The real question though is this... if the car has that much information about the environment to project images that tell you what to do, why isn't the car doing the driving in the first place?
That's easy, lawyers.
Lawyers are why we can't have nice things.
Don't get me wrong. We need laws. We need people knowledgeable in law. We need courts, a justice system, and so on. The problem is a profession built upon frivolous lawsuits. These lawyers get paid even if the suit is stupid, or even unlikely to win. There is no easy solution to this because the stupidity of a given lawsuit is in itself something that is open to debate. Getting lawyers that simply will not take money to go through with stupid suits is impossible, because people need money.
Technological solutions to problems are not nearly the obstacle they used to be. Getting this technology to fit in a society that is not used to such a pace in technological development is now a much larger problem. At least that is how I see it.
How about zero-rating *all* streaming data. That would save customers even *more* money, right?
You don't think that is already coming?
I'm old enough to remember when all cell phone calls were charged by the minute regardless of when the call was made. Then came tiered pricing, cheaper calls after peak hours, and then off peek calls became free.
When texting became a thing people were charged per text message sent. This was also about the time when this technology called a "pager" was a thing. Then texting became cheaper, and it's common practice to get free unlimited texts with even the cheapest phone plans. Now no one has a pager anymore, cell phones and cell phone plans have become so cheap and ubiquitous that I don't know if anyone even makes a pager any more.
Not that long ago cellular data was very expensive and slow. My first cellular "data" plan ran at something like 14.4 kilobaud. An "unlimited" plan would have been unheard of. Now people get cellular internet at home because its become so fast and cheap, competing with things like cable, DSL, and satellite internet providers.
We are now seeing the next step in this evolution. We see streaming for selected services becoming "zero rated" on certain cell phone providers. This is how competition works and encourages developing the infrastructure for improved services.
We don't see zero rated streaming everywhere yet because it takes time to build up the infrastructure. This infrastructure is funded by people paying for it through fees. Competition drives people towards those that can offer these services at a higher perceived value at a lower perceived cost.
It won't take long for streaming to be free for all. I'm quite certain of that.
If the military sees climate change as a military problem then I'd like to see the military try to solve the problem. Perhaps the military could build more nuclear powered warships to replace oil burning ones. Aircraft carriers and submarines have been nuclear powered for a long time, use that technology in other ships, like destroyers and amphibious assault ships. There has been so much research in synthesizing fuel for aircraft, because kerosene is awesome fuel for aircraft and by synthesizing the fuel from carbon in the air and water the carbon loop is closed. Synthesized fuel not only closes the carbon loop but also separates the national economy from relying on oil supplies from hostile and/or unstable nations. Nuclear power is great, and the military should certainly invest in it, but also wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal energy projects could come from military funding and research.
It turns out that the US military has been trying to do this for a very long time.
I've seen so many people in the energy research industry, and people in the military, that would love to invest in energy alternatives so that we would not have to rely on fossil fuels as much as we have. The largest obstacle to this, ironically, is the US Department of Energy.
The US Navy wants more nuclear powered ships. They are able to operate for much longer periods of time before needed resupply, which is a huge tactical advantage. Given the large energy density of nuclear power it is also possible to have more weapons, and more powerful weapons, than an oil fired ship would be able to support. Directed energy weapons are really only viable on a nuclear powered vessel. But the Navy cannot build nuclear reactors without some support from the DOE, and certainly without support from Congress.
The US Navy has been funding research in synthesizing fuels and in fusion power reactors. The problem is that if the funding reaches a certain monetary level then the DOE comes along, declares it within their authority, takes over the project, and... kills it. The DOE is interested in tokamak fusion, and anything that might compete with it makes them look bad, so they simply declare any fusion reactor that is not a tokamak "non-viable" and keeps betting on the same horse that may never finish the race.
The US Navy has also been funding research in synthetic fuels, because a nuclear powered vessel that can fuel the aircraft that it carries is very advantageous. This technology would also be quite valuable for land based operations, and civilian vehicles. But this is a threat to the DOE research in electric vehicles so they will try to kill it if they can. The Navy though has been very protective of this technology and has been doing this research for a very long time now. If given proper funding then we could see this much sooner.
The US DOE has been very hostile to nuclear power, synthetic fuels, among other technologies that might actually solve this climate change problem. This is assuming the problem even exists, I'm not a believer in this catastrophic anthropogenic global warming issue largely because of the very hostile attitude the DOE has had on so many possible solutions to the problem. If the CAGW crowd want to convince me that it is a real problem then I want to see real solutions be given a chance. If the federal government, through the DOE, keeps killing these alternatives to fossil fuels then I cannot be convinced that the federal government truly sees CAGW as a problem.
Oddly enough it might take a Trump administration, which is not on the CAGW bandwagon, to solve this problem of global warming. Trump himself and the GOP have stated that nuclear power should be developed. The Obama administration and the Democrats are openly hostile to nuclear power. Trump and the GOP are supportive of the military and just might give them the nuclear powered ships they've asked for. As well as more solar panels for forward operating bases. The "Drill, Baby, drill" attitude might turn a lot of pe
The tourists that go on these trips buy insurance for things like this. It is quite possible that the company that organized the trip will pay for any costs incurred.
