"Fer God's sake, fusion energy is just around the corner...:)"
And nuclear fission is here now.
A good measure of the quality of an energy source is the energy return on energy investment (EROEI). Oil, natural gas, wind, and nuclear fission all can get 10:1 or better. Hydro and coal can get near 100:1 or better. We see ground based solar getting less than 10:1 with 2:1 being common. For space based solar to work it'd have to compete with what we have now and whatever else might come along in the time it'd take to get this going.
I've seen estimates that we could quadruple the output for a given solar panel by taking it from the ground and putting it into orbit. Part of this is because the air shields the panels from about 1/3 of the sun's power but most of the gain comes from getting only 4 to 12 hours of sun (based on location) per day to getting 23.99 hours of sun (even the best orbits will be in Earth's shadow for several minutes every year and changing orbits takes a lot of energy). That means a 10:1 solar panel on Earth gets to be a 40:1 EROEI, but a more realistic number would be more like the 10:1. We'd get that same 10:1 if we only optimized the panels on Earth and not have to deal with having to launch it from the moon. It would also be much easier to optimize ground based solar because to get to the proper height would require an 8 foot ladder instead of a rocket.
If we rule out coal because coal is bad, and we rule out hydro because we just can't dam any more rivers, then we're still left with the 10:1 EROEI that wind and nuclear fission can provide with current technology. If we allow for some advancements in technology and economies of scale then we could easily see wind double its EROEI. With nuclear fission we've really only begun to try new technologies, we're doing fission today much like we did 50 years ago. If we get some sane policies on nuclear power then we could see fission get 100:1 EROEI quite easily. Some speculate 1000:1 EROEI using molten salt reactors with a breeding cycle.
Other technologies like bio-diesel, ethanol (corn or sugar beets), geothermal, and such get EROEI that barely exceed 1:1, which makes them barely worth considering. They might have value within narrow parameters but these are not technologies to use as a primary energy source to drive a modern economy.
I see a future that is driven by nuclear fission, nothing else can compare.
They also gave smallpox blankets to Native Americans.
Why does this myth keep coming up? The germ theory of disease did not come into common medical practice until years after the Native Americans were infected with smallpox. That is assuming the smallpox came from the blankets to begin with.
The US Army did not wage germ warfare on the Native Americans because at that time no one knew what a "germ" was.
It appears you are under the mistaken belief that a computer science program from a typical college exists to teach it's students how to program a computer. It is not and really never was. Computer science is the discipline of, wait for it... learning the science of computing. That means getting some physics so that you know how the electrons move on the circuitry. It also means getting enough mathematics to understand algorithms and number theory.
If you wanted to just learn how to program then you could have gone to a trade school, community college, or just sit in your basement with a computer and Google the rest.
I studied computer engineering and with the large overlap with the computer science program at the school I went to there were a number of computer science majors in many of my classes. Talking with them I found this delusion that computer science was supposed to teach people how to program was a rather common delusion. A few people understood that computer science is applied mathematics and these people further understood that if they are going to be successful in creating software that they'd need to understand proper engineering.
A fairly recent trend is the emergence of software engineering programs for people that want to learn how to write quality software. There still is the requirements to know physics and mathematics because without knowing how the bits and bytes are represented in the computer it can be difficult to resolve some uncommon errors in software and impossible to write low level code.
Another aspect of a typical computer science program is that it is a liberal arts program. With a liberal arts education comes things beyond just computer science. I did a computer science program for a while and it's quite different than a typical engineering program. The computer science program required much more in the fine arts. I chose to learn how to play the upright bass as part of that program, something I'd never do as an engineering major. I also took a modern literature course, where we had to read a comic book (or is it a "graphic novel"?) among other things. Had I not sat through four years of Spanish in high school I'd have had to take a foreign language too.
If you are complaining about the coursework required in a typical computer science program then I think that your academic advisor lied to you or as the program was being explained you chose to lie to yourself.
Complaining that an employer won't hire someone to program a computer without a college degree is a different matter. I don't know if I'd hire someone to program for me if they did not have a college education. I would not want to hire a programmer that did not understand what "big O" meant, hadn't seen even the most basic of sort algorithms, didn't understand the difference between iteration and recursion, or did not understand some basics of statistics and probability. I've seen people write code that did not go to college and some of them do very well. These people are also not the norm. A college degree is a shortcut for determining if someone has a basic understanding of many different aspects within programming a computer. One of them being having the ability to get up in the morning to show up on time.
Speaking of which, I must go now because I have my numeric analysis class tomorrow morning, I need my sleep.
Another space based solar panel plan, excepting the reference to 3D printing I'd swear I read this same thing in Omni Magazine in the early 1990s.
