I'm sorry to disappoint you, but any significant increase in nuclear generating capacity will take more than a decade to implement, greenies or no greenies.
Meanwhile, instead of leaching heavy metals from landfill (that is the worst case, should the old computer gear not be recycled), these old computers will remain plugged into the grid. Instead, heavy metals and radionuclides will be spewed from the stacks of the existng coal-fired power stations.
So rather than let old computers die, he's prolonging their life-span, thereby increasing the global PC population, each of which is plugged into a power socket. All of these are sucking electrons from the grid, and leading to additional power generation demand. Tonnes more CO2 spewing into the atmosphere. Yay!
Yes it does. It reminds us that the security-freedom balance is a continuum, and that any compromise of freedom should only be given for the duration of the particular security threat. The oppresive behaviour of particular governements does not provide any justification for the erosion of freedoms in unrelated geopolitical regions.
The legal basis for restriction of freedoms should have a review period or sunset clause, in order to prevent continued escalation of governement power.
Of course, we've always been at war with Eastasia.
Major accidents, however, are usually composed of a sequence of simple errors, lapses in judgment and unforeseen circumstances, which conspire to circumvent all the safety systems in place.
It all comes down to economics. Wind and solar power have not yet reached the point where they are economically competitive with coal and nuclear. Coal and Nuclear both have massive hidden subsidies. Coal gets to dump all (or most) of its waste into the atmosphere, including significant quantities of heavy metals. Even "clean coal" is subject of much government subsidised research, despite the fact that large scale implementation is still years away, and probably will only occur for new installations. Carbon capture and storage (sequestration) is mostly a pipe-dream. Again, this is subject of much pork-barrelling.
Nuclear, at least the technology in existance now, is heavily based on the work done by the military-industrial complex, as a result of post WW2 and the Cold War.
Solar has had comparatively little government R&D subsidy, mainly because it doesn't contribute to the mighty US war machine.
I used to think that MAC whitelisting was a useful contribution, from a security viewpoint, except that I think that MACs can be sniffed using netstumbler or the like, so it wouldn't be too difficult to short-list the MAC addresses that connect to your router. MAC address spoofing isn't impossible either.
That leaves you with your WPA-PSK (presumably) and AES encryption as your security measures. Not that these are insignificant hurdles though.
A free currency system is not any more complex (or different) to that of a gold standard. The gold standard simply provides a physical/material restraining mechanism on currency issue.
The principle behind a free market currency (as opposed to a gold standard), is based on the same principles of a true free-market banking system (as distinct from that controlled by central banking).
With a free market banking system (where individual banks issue their own bank-notes), the currency stability is enforced by fear of a bank-run. With sufficient banking competition, there is an inherent system equilibrium. If a particular bank over extends its loan book (i.e. not having sufficient reserves) then the normal day to day transactions will draw down its deposits, exacerbating that position, putting pressure on that bank to call in loans to restore a reasonable reserve ratio.
The same principle applies at an interational level: If a country inflates its currency by printing more cash, then the natural trade transactions will put pressure on that country to restore the equilibrium, else the money markets and captial flows will work to create a new equilibrium balance.
This whole process falls down when competition is restrained, such as when one bank or country becomes the dominant player, such that the majority of transactions take place amongst that bank's depositors & borrowers, or on an international scale, the majority of transactions take place in one national currency (i.e. USD). This allows that bank or country to inflate its currency with less equilibrium-restoring pressures. Of course, since this is all a confidence trick, the further one gets from an equilibrium position, the harsher the restoring forces imposed when confidence is lost.
If you want a relatively easy read on the functioning of the banking system, I'd suggest reading Murray Rothbard's Mystery of Banking, which is freely available as a PDF online.
assuming that I wasn't planning on exchanging it for something else later and based on the amount I am paid for my work There's your answer. Gold on its own has relatively little intrinsic value. However, as a medium for exchange, it is almost without equal. The reason gold is a good commodity for use as money, and better at this than paper, is that there is only so much to go around. Paper money can be created at whim, the process of which devalues the worth of that already existing, viz. the Zimbabwe dollar.
The gold supply can be increased, but only at a moderate pace, and only with significant captial and labour inputs. Therein lies its usefulness.
with the expectation of a six-figure salary once they graduate Aspiring to a six figure salary is an indomitable human right. Ben Bernanke will go down in history as a champion campaigner of human rights, right alongside compatriate economic guru, Robert Mugabe.
The current best-practice method for thermal storage is using nitrate salts. Such technology has already been developed and various arrangements are already proven.
3.2 pence is 6.4 cents. So why build a plant with technology that can only do 17 cents with hope that it might scale down to 10 cents? Wind power is not very dispatchable, whereas CSP using thermal storage can be easily arranged to be almost completely dispatchable. Thus, you might be able to produce wind power at $0.064/kWh, you won't be able to sell it with any decent value-premium.
I suggest you read up a little on what happened during the Great Depression. Some of the economic policies were absurd. Many millions worth of agri products were destroyed in an effort to keep the prices up hence keep the farmers 'wealthy'. Now there's some sound policy. Destroy production to make the nation wealthy. Hmm......it's almost as good as inflating house prices to make the nation wealthy.
Case in point: about ten years ago, I bought a 35 sq house $250,000. These days, a 40 sq house between $500,000 and $750,000. Even though I earn 10% more money, my dollar today buys a thousand times as much... um... er... ahhh, scratch that...
Since you're talking about bending a wing under test, I would like to point out that the failure mode for a similar structure in aluminium will probably fail in a buckling mode, which happens to be sudden and catastrophic also.
I think the waste stream of old carbon fibre composite parts will be more of a long-term problem. At least the aluminium could be recycled.