Also, military rescue people live for this kind of thing. They are required to have so much training every year in case there is a military need for such a rescue effort. I'd rather they practice on real people, saving real lives, to get that training rather than have to pay for them to do their training on mannequins.
If we are going to hold some kind of vote on if the taxpayers should pay for this then I'll vote for this to be funded in part by my tax bill.
Also, the US Coast Guard goes out all the time to keep people from wining the Darwin Awards, I don't get upset about that either. Call it training, call it international outreach, call it being a member of the human race. Call it what you will but just don't call it a waste of taxes.
Solar provides the peak load electircity when its needed.
Why does this get repeated so often when it is so easily proven false?
Solar power hits it's peak at local noon. Air conditioning load hits it's peak with air temperatures which is somewhere between local 14:00 and 18:00. This need for air conditioning continues beyond sunset.
I've seen people claim this problem is easily solved with some sort of energy storage device. This level of energy storage is not yet economical, with possible exceptions for those that live next to hydro electric dams. Assuming it did exist why limit it's use to solar power? Would not all energy sources gain from this?
Any other tactic to spread out demand to match the supply would also benefit any other source of electricity. Smart grids, efficiency gains, load shifting, etc. all benefit competing energy sources like nuclear, wind, natural gas, and even coal.
I used to be a fan of solar power too, until I saw so many people claiming we can use solar power to replace every other energy source. Solar power makes sense in moderation. Too much and it makes things worse. In many places in the world we've already seen solar power built up beyond what is reasonable. No doubt from wishful thinking, government subsidies, all from lobbying by people with heads in the clouds and hands in my pockets.
Of course we're going to need large centralized solar power. Rooftop solar might work for residential, and many businesses, but heavy industry is going to need solar power on this scale, if solar is going to replace coal and nuclear.
We're going to need aluminum refining and recycling even in a solar powered world. In fact we'd probably need more. Same for iron and steel. This kind of industry takes a lot of energy, more than could be obtained from solar panels on the roof.
You mention transmission losses as a benefit for distributed solar. How much loss would there be in shipping the energy from thousands (millions?) of roof tops to power an iron induction furnace? I'm not going to bother trying to do the math myself right now but I can imagine it wouldn't be too hard to make a case for a gigawatt scale solar power farm to run a nearby iron works.
All four need to be built correctly and safely yet corners get cut, damns fail and eventually a nuclear plant will fail worse then the ones being discussed.
I hate it when my damns fail.
Tell me something, of all this safety that you think needs to go into the energy sector who is it that is supposed to enforce it? Government you say? Every nuclear power accident happened at a power plant that was government inspected and licensed. Every oil spill was from a drill, ship, pipe, train, or refinery that was inspected and licensed by a government.
TEPCO quite likely fucked up major here but they did so under government supervision. The government allowed the reactor to operate as it did, where it did, because it met all safety requirements imposed upon it. If it hadn't then it would have been shutdown.
What is ironic is that it is quite likely because of the safety protocols imposed on it that the reactor melted down. The reactor itself survived the quake, what didn't survive was the backup power and the power lines to the facility. When the control systems detected the quake an automated scram was initiated. This shutdown the reactor but the fission products continued to produce heat. Without the power provided by the fission reaction the boilers could not maintain a head of steam to run the turbines. When the turbines came to a halt their was not enough electricity to drive the cooling pumps. No cooling and the reactor gets hot. So hot that safety systems start to fail and fission restarts on its own. Then things get real hot, hot enough to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen gas. Without power from the reactor to vent these gasses, or run the recombiners, and it builds up until something ignites it.
If the reactor had not been shutdown as required by law then perhaps none of this would have happened. I could argue that the government caused this, therefore they should have to pay for it.
For an island nation those are pretty much the two options they have.
Large nations like the USA, Canada, Russia, etc. have plenty of land mass to spread out variations in weather for things like wind and solar. Japan can't do that. They might be able to do something like rely on some tidal power, geothermal, and maybe wind and solar, but for the most part they are left with few options.
Japan must choose nuclear power, coal, or reverting to a preindustrial society. So, you are correct, they don't have to choose between coal and nuclear. They can choose to ride oxcarts instead of trains.
Do you believe this development and enforcement of safety does not come at a cost? If the solar power installers have to buy more safety harnesses and hire more safety inspectors then their costs will rise. Solar already costs 5x what nuclear does.
You are correct that the safety factor alone is not enough to move to nuclear power. It's the safety factor, cost, reliability, and abundance of nuclear power that is an argument to use more of it.
Just a side note, people will talk about how grid level storage will make wind and solar cheaper and more viable but does the battery care where the electricity came from? If grid level storage develops to a level where it could be deployed for solar then it could be deployed for nuclear too. Grid level storage helps all energy sources, not just wind and solar. In fact it might make it look worse.
So, in two years and a month, the USA will have it's first major nuclear accident.
The USA has had nearly 100 operating nuclear power plants for decades without a major nuclear accident, why would you expect that to start now? Is it because Trump is POTUS?