The problem with space based solar is not technological, we have the technology, it's economics. The payback period of this power is much too long and we have more profitable alternatives. A primary one is nuclear fission. There is no shortage of uranium and thorium on Earth for fuel. This stuff is everywhere. Even if someone was unfortunate enough that the highest quality source of fission fuel was seawater they'd still be better off than space based solar. While it would be an elaborate process to get uranium from seawater that is a much easier task than building and maintaining a lunar manufacturing plant.
Building the nuclear reactor would be much easier as well. While building a nuclear reactor is not exactly trivial there are many designs to use as a starting point. The materials required to build are abundant and cheap. Just generally it's a solved problem. The radioactive waste issue is also a solved problem, the only reason it is viewed as a problem today is because we have backward laws on how to deal with radioactive material and because we have not yet built a truly modern reactor. We've been building what is basically the same backward reactors for 60 years.
If someone is serious about solving this problem of burning fossil fuels then they'd have come to the conclusion that nuclear power is the answer, or at least part of the answer. Anyone that thinks we can stop burning fossil fuels and not use nuclear power is ignorant, delusional, or has something to sell.
The human brain has developed over a very long period of time to detect what is largely regarded as "beauty" in others. This ability boils down to detecting a high probability of producing healthy offspring. Producing a machine that can fool a human brain to the point it can bypass this defense mechanism is something I would consider quite the feat.
Consider people that have undergone sex reassignment surgery, people with botched cosmetic surgery, people that had appearance altering accidents (even after having "successful" corrective surgery), people with even mild genetic abnormalities, or even just badly done make-up. We can see this as a problem even if we cannot put into words what the problem might be.
In rare cases these uncanny faces might not appear as frightening but fascinating, such as making a person appear "angelic" or "otherworldly". While this might not trigger a "fight or flight" response it would still make someone unlikely to see this person as someone that they'd fall in love with.
Attractiveness goes beyond just appearance too. A picture may be worth a thousand words but to fall in love with someone beyond the superficial takes more. This robot demonstration shows a face that is very lifelike but when it moves it does so in a manner that is less than lifelike. The voice matters too, this is likely also a matter of detecting health in a potential mate. What they say with that voice matters too.
Now we'd get into a different place if the question is, "would you fuck this robot?" That get's to a different part of the brain that wishes to find an avenue for something other than propagation of the species. In which case the robot could look very much less than lifelike and still serve well for that purpose.
Why tele-presence when this technology can be adapted to produce lifelike "carriages" for the person? We've seen something like this already with those powered leg braces that can allow paraplegics to walk. If there is a technology for a person to control limbs with a brain implant, twitching of muscles that they do have control over, or whatever, then have the robot carry the person along rather than have them control from afar.
Not only do I believe this to be more healthy for the person, barring things like an extreme immune disorder that prevents leaving a controlled environment, but also a much easier problem to solve. The problem of a long distance, short latency, high bandwidth, secure, and reliable link for the controls is just one problem that does not have to be solved.
The uncanny appearance of the robotic face is likely to make interactions with the person's avatar uncomfortable. It would probably be better to have an obviously false face or have a camera on the person controlling the robot to live stream the person's face to a display on the robot. Again there is precedent for this with home bound students "attending" classes in school like this.
I would think that even a person with a badly disfigured face (I'm thinking something like Two-Face from comic books) would be treated better with their real face than with even a very expensive robotic face instead. Perhaps I think too highly of my fellow humans.
I remember seeing a business that would re-sell Apple computers but not call them such on the order form, just so people could get around a "no Apple" policy at big corporations. You seem to have a similar problem where Linux computers are not supported but your post reminded me of that company.
I don't recall their name and I don't know if they are still in business but it must have been a good business to be in since they seemed to stick around for a few years at least. They offered two kinds of Apple's, the first was untouched, all they did was mask to the corporate powers that be that the person making the computer request was buying an Apple. The second product line was still an Apple computer but with Linux installed, for those that likes the hardware more than the operating system. Either way the purchase order would read something like "Unix based system" and no mention of Apple as the manufacturer.
Pretty sneaky, makes me wonder if I could make a business doing something like that. Maybe resell Apple computers with Windows pre-installed, sounds like there is a market for that.
I've been accused of Apple fanboi-isms and I'm not sure if I in even my "best" (or "worst", depends on where you stand) Apple fanboi days would be as condescending as you.
I'm taking a programming course at the local university to update my skills. In this class we are to program a "robot" (it has motors and sensors but it's not much more than an RC toy) to do various tasks. We were offered use of the university computers, but those I cannot take home to work on, or bring our own. The instructor gave instructions on how to setup the IDE on our own computer as well as the programming interface we'd need to program the robot. I chose Linux because that was the path of least resistance for me, even though I also have laptops that run MacOSX, and different variants of Windows.
