Did you eat today? Did you put gas in your car today? Did you drive on a street of some sort? All of these things are subsidized. Get over it.
What makes your post funny is that nuclear power doesn't need to be subsidized. The only major subsidies nuclear power receives is a) in the form of little to no liability and b) the ability to push off the waste issue. Why are these non-issues? First, there has never been a major nuclear event anywhere in the world except Russia, and that was due to an extremely poor design choice (read up on positive and negative coefficient designs). When done properly, nuclear power is extremely safe. Also, a corporation provides limited liability already, so there's little need for the government to shield nuclear generation operations. With regards to spent fuel, this is a political issue, not technical. The fuel could be reprocessed in breeder reactors, providing fuel for the next 1000 years from the material already in cycle. We don't reprocess fuel because Jimmy Carter thought it would help nuclear technology/fuel spread, yet France reprocesses without problems.
Now, if you'd like to point out why it's bad that nuclear fuel is subsidized, even though coal, solar, wind, and oil are as well, I'd be glad to hear it.
The fact is, nothing is moving back to a physical off switch. Devices are becoming more sophisticated, sit on networks, etc. so standby power is a necessary evil. I would prefer it would be kept to around 1-2 watts per device though. Nanosolar is extremely close to $1/watt for their panels. At that price, you'd put a couple of panels on your roof and all your low-power devices would be taken care of (you'd still need the utility for air conditioning, electric car, etc).
Doesn't run the AC in the summer. No point in burning twice the watts to pump the heat outside. Windows open most of the time, although I told him we should use a heat pump and central heat exchanger to dump the heat out of the house.
I guess it's better than the government stepping in and saying "You can't sell TVs that use more than X watts when powered up or are X efficient" as they have with lighting in the US.
I for one would be more than happy to live on the same land plot as a nuclear power plant, or have my house built within a few miles. As a plus, I'd want steam provided from the nuclear plant to heat my house in the winter, and my water year round.
The problem isn't technical, it's political. The consumer wants cheap, fixed power rates and dumps this problem on the utility. The utility has to buy power on the wholesale market at highly volatile rates.
The power companies should stop complaining and upgrade their equipment.
Consumers should quit their bitching and be prepared to pay the true cost of power.
My business partner's wife is very big into aquariums. They just installed a new 750 gallon tank in their basement, and with all the metal halide lights (used to promote plant/coral growth), their power bill is pushing $700/month. I've spoken with him about switching to new full-spectrum LED systems that have a higher initial investment, but would bring his bill down to $250-$350/month.
The problem is you can't spread the peak power out. You can't say, "Folks, we're running at 100% capacity, and instead of y'all turning on you AC units for the next 3 hours and us firing up a natural-gas fired peak power turbine which is super-expensive to run, we're going to rolling blackouts for the next 3 hours".
The basis of the problem is that most utilities charge a fixed, retail rate and customers don't feel the pain of power management that the utilities have to deal with. I'm not saying deregulation is the answer, far from it, but I am saying that customers should be charged the true price of power (see: time of day metering).
Too much work to be quite honest. My wife and I only use about $40/month of electricty in our 2 story townhome. We use very little power, because all we have are CFL lights, standard appliances that don't run often, a 60" LCD TV that's on occasionally, etc. Time of day use doesn't make sense for us because we don't consume that much power. On the other hand, when my Tesla Roadster shows up, and I buy the wife an electric VentureOne in 2009-2010, we'll switch to time of day and have timers on the vehicle charges so they only charge the vehicles between midnight and 4am, when power costs $0.01/Kwh for us.
As TV manufacturers move from Cold Cathode Fluorescent backlights to OLED backlights, you'll see a significant drop in power use. What really needs to be dropped is standby power, which is being sucked up the whole time the TV is off.
FYI, you don't need to notify the power company if your main disconnect only switches between utility and generator power (can't backfeed power because generator power can't get to the utility with the power transfer switch). On the other hand, you do need to notify the utility if you have a grid-tied inverter that feeds power back into the grid from solar/wind/etc. Note though that the utility needs to do nothing to disconnect you when they're working on the lines. NEC code requires grid-tie inverters to completely disconnect the utility feed when it detects utility power has been shutdown, so they can't feed power back when line workers are working on the lines (like after a large storm). Also, you are required to have master disconnection on the exterior of your home that the utility or line workers can lock, but that shouldn't affect power to your house if you're generating, only your ability to sell power back to the utility during the disconnect time.
