricity of the US.
That's just solar power. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details the wind potential of different regions of the US. The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind energy to supply all of the 48 continuous states with electricity. Then there's geothermal, which is a baseload provider, hydroelectric, and tidal power sources. One geothermal power plant on Hawaii's Big Island provides 25% of the island's electricity. Geothermal generated 13 terawatts hours of electricity in California. Combine these with a rebuilt smart national electric grid, which needs to be done anyways, and almost every coal, Natural Gas, and Nuclear power plant can be closed. Until the bulk energy storage problem is solved some plants can be kept running for more of the baseload.
Falcon
And the panels have a finite (and not too lengthy) life span, meaning you not only need to mine, you need to keep mining just to run in place.
Solar panels have warranties of 20 or 25 years. And at the end of their life they can be recycled and replaced with more efficient panels.
Falcon
A lot of natural resources go into Solar panels. Resources that need to be mined.
Those resources are recyclable. Unfortunately a little bit is lost every time something is recycled.
Falcon
Oh really? Payback period: The Energy Information Administration lists average U.S. residential electricity prices at 11.23 cents per kwh, as of February 2009. A turbine that puts out 2000 kwh a year saves $224.60 annually at that price, making the payback period just under 20 years on a $4500 panel. (The government rebate would lower the payback period to about 14 years.)" 3.5.4 Payback
"The detailed analysis done regarding the payback shows that with good wind resource at the installed site, the payback for a 15kW wind turbine will normally be about 10 years. Further with the usage of additional storage facilities like battery would increase an additional payback period of 13 years."
Meanwhile the nuclear power industry is Hooked on Subsides. "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
if you don't think this impetus should come from the public sector, well, perhaps you should remember where the Internet came from - just one example of a multitude of technologies that have been borne out of public sector research.
In the US how many people disagree with the internet versus those who disagree with nuclear power? Eventually a network like the internet would have been developed but would any nuclear power plants have been built if left up to a free market? The nuclear industry is hooked on subsides. Without subsidies CompuServe was created by an insurance company in 1969. Then throughout the 1970s Bulletin board systems or BSSes sprang up. Also during the '70s a number of different online services started operating.
Falcon
tech.
There is one exception though: There are people that propose building solar panels in the Sahara desert, and then building long power lines to Europe to transfer the generated power. It sounds fine until you realize that it means that Muammar Qaddafi and his pals can turn off the light in your home if he gets worked up for some reason.
Europe can also use geothermal, tidal, and wind power. Every region should use energy sources that are plentiful in those areas. The problem is with an area that does not have a plentiful source of energy. Then though they may trade.
Falcon
Perhaps, but most imaging systems are already displaying in green monotone ;-)
Bioluminescence comes in colours from red to blue.
Falcon