I don't remember the details either but it had something to do with a state legislature deciding to vote in a new US Senator before the terms of the prior one was up. So then you had three senators show up in DC all claiming to be duly elected from state X. Rather than try to get the state legislatures to play by the rules the other states decided to have a popular vote.
With that amendment the states just wrote themselves out of the authority to constrain federal power.
There are also corporate lobbyists that want to make sure this comes to market too. Also, even the owners of stock in companies that make cold medicine get sick, have children that get sick, etc. To assume that they'd allow human misery to continue to make a buck is assuming the worst in humanity.
Do you believe all the people that make medicines are in the business to profit from the misery of others? That is possible but it is also possible that they are in the business of relieving misery but to do so they need to pay the bills.
Also, it's not like curing the common cold will eliminate their market. People still get headaches, have trouble sleeping, get allergies, and so on. If you look at the ingredients of a common cold medicine and compare it to a common sleep aid like Tylenol PM you will see it's the same stuff. The stuff to treat allergies is also the same stuff to treat cold symptoms. If they don't sell enough cold medicine they'll just put a different label on it and sell it that way.
Let them lobby away, because the people in the FDA would quite likely want to see this on the market too. I can imagine the lobbyist money looks great until that government official gets a cold of their own.
Having something "open" and be something the hobbyist cannot build in their basement does not mean it is a lie, or useless. It opens up a kind of competition that is rare in electronics. Different chip manufacturers can compete on form-fit-function devices on price. These same chip makers can use a common core design and make variations on that theme for market. With the full schematics available hobbyists know what they are getting. Circuit simulators are getting more complex all the time and a hobbyist might be able to create new variations, submit them to a manufacturer and they can incorporate the changes in a new version, or possibly make a custom run of the chip.
Bugs should become more obvious, fixes found more quickly, security would be improved, and generally many hands make light work.
I can also imagine such open hardware designs helping in educating the next generation of hardware developers. Future computer engineers and scientists could see an entire working modern CPU where now all the good stuff is locked up in IP.
As an amateur radio operator I've seen the technology used stagnate. Many licensed radio operators are building the same kits that were used decades ago. There is a market for repurposing commercial gear to amateur radio by changing hardware and/or software. A lot of things though are locked down, leaving amateurs in a tough spot. There's some interesting things happening in digital communications on amateur radio but the best stuff means using proprietary hardware which gets into a legal grey area for a radio service that is supposed to be "open" for all. I suspect that amateur radio is not as attractive as it used to be because it is often easier to just operate legally under Part 15, or illegally in the non-amateur bands.
I like the idea but I've seen similar open hardware schemes die. I believe it has to catch on at some point, maybe now is the time.
It is correct to point out that the electoral college is not constitutionally bound to elect the person on the ballot. That does not mean they must elect Clinton either.
If not Clinton or Trump then who? I don't know but it would be nice to see candidates that are a bit younger and healthier for one.
I know I'm not the first to point this out but this tendency for old professional politicians to run is likely a big reason why Trump won. Trump is just as old as Clinton but he appears to be in better health and hasn't been a politician for 50 years like his Republican primary competitors and the Democrat general election competitor. People don't like professional politicians any more, assuming they were ever liked.
That's why we USED TO have a Senate. When the Senate changed to popular vote instead of appointment by the state governments it became just another House of Representatives.
You are correct on your assessment of the chances of eliminating the electoral college, it's not going to happen any time soon.
Why the fuck are we not doing this to every rivers main flows?
As I understand it the real gains in efficiency and energy storage comes not from the volume of water behind the dam but from the height. Building a wall to hold back water is trivial, building one high enough to be useful for energy storage is not.
I'll take him over the person we know to be brain damaged. Clinton even admitted to having troubles with her memory, failure to understand security protocols and markings, etc. She's been using those excuses to keep her from jail during the investigation of her e-mails. She's also admitted to hitting her head, a serious enough injury that she missed several days of work. Some of her odd behavior lately has been speculated as indications of mental troubles, like her coughing fits, odd head and eye movement, and her collapsing at that 9/11 memorial during her campaign, and inappropriate emotional responses.
Clinton is much more likely to be brain damaged than Trump.
Pretty sure Trump promised West Virginia coal miners their jobs back, meaning he's promising to bring coal consumption back to it's historical peak levels, despite the lack of demand. Sad. Disgusting little idiot, isn't he?
If a person believes that CAGW isn't a thing, that people need jobs, especially in manufacturing, then by creating a regulatory environment to bring those jobs back the demand should increase. Seems fairly logical. Overly optimistic perhaps, but logical.
It's only "disgusting" and "sad" for those that see coal as inherently evil. Since it was coal that provided the power that took humanity through the industrial revolution then, again, burning coal for a new industrial revolution is logical. I've read my history and there were a lot of "disgusting" and "sad" things in the industrial revolution but few would argue that society isn't better off because of it. We also have learned ways to burn coal more cleanly than before, we're not likely to repeat the soot covered world we had before.
I don't like coal, I believe we should replace it with nuclear power. Driving thousands out of jobs and into poverty/welfare by government fiat is not only being a jerk to a lot of people, it hurts the entire economy. We need a smooth transition away from coal, not a ban.