Disclaimer: My experience on this is from permitting/installing solar and wind grid-tie systems, as well as from a good friend who is an electrical line worker.
2 story/2 people house and you're paying $100/month for power?
My wife and I live in a two story townhouse. All the lights are CFLs, we both have laptops that are on quite a bit of time, but I also use intelligent strips that shut off the entertainment center when the 60" LCD is off. Our power bill is never over $40/month. What's your price per KwH?
You have a citation for not being able to donate more than half of your income in a year? I'd think I should be able to donate all of my income if I choose.
But if your business loses money more than X years out of Y, the IRS says it's not a business, it's a hobby, and you can't deduct the costs.
This is debatable. The IRS specified:
An activity is presumed carried on for profit if it makes a profit in at least three of the last five tax years, including the current year (or at least two of the last seven years for activities that consist primarily of breeding, showing, training or racing horses).
On the other hand, I've spoken to several to CPAs who have said there is no limit on how long you can take losses as a business, as long as you're trying to make a profit. You're going to need to prove to the IRS that you're trying to make a profit in good faith though.
What you can't solve with technology, solve with policy. Burn unencrypted data to CD because your convenience is more important than security? That's a firin'.
In this case, the compensation is pretty poor. Google won't compensate for damage to their businesses due to e-mail being down. All Google has to do is provide 15 more days service at the end of the contract period. But then, what did you expect for $50/year?
No one, I mean no one will compensate you for damages to your business if the service they're providing fails (unless you're paying millions of dollars a month, and it's written into your contract). Read your agreements with any service provider. So why would Google be any different?
Slashdot Mirror
Did you eat today? Did you put gas in your car today? Did you drive on a street of some sort? All of these things are subsidized. Get over it.
What makes your post funny is that nuclear power doesn't need to be subsidized. The only major subsidies nuclear power receives is a) in the form of little to no liability and b) the ability to push off the waste issue. Why are these non-issues? First, there has never been a major nuclear event anywhere in the world except Russia, and that was due to an extremely poor design choice (read up on positive and negative coefficient designs). When done properly, nuclear power is extremely safe. Also, a corporation provides limited liability already, so there's little need for the government to shield nuclear generation operations. With regards to spent fuel, this is a political issue, not technical. The fuel could be reprocessed in breeder reactors, providing fuel for the next 1000 years from the material already in cycle. We don't reprocess fuel because Jimmy Carter thought it would help nuclear technology/fuel spread, yet France reprocesses without problems.
Now, if you'd like to point out why it's bad that nuclear fuel is subsidized, even though coal, solar, wind, and oil are as well, I'd be glad to hear it.
http://standby.lbl.gov/Hometours/HTlebot99/sld022.htm
Average house according to government research: 600kwh/year
I would not call that insignificant.
I've already ordered a Tesla Roadster. Just waiting for it to show up (mid-2009).
The fact is, nothing is moving back to a physical off switch. Devices are becoming more sophisticated, sit on networks, etc. so standby power is a necessary evil. I would prefer it would be kept to around 1-2 watts per device though. Nanosolar is extremely close to $1/watt for their panels. At that price, you'd put a couple of panels on your roof and all your low-power devices would be taken care of (you'd still need the utility for air conditioning, electric car, etc).
Lockheed Martin signed an exclusive deal with EEstor to use their ultracapacitors in this capacity (utility power storage/load leveling).
So I shouldn't tell you that with time of day metering, the price goes down to $0.01/KwH between midnight and 4am? =)
Doesn't run the AC in the summer. No point in burning twice the watts to pump the heat outside. Windows open most of the time, although I told him we should use a heat pump and central heat exchanger to dump the heat out of the house.
I guess it's better than the government stepping in and saying "You can't sell TVs that use more than X watts when powered up or are X efficient" as they have with lighting in the US.
I for one would be more than happy to live on the same land plot as a nuclear power plant, or have my house built within a few miles. As a plus, I'd want steam provided from the nuclear plant to heat my house in the winter, and my water year round.
The problem isn't technical, it's political. The consumer wants cheap, fixed power rates and dumps this problem on the utility. The utility has to buy power on the wholesale market at highly volatile rates.