My lab partner chose to use Windows and she seemed to be able to do things with greater ease than I in some respects and I with greater ease than her. The IDE was easier to install and run on Linux but the programming interface gave me trouble. She had no trouble programming but the IDE acted a bit "odd" for her. Perhaps I'll try this on one of my Macs to see how it works there but that's time I don't feel like spending right now. Point is that every OS has it's pros and cons.
I've done development on a number of platforms, mostly for the web, through the years (perhaps I should say "decades" now) and I've found it really comes down to choosing a good editor and getting proficient with it. Unfortunately with my contract work I must use whatever computer I am provided for my job and so I have not had the chance to become really good with any editor but I've seen others do amazing things after years figuring out all kinds of "tricks" and building a library of macros that they've made for themselves or copied from others. It seems you've found what works for you, congratulations... I guess.
Claiming one operating system, one text editor, or one whatever as an "ultimate" of all time is childish. Grow up. I did some web development and some HDL coding on SunOS way back when. Being as you used to develop on SunOS as well then I suspect that you are likely about the same age as I but age alone does not mean one is mature.
"Why anybody would pay extra for Apple hardware to run OSX is a mystery."
I remember a conversation with some co-workers after a very public announcement of the latest Apple laptop. They were scoffing at it's lack of I/O ports, small screen, high price, or whatever. So I began to ask them some questions, such as how many computers they own, how often they actually use the ports they claim they need, how often they actually carry their laptop from their home. I was able to show them that they simply were not the demographic for which these computers were built.
I often wonder why people would pay extra to buy hardware that runs Windows when Linux machines can be obtained for less. Then I remember that conversation I had. People will pay extra for things that they value. That Apple laptop I bought (with taxpayer money, BTW, but that's another story) was because it was the most powerful laptop I could buy within budget, and also happened to be the lightest. Some people pay extra for Windows because they value the familiarity of the interface, or what ever else Windows might bring.
Perhaps you lack the imagination to see what others might value in a computer. Also this....
"Well, not a mystery, just like it's not really a mystery why people become Scientologists."
just shows you are not only ignorant but also a prick. Grow up.
"It really sounds like she knew she might need a secure channel of communication, was denied it, and now is being raked over the coals for not having one. In short, the Republicans are playing dirty pool again, and using the media to make it look like Hillary is attempting to flaunt national security, when the NSA deemed information she received wouldn't be important enough to set up a secure channel."
She was told she could use a secure laptop or desktop. She was not without secure e-mail, she was without secure e-mail on a device she preferred.
I do not believe for even a nanosecond that she was denied a secure means to communicate with POTUS and ambassadors. It has been said many times and many ways that she was provided access to secure e-mail. When she could not get the e-mails she wanted on her insecure device she ordered her staff to copy sensitive data from the secure systems, strip it of the marks identifying it as secure, and send it to her on the insecure system. She knowingly violated the laws on protecting state secrets for her own convenience.
You call this "dirty pool" by the Republicans. Here's something that bothers me, we have a public official that broke the law, where are the Democrats in enforcing these laws? Where is the press on this? I see the press covering up for her more than anything.
Do you believe that if Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio had been accused of a similar violation of the law that they'd get the same treatment? Of course not, Democrats AND Republicans would be demanding they leave the race for POTUS. The press would be talking about this daily. I don't know if the press respects or fears the Clintons but they've been largely silent on the gross violations of the laws that the Clintons have committed. This CBS article is just further evidence of the mainstream press being little more than the PR department for the Democratic Party.
Maybe we should tax oil to make it more expensive and then use the proceeds to subsidize the low-income population. After all, global climate change could kill people. I don't want to see people dead, do you?
So, we tax carbon so that the price goes up, then we give subsidies so that the poor can afford the taxes? How does this actually lower the amount of carbon produced? I believe that you didn't think this through.
Is it also possible that the carbon taxes raise the costs to businesses to the point that they have to lay off people? How does being unemployed help out the poor?
Sure, climate change could kill people but that's years from now. Being unemployed or taxed to the point a family cannot afford both food and medicine, can mean being dead much sooner. If starvation doesn't kill them then it's freezing to death in the next winter.
I'm pretty sure that the only way out of this spiral is nuclear power or some future technology. Raising the costs of energy only delays either more. Lowering energy prices brings them sooner.
Do you honestly believe that people will stop looking for oil alternatives if oil gets cheap?
Due to natural market incentives? Yes, obviously.
Natural market incentives also means that if we raise the price of oil then the price of the alternative will only drop to the price of the oil. Cheaper oil means cheaper wind, solar, and bio-fuels too. Raising the price of energy artificially doesn't give an incentive to improve, it gives an incentive to stay put. Wind is already cheaper than coal in some places, if we want to see that spread then we need an incentive to get lower, and the resources to do it. We free more resources with cheap energy