Maybe I wasn't obvious enough - something that shows it does not work will disprove it.
That is not an answer, that is a tautology.
Somebody has sold you on a massive pile of shit polished up to look like a conspiracy theory where all scientists are liars.
It's not that science, or lack of it, that bothers me as much as the solutions presented. Carbon taxes won't work, a bit of economics will show that. Bio-fuels won't work, just computing how much land that would take will show that. Wind and solar won't work because they are expensive, unreliable, take so much resources and land to implement, and additionally history shows them to be dangerous from all the people that have died from industrial accidents. Geothermal, hydro, and to a lesser extent wind and solar again, all depend on favorable geography to work.
What does work is natural gas and nuclear power. Natural gas is still a fossil fuel but it is cheap, plentiful, ten times safer than coal, but only half the CO2 output of coal. Nuclear power is cheap, plentiful, nearly a million times safer than coal, and a CO2 output that is the lowest of any energy source we know of except hydro.
They do are in atmospheric science it's not really something they know about - go bother people in Washington or the banks if you want someone to pay for nukes.
If the climate scientists don't know anything about energy then they should shut their mouths and let the people that do speak up. So far the people that have spoken up never mention nuclear power except to say it is not an option. All we get are the same lies about nuclear power, about it being unsafe, to expensive, takes to long to build, etc. That has never been true and in the decades that have passed nuclear power technology has improved considerably on all arguments against it.
The only thing holding up nuclear power is, oddly enough, the US Department of Energy. The one federal agency that guards all the doors and holds all the keys to nuclear power development in the USA is uninterested in performing the one mandate the department was created to perform, lead the nation to energy independence.
The people in Washington don't listen to reason, they listen to votes. So long as people vote against nuclear power it will not happen. This most recent election shows promise but it will still take a lot of convincing. I'd think that the kind of people that Slashdot caters to would be able to, as you say, rest for a bit and read something and come to the same conclusion I have. Those in the CAGW camp that claim to have done the math and still dismiss nuclear power just shows me that they either did not do the math, or they have some other goal in mind.
Call it a conspiracy theory if you like but it seems quite straightforward. The CAGW people have laid out the problem. Nuclear power is a perfectly viable solution, it may not be a perfect solution but it is the best we have so far. If the CAGW people reject the nuclear power then one has to wonder if they believe their own CAGW theory or had some other goal in mind.
Models getting checked and refined against reality is a bad thing?
The models change but the result never does. Doesn't that seem odd to you?
I also noticed that you seem to be avoiding the question I posed earlier, what would it take to disprove the CAGW theory?
They keep updating these models, after they've proved to be disastrously wrong, but somehow we are supposed to believe them now? After they've been doing this for so long, and doing so poorly at predicting anything, should not someone in the "climate science" community come along with a model that deviates somewhat from the narrative? If a group does come along with a new model then they are said to be liars, shills, a "non-scientist" or whatever. I'm not talking about being a denier, just someone that thinks that the global warming isn't going to be so bad, or that we've got some time to work on this problem. Anyone that isn't running around like their hair is on fire that we are all doomed unless we act now are called "deniers".
You see no one can answer the question on what would disprove the CAGW theory because if it actually happens then they lose their "leverage" on getting funding and whatever else it is they want. Which is why I'm tending to believe it's not stopping global warming that they want because they ignore the one big solution that is staring them in the face, nuclear power.
Your anti-science rant is all completely pointless anyway because Finland had nukes and are currently building a new one.
They are the exception and not the rule. It's also rare for anyone in the CAGW community to consider nuclear power a good thing.
These people will write bills on how to address global warming, such as a carbon cap and tax. These bills will account for wind and solar power for carbon credits but leave nuclear power out. In their mind nuclear power is just as good as a coal plant to offset global warming. Support for nuclear power doesn't prove their theory, it only proves that they believe their own theory.
Even though a statement on what would disprove the CAGW theory would take a long time to verify, if it is verifiable at all, it would be nice to see them say something that shows there is real science behind this. A theory is only a theory if there is a null theory to go with it, as in some way to prove the theory wrong. This is very basic science. If these people cannot explain to me what would disprove the theory then it's not science.
You say that as if Trump would care. Trump wants to make AMERICA great again. If other nations choose to not do business with it then that means America would have to be able to feed and clothe itself, provide for it's energy needs, etc. This might suck for a while but for a nation sitting on HUGE reserves of natural gas, oil, coal, uranium, and thorium there will not be a lack of energy. With a large agricultural sector, lots of manufacturing, great schools, a large military, and so much more going for it I *DARE* the rest of the world to place sanctions on the USA.
Go tell your workers in America that they need to come home. Go tell your restaurants and groceries to stop buying American beef. Go tell everyone to stop eating American corn and wheat, using American cotton, driving American cars. Go ahead.
Slashdot Mirror
The real question though is this... if the car has that much information about the environment to project images that tell you what to do, why isn't the car doing the driving in the first place?
That's easy, lawyers.
Lawyers are why we can't have nice things.