The power companies should stop complaining and upgrade their equipment.
Consumers should quit their bitching and be prepared to pay the true cost of power.
My business partner's wife is very big into aquariums. They just installed a new 750 gallon tank in their basement, and with all the metal halide lights (used to promote plant/coral growth), their power bill is pushing $700/month. I've spoken with him about switching to new full-spectrum LED systems that have a higher initial investment, but would bring his bill down to $250-$350/month.
$0.07/KwH from ComEd (Nuclear) in Northern Illinois suburb.
The problem is you can't spread the peak power out. You can't say, "Folks, we're running at 100% capacity, and instead of y'all turning on you AC units for the next 3 hours and us firing up a natural-gas fired peak power turbine which is super-expensive to run, we're going to rolling blackouts for the next 3 hours".
The basis of the problem is that most utilities charge a fixed, retail rate and customers don't feel the pain of power management that the utilities have to deal with. I'm not saying deregulation is the answer, far from it, but I am saying that customers should be charged the true price of power (see: time of day metering).
Too much work to be quite honest. My wife and I only use about $40/month of electricty in our 2 story townhome. We use very little power, because all we have are CFL lights, standard appliances that don't run often, a 60" LCD TV that's on occasionally, etc. Time of day use doesn't make sense for us because we don't consume that much power. On the other hand, when my Tesla Roadster shows up, and I buy the wife an electric VentureOne in 2009-2010, we'll switch to time of day and have timers on the vehicle charges so they only charge the vehicles between midnight and 4am, when power costs $0.01/Kwh for us.
LCD power use will drop considerably as OLED backlights are rolled out (which is about a year away).
As TV manufacturers move from Cold Cathode Fluorescent backlights to OLED backlights, you'll see a significant drop in power use. What really needs to be dropped is standby power, which is being sucked up the whole time the TV is off.
FYI, you don't need to notify the power company if your main disconnect only switches between utility and generator power (can't backfeed power because generator power can't get to the utility with the power transfer switch). On the other hand, you do need to notify the utility if you have a grid-tied inverter that feeds power back into the grid from solar/wind/etc. Note though that the utility needs to do nothing to disconnect you when they're working on the lines. NEC code requires grid-tie inverters to completely disconnect the utility feed when it detects utility power has been shutdown, so they can't feed power back when line workers are working on the lines (like after a large storm). Also, you are required to have master disconnection on the exterior of your home that the utility or line workers can lock, but that shouldn't affect power to your house if you're generating, only your ability to sell power back to the utility during the disconnect time.
Disclaimer: My experience on this is from permitting/installing solar and wind grid-tie systems, as well as from a good friend who is an electrical line worker.
2 story/2 people house and you're paying $100/month for power?
My wife and I live in a two story townhouse. All the lights are CFLs, we both have laptops that are on quite a bit of time, but I also use intelligent strips that shut off the entertainment center when the 60" LCD is off. Our power bill is never over $40/month. What's your price per KwH?
THIS!
You have a citation for not being able to donate more than half of your income in a year? I'd think I should be able to donate all of my income if I choose.
Is code not considered an assignable asset with value?
But if your business loses money more than X years out of Y, the IRS says it's not a business, it's a hobby, and you can't deduct the costs.
This is debatable. The IRS specified:
An activity is presumed carried on for profit if it makes a profit in at least three of the last five tax years, including the current year (or at least two of the last seven years for activities that consist primarily of breeding, showing, training or racing horses).
On the other hand, I've spoken to several to CPAs who have said there is no limit on how long you can take losses as a business, as long as you're trying to make a profit. You're going to need to prove to the IRS that you're trying to make a profit in good faith though.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=172833,00.html
I need it because the people watching me have something to hide.
What you can't solve with technology, solve with policy. Burn unencrypted data to CD because your convenience is more important than security? That's a firin'.
In this case, the compensation is pretty poor. Google won't compensate for damage to their businesses due to e-mail being down. All Google has to do is provide 15 more days service at the end of the contract period. But then, what did you expect for $50/year?
No one, I mean no one will compensate you for damages to your business if the service they're providing fails (unless you're paying millions of dollars a month, and it's written into your contract). Read your agreements with any service provider. So why would Google be any different?