Since your questions are apparently rhetorical, and structured to imply motives of people who use TOR (trying to hide something), your post is actually dangerously close to begging the question.
and this means that conservatives have difficulties to gasp [sic] changes and understand new ideas (nothing new here). As currently being demonstrated by John Winston Howard
If I have my calculations right, (using 32.6MJ/litre LHV for biodiesel and assuming the litres/acre figure is annualised production), the energy production rate is 0.5W/m. Considering insolation (depending on where you are) can be about 1400kWh/m.a, or approx 160W/m, it goes to show that biofuels, even the best of them, are pretty inefficient.
Slashdot Mirror
Money is not power. Revenue streams are power.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but any significant increase in nuclear generating capacity will take more than a decade to implement, greenies or no greenies.
Meanwhile, instead of leaching heavy metals from landfill (that is the worst case, should the old computer gear not be recycled), these old computers will remain plugged into the grid. Instead, heavy metals and radionuclides will be spewed from the stacks of the existng coal-fired power stations.
So rather than let old computers die, he's prolonging their life-span, thereby increasing the global PC population, each of which is plugged into a power socket. All of these are sucking electrons from the grid, and leading to additional power generation demand. Tonnes more CO2 spewing into the atmosphere. Yay!
Ah, the law of unintended consequences.
Yes it does. It reminds us that the security-freedom balance is a continuum, and that any compromise of freedom should only be given for the duration of the particular security threat. The oppresive behaviour of particular governements does not provide any justification for the erosion of freedoms in unrelated geopolitical regions.
The legal basis for restriction of freedoms should have a review period or sunset clause, in order to prevent continued escalation of governement power.
Of course, we've always been at war with Eastasia.
Exactly. All of which are sent airmail...
Major accidents, however, are usually composed of a sequence of simple errors, lapses in judgment and unforeseen circumstances, which conspire to circumvent all the safety systems in place.
But there's been quite a few nuclear accidents since the last significant asteroid strike...
Nuclear, at least the technology in existance now, is heavily based on the work done by the military-industrial complex, as a result of post WW2 and the Cold War.
Solar has had comparatively little government R&D subsidy, mainly because it doesn't contribute to the mighty US war machine.
I used to think that MAC whitelisting was a useful contribution, from a security viewpoint, except that I think that MACs can be sniffed using netstumbler or the like, so it wouldn't be too difficult to short-list the MAC addresses that connect to your router. MAC address spoofing isn't impossible either.
That leaves you with your WPA-PSK (presumably) and AES encryption as your security measures. Not that these are insignificant hurdles though.
A free currency system is not any more complex (or different) to that of a gold standard. The gold standard simply provides a physical/material restraining mechanism on currency issue.
The principle behind a free market currency (as opposed to a gold standard), is based on the same principles of a true free-market banking system (as distinct from that controlled by central banking).
With a free market banking system (where individual banks issue their own bank-notes), the currency stability is enforced by fear of a bank-run. With sufficient banking competition, there is an inherent system equilibrium. If a particular bank over extends its loan book (i.e. not having sufficient reserves) then the normal day to day transactions will draw down its deposits, exacerbating that position, putting pressure on that bank to call in loans to restore a reasonable reserve ratio.
The same principle applies at an interational level: If a country inflates its currency by printing more cash, then the natural trade transactions will put pressure on that country to restore the equilibrium, else the money markets and captial flows will work to create a new equilibrium balance.
This whole process falls down when competition is restrained, such as when one bank or country becomes the dominant player, such that the majority of transactions take place amongst that bank's depositors & borrowers, or on an international scale, the majority of transactions take place in one national currency (i.e. USD). This allows that bank or country to inflate its currency with less equilibrium-restoring pressures. Of course, since this is all a confidence trick, the further one gets from an equilibrium position, the harsher the restoring forces imposed when confidence is lost.
If you want a relatively easy read on the functioning of the banking system, I'd suggest reading Murray Rothbard's Mystery of Banking, which is freely available as a PDF online.
The gold supply can be increased, but only at a moderate pace, and only with significant captial and labour inputs. Therein lies its usefulness.
The current best-practice method for thermal storage is using nitrate salts. Such technology has already been developed and various arrangements are already proven.
I suggest you read up a little on what happened during the Great Depression. Some of the economic policies were absurd. Many millions worth of agri products were destroyed in an effort to keep the prices up hence keep the farmers 'wealthy'. Now there's some sound policy. Destroy production to make the nation wealthy. Hmm... ...it's almost as good as inflating house prices to make the nation wealthy.
Case in point: about ten years ago, I bought a 35 sq house $250,000. These days, a 40 sq house between $500,000 and $750,000. Even though I earn 10% more money, my dollar today buys a thousand times as much... um... er... ahhh, scratch that...
Case in point...
Since you're talking about bending a wing under test, I would like to point out that the failure mode for a similar structure in aluminium will probably fail in a buckling mode, which happens to be sudden and catastrophic also.
I think the waste stream of old carbon fibre composite parts will be more of a long-term problem. At least the aluminium could be recycled.
Since your questions are apparently rhetorical, and structured to imply motives of people who use TOR (trying to hide something), your post is actually dangerously close to begging the question.
$2.95
Finish fixing what problem, exactly?
Apologies for replying to my own post, but the 'm' units should be 'sq m' (m^2). Slashdot stripped the superscript 2s from my post.
If I have my calculations right, (using 32.6MJ/litre LHV for biodiesel and assuming the litres/acre figure is annualised production), the energy production rate is 0.5W/m. Considering insolation (depending on where you are) can be about 1400kWh/m.a, or approx 160W/m, it goes to show that biofuels, even the best of them, are pretty inefficient.
Shouldn't they just offer them for sale on eBay?
Small, (automotive sized) simple-cycle turbines are grossly inefficient.