Don't get me wrong. We need laws. We need people knowledgeable in law. We need courts, a justice system, and so on. The problem is a profession built upon frivolous lawsuits. These lawyers get paid even if the suit is stupid, or even unlikely to win. There is no easy solution to this because the stupidity of a given lawsuit is in itself something that is open to debate. Getting lawyers that simply will not take money to go through with stupid suits is impossible, because people need money.
Technological solutions to problems are not nearly the obstacle they used to be. Getting this technology to fit in a society that is not used to such a pace in technological development is now a much larger problem. At least that is how I see it.
How about zero-rating *all* streaming data. That would save customers even *more* money, right?
You don't think that is already coming?
I'm old enough to remember when all cell phone calls were charged by the minute regardless of when the call was made. Then came tiered pricing, cheaper calls after peak hours, and then off peek calls became free.
When texting became a thing people were charged per text message sent. This was also about the time when this technology called a "pager" was a thing. Then texting became cheaper, and it's common practice to get free unlimited texts with even the cheapest phone plans. Now no one has a pager anymore, cell phones and cell phone plans have become so cheap and ubiquitous that I don't know if anyone even makes a pager any more.
Not that long ago cellular data was very expensive and slow. My first cellular "data" plan ran at something like 14.4 kilobaud. An "unlimited" plan would have been unheard of. Now people get cellular internet at home because its become so fast and cheap, competing with things like cable, DSL, and satellite internet providers.
We are now seeing the next step in this evolution. We see streaming for selected services becoming "zero rated" on certain cell phone providers. This is how competition works and encourages developing the infrastructure for improved services.
We don't see zero rated streaming everywhere yet because it takes time to build up the infrastructure. This infrastructure is funded by people paying for it through fees. Competition drives people towards those that can offer these services at a higher perceived value at a lower perceived cost.
It won't take long for streaming to be free for all. I'm quite certain of that.
Now, get off my lawn.
If the military sees climate change as a military problem then I'd like to see the military try to solve the problem. Perhaps the military could build more nuclear powered warships to replace oil burning ones. Aircraft carriers and submarines have been nuclear powered for a long time, use that technology in other ships, like destroyers and amphibious assault ships. There has been so much research in synthesizing fuel for aircraft, because kerosene is awesome fuel for aircraft and by synthesizing the fuel from carbon in the air and water the carbon loop is closed. Synthesized fuel not only closes the carbon loop but also separates the national economy from relying on oil supplies from hostile and/or unstable nations. Nuclear power is great, and the military should certainly invest in it, but also wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal energy projects could come from military funding and research.
It turns out that the US military has been trying to do this for a very long time.
I've seen so many people in the energy research industry, and people in the military, that would love to invest in energy alternatives so that we would not have to rely on fossil fuels as much as we have. The largest obstacle to this, ironically, is the US Department of Energy.
The US Navy wants more nuclear powered ships. They are able to operate for much longer periods of time before needed resupply, which is a huge tactical advantage. Given the large energy density of nuclear power it is also possible to have more weapons, and more powerful weapons, than an oil fired ship would be able to support. Directed energy weapons are really only viable on a nuclear powered vessel. But the Navy cannot build nuclear reactors without some support from the DOE, and certainly without support from Congress.
The US Navy has been funding research in synthesizing fuels and in fusion power reactors. The problem is that if the funding reaches a certain monetary level then the DOE comes along, declares it within their authority, takes over the project, and... kills it. The DOE is interested in tokamak fusion, and anything that might compete with it makes them look bad, so they simply declare any fusion reactor that is not a tokamak "non-viable" and keeps betting on the same horse that may never finish the race.
The US Navy has also been funding research in synthetic fuels, because a nuclear powered vessel that can fuel the aircraft that it carries is very advantageous. This technology would also be quite valuable for land based operations, and civilian vehicles. But this is a threat to the DOE research in electric vehicles so they will try to kill it if they can. The Navy though has been very protective of this technology and has been doing this research for a very long time now. If given proper funding then we could see this much sooner.
The US DOE has been very hostile to nuclear power, synthetic fuels, among other technologies that might actually solve this climate change problem. This is assuming the problem even exists, I'm not a believer in this catastrophic anthropogenic global warming issue largely because of the very hostile attitude the DOE has had on so many possible solutions to the problem. If the CAGW crowd want to convince me that it is a real problem then I want to see real solutions be given a chance. If the federal government, through the DOE, keeps killing these alternatives to fossil fuels then I cannot be convinced that the federal government truly sees CAGW as a problem.
Oddly enough it might take a Trump administration, which is not on the CAGW bandwagon, to solve this problem of global warming. Trump himself and the GOP have stated that nuclear power should be developed. The Obama administration and the Democrats are openly hostile to nuclear power. Trump and the GOP are supportive of the military and just might give them the nuclear powered ships they've asked for. As well as more solar panels for forward operating bases. The "Drill, Baby, drill" attitude might turn a lot of pe
The tourists that go on these trips buy insurance for things like this. It is quite possible that the company that organized the trip will pay for any costs incurred.
Also, military rescue people live for this kind of thing. They are required to have so much training every year in case there is a military need for such a rescue effort. I'd rather they practice on real people, saving real lives, to get that training rather than have to pay for them to do their training on mannequins.
If we are going to hold some kind of vote on if the taxpayers should pay for this then I'll vote for this to be funded in part by my tax bill.
Also, the US Coast Guard goes out all the time to keep people from wining the Darwin Awards, I don't get upset about that either. Call it training, call it international outreach, call it being a member of the human race. Call it what you will but just don't call it a waste of taxes.
Where else are they supposed to stage the first manned landing on Europa if not Antarctica?
Europa.
I heard the moon landings were staged on a movie set located on the moon.
Solar provides the peak load electircity when its needed.
Why does this get repeated so often when it is so easily proven false?
Solar power hits it's peak at local noon. Air conditioning load hits it's peak with air temperatures which is somewhere between local 14:00 and 18:00. This need for air conditioning continues beyond sunset.
I've seen people claim this problem is easily solved with some sort of energy storage device. This level of energy storage is not yet economical, with possible exceptions for those that live next to hydro electric dams. Assuming it did exist why limit it's use to solar power? Would not all energy sources gain from this?
Any other tactic to spread out demand to match the supply would also benefit any other source of electricity. Smart grids, efficiency gains, load shifting, etc. all benefit competing energy sources like nuclear, wind, natural gas, and even coal.
I used to be a fan of solar power too, until I saw so many people claiming we can use solar power to replace every other energy source. Solar power makes sense in moderation. Too much and it makes things worse. In many places in the world we've already seen solar power built up beyond what is reasonable. No doubt from wishful thinking, government subsidies, all from lobbying by people with heads in the clouds and hands in my pockets.
Of course we're going to need large centralized solar power. Rooftop solar might work for residential, and many businesses, but heavy industry is going to need solar power on this scale, if solar is going to replace coal and nuclear.
We're going to need aluminum refining and recycling even in a solar powered world. In fact we'd probably need more. Same for iron and steel. This kind of industry takes a lot of energy, more than could be obtained from solar panels on the roof.
You mention transmission losses as a benefit for distributed solar. How much loss would there be in shipping the energy from thousands (millions?) of roof tops to power an iron induction furnace? I'm not going to bother trying to do the math myself right now but I can imagine it wouldn't be too hard to make a case for a gigawatt scale solar power farm to run a nearby iron works.
All four need to be built correctly and safely yet corners get cut, damns fail and eventually a nuclear plant will fail worse then the ones being discussed.
I hate it when my damns fail.
Tell me something, of all this safety that you think needs to go into the energy sector who is it that is supposed to enforce it? Government you say? Every nuclear power accident happened at a power plant that was government inspected and licensed. Every oil spill was from a drill, ship, pipe, train, or refinery that was inspected and licensed by a government.
TEPCO quite likely fucked up major here but they did so under government supervision. The government allowed the reactor to operate as it did, where it did, because it met all safety requirements imposed upon it. If it hadn't then it would have been shutdown.
What is ironic is that it is quite likely because of the safety protocols imposed on it that the reactor melted down. The reactor itself survived the quake, what didn't survive was the backup power and the power lines to the facility. When the control systems detected the quake an automated scram was initiated. This shutdown the reactor but the fission products continued to produce heat. Without the power provided by the fission reaction the boilers could not maintain a head of steam to run the turbines. When the turbines came to a halt their was not enough electricity to drive the cooling pumps. No cooling and the reactor gets hot. So hot that safety systems start to fail and fission restarts on its own. Then things get real hot, hot enough to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen gas. Without power from the reactor to vent these gasses, or run the recombiners, and it builds up until something ignites it.
If the reactor had not been shutdown as required by law then perhaps none of this would have happened. I could argue that the government caused this, therefore they should have to pay for it.
For an island nation those are pretty much the two options they have.
Large nations like the USA, Canada, Russia, etc. have plenty of land mass to spread out variations in weather for things like wind and solar. Japan can't do that. They might be able to do something like rely on some tidal power, geothermal, and maybe wind and solar, but for the most part they are left with few options.
Japan must choose nuclear power, coal, or reverting to a preindustrial society. So, you are correct, they don't have to choose between coal and nuclear. They can choose to ride oxcarts instead of trains.
Do you believe this development and enforcement of safety does not come at a cost? If the solar power installers have to buy more safety harnesses and hire more safety inspectors then their costs will rise. Solar already costs 5x what nuclear does.
You are correct that the safety factor alone is not enough to move to nuclear power. It's the safety factor, cost, reliability, and abundance of nuclear power that is an argument to use more of it.
Just a side note, people will talk about how grid level storage will make wind and solar cheaper and more viable but does the battery care where the electricity came from? If grid level storage develops to a level where it could be deployed for solar then it could be deployed for nuclear too. Grid level storage helps all energy sources, not just wind and solar. In fact it might make it look worse.
You must be new here.
You do recall that the shepherd was killed off in the movie, right?
So, in two years and a month, the USA will have it's first major nuclear accident.
The USA has had nearly 100 operating nuclear power plants for decades without a major nuclear accident, why would you expect that to start now? Is it because Trump is POTUS?
I don't remember the details either but it had something to do with a state legislature deciding to vote in a new US Senator before the terms of the prior one was up. So then you had three senators show up in DC all claiming to be duly elected from state X. Rather than try to get the state legislatures to play by the rules the other states decided to have a popular vote.
With that amendment the states just wrote themselves out of the authority to constrain federal power.
That's fine, I'm sure a lot of people would agree with you. Question for you, would you rather lose a million pounds/dollars/euros or your child?
There are also corporate lobbyists that want to make sure this comes to market too. Also, even the owners of stock in companies that make cold medicine get sick, have children that get sick, etc. To assume that they'd allow human misery to continue to make a buck is assuming the worst in humanity.
Do you believe all the people that make medicines are in the business to profit from the misery of others? That is possible but it is also possible that they are in the business of relieving misery but to do so they need to pay the bills.
Also, it's not like curing the common cold will eliminate their market. People still get headaches, have trouble sleeping, get allergies, and so on. If you look at the ingredients of a common cold medicine and compare it to a common sleep aid like Tylenol PM you will see it's the same stuff. The stuff to treat allergies is also the same stuff to treat cold symptoms. If they don't sell enough cold medicine they'll just put a different label on it and sell it that way.
Let them lobby away, because the people in the FDA would quite likely want to see this on the market too. I can imagine the lobbyist money looks great until that government official gets a cold of their own.
Having something "open" and be something the hobbyist cannot build in their basement does not mean it is a lie, or useless. It opens up a kind of competition that is rare in electronics. Different chip manufacturers can compete on form-fit-function devices on price. These same chip makers can use a common core design and make variations on that theme for market. With the full schematics available hobbyists know what they are getting. Circuit simulators are getting more complex all the time and a hobbyist might be able to create new variations, submit them to a manufacturer and they can incorporate the changes in a new version, or possibly make a custom run of the chip.
Bugs should become more obvious, fixes found more quickly, security would be improved, and generally many hands make light work.
I can also imagine such open hardware designs helping in educating the next generation of hardware developers. Future computer engineers and scientists could see an entire working modern CPU where now all the good stuff is locked up in IP.
As an amateur radio operator I've seen the technology used stagnate. Many licensed radio operators are building the same kits that were used decades ago. There is a market for repurposing commercial gear to amateur radio by changing hardware and/or software. A lot of things though are locked down, leaving amateurs in a tough spot. There's some interesting things happening in digital communications on amateur radio but the best stuff means using proprietary hardware which gets into a legal grey area for a radio service that is supposed to be "open" for all. I suspect that amateur radio is not as attractive as it used to be because it is often easier to just operate legally under Part 15, or illegally in the non-amateur bands.
I like the idea but I've seen similar open hardware schemes die. I believe it has to catch on at some point, maybe now is the time.
It is correct to point out that the electoral college is not constitutionally bound to elect the person on the ballot. That does not mean they must elect Clinton either.
If not Clinton or Trump then who? I don't know but it would be nice to see candidates that are a bit younger and healthier for one.
I know I'm not the first to point this out but this tendency for old professional politicians to run is likely a big reason why Trump won. Trump is just as old as Clinton but he appears to be in better health and hasn't been a politician for 50 years like his Republican primary competitors and the Democrat general election competitor. People don't like professional politicians any more, assuming they were ever liked.
That's why we USED TO have a Senate. When the Senate changed to popular vote instead of appointment by the state governments it became just another House of Representatives.
You are correct on your assessment of the chances of eliminating the electoral college, it's not going to happen any time soon.
Why the fuck are we not doing this to every rivers main flows?
As I understand it the real gains in efficiency and energy storage comes not from the volume of water behind the dam but from the height. Building a wall to hold back water is trivial, building one high enough to be useful for energy storage is not.
I could be wrong though.
People are saying he may be brain damaged.
I'll take him over the person we know to be brain damaged. Clinton even admitted to having troubles with her memory, failure to understand security protocols and markings, etc. She's been using those excuses to keep her from jail during the investigation of her e-mails. She's also admitted to hitting her head, a serious enough injury that she missed several days of work. Some of her odd behavior lately has been speculated as indications of mental troubles, like her coughing fits, odd head and eye movement, and her collapsing at that 9/11 memorial during her campaign, and inappropriate emotional responses.
Clinton is much more likely to be brain damaged than Trump.
Pretty sure Trump promised West Virginia coal miners their jobs back, meaning he's promising to bring coal consumption back to it's historical peak levels, despite the lack of demand. Sad. Disgusting little idiot, isn't he?
If a person believes that CAGW isn't a thing, that people need jobs, especially in manufacturing, then by creating a regulatory environment to bring those jobs back the demand should increase. Seems fairly logical. Overly optimistic perhaps, but logical.
It's only "disgusting" and "sad" for those that see coal as inherently evil. Since it was coal that provided the power that took humanity through the industrial revolution then, again, burning coal for a new industrial revolution is logical. I've read my history and there were a lot of "disgusting" and "sad" things in the industrial revolution but few would argue that society isn't better off because of it. We also have learned ways to burn coal more cleanly than before, we're not likely to repeat the soot covered world we had before.
I don't like coal, I believe we should replace it with nuclear power. Driving thousands out of jobs and into poverty/welfare by government fiat is not only being a jerk to a lot of people, it hurts the entire economy. We need a smooth transition away from coal, not a ban.
Maybe I wasn't obvious enough - something that shows it does not work will disprove it.
That is not an answer, that is a tautology.
Somebody has sold you on a massive pile of shit polished up to look like a conspiracy theory where all scientists are liars.
It's not that science, or lack of it, that bothers me as much as the solutions presented. Carbon taxes won't work, a bit of economics will show that. Bio-fuels won't work, just computing how much land that would take will show that. Wind and solar won't work because they are expensive, unreliable, take so much resources and land to implement, and additionally history shows them to be dangerous from all the people that have died from industrial accidents. Geothermal, hydro, and to a lesser extent wind and solar again, all depend on favorable geography to work.
What does work is natural gas and nuclear power. Natural gas is still a fossil fuel but it is cheap, plentiful, ten times safer than coal, but only half the CO2 output of coal. Nuclear power is cheap, plentiful, nearly a million times safer than coal, and a CO2 output that is the lowest of any energy source we know of except hydro.
They do are in atmospheric science it's not really something they know about - go bother people in Washington or the banks if you want someone to pay for nukes.
If the climate scientists don't know anything about energy then they should shut their mouths and let the people that do speak up. So far the people that have spoken up never mention nuclear power except to say it is not an option. All we get are the same lies about nuclear power, about it being unsafe, to expensive, takes to long to build, etc. That has never been true and in the decades that have passed nuclear power technology has improved considerably on all arguments against it.
The only thing holding up nuclear power is, oddly enough, the US Department of Energy. The one federal agency that guards all the doors and holds all the keys to nuclear power development in the USA is uninterested in performing the one mandate the department was created to perform, lead the nation to energy independence.
The people in Washington don't listen to reason, they listen to votes. So long as people vote against nuclear power it will not happen. This most recent election shows promise but it will still take a lot of convincing. I'd think that the kind of people that Slashdot caters to would be able to, as you say, rest for a bit and read something and come to the same conclusion I have. Those in the CAGW camp that claim to have done the math and still dismiss nuclear power just shows me that they either did not do the math, or they have some other goal in mind.
Call it a conspiracy theory if you like but it seems quite straightforward. The CAGW people have laid out the problem. Nuclear power is a perfectly viable solution, it may not be a perfect solution but it is the best we have so far. If the CAGW people reject the nuclear power then one has to wonder if they believe their own CAGW theory or had some other goal in mind.
Citation:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
If you have more recent data showing wind and solar to be safer than nuclear power then I'd appreciate it if you'd share with the rest of the class.
Models getting checked and refined against reality is a bad thing?
The models change but the result never does. Doesn't that seem odd to you?
I also noticed that you seem to be avoiding the question I posed earlier, what would it take to disprove the CAGW theory?
They keep updating these models, after they've proved to be disastrously wrong, but somehow we are supposed to believe them now? After they've been doing this for so long, and doing so poorly at predicting anything, should not someone in the "climate science" community come along with a model that deviates somewhat from the narrative? If a group does come along with a new model then they are said to be liars, shills, a "non-scientist" or whatever. I'm not talking about being a denier, just someone that thinks that the global warming isn't going to be so bad, or that we've got some time to work on this problem. Anyone that isn't running around like their hair is on fire that we are all doomed unless we act now are called "deniers".
You see no one can answer the question on what would disprove the CAGW theory because if it actually happens then they lose their "leverage" on getting funding and whatever else it is they want. Which is why I'm tending to believe it's not stopping global warming that they want because they ignore the one big solution that is staring them in the face, nuclear power.
Your anti-science rant is all completely pointless anyway because Finland had nukes and are currently building a new one.
They are the exception and not the rule. It's also rare for anyone in the CAGW community to consider nuclear power a good thing.
These people will write bills on how to address global warming, such as a carbon cap and tax. These bills will account for wind and solar power for carbon credits but leave nuclear power out. In their mind nuclear power is just as good as a coal plant to offset global warming. Support for nuclear power doesn't prove their theory, it only proves that they believe their own theory.
Even though a statement on what would disprove the CAGW theory would take a long time to verify, if it is verifiable at all, it would be nice to see them say something that shows there is real science behind this. A theory is only a theory if there is a null theory to go with it, as in some way to prove the theory wrong. This is very basic science. If these people cannot explain to me what would disprove the theory then it's not science.
You say that as if Trump would care. Trump wants to make AMERICA great again. If other nations choose to not do business with it then that means America would have to be able to feed and clothe itself, provide for it's energy needs, etc. This might suck for a while but for a nation sitting on HUGE reserves of natural gas, oil, coal, uranium, and thorium there will not be a lack of energy. With a large agricultural sector, lots of manufacturing, great schools, a large military, and so much more going for it I *DARE* the rest of the world to place sanctions on the USA.
Go tell your workers in America that they need to come home. Go tell your restaurants and groceries to stop buying American beef. Go tell everyone to stop eating American corn and wheat, using American cotton, driving American cars. Go ahead.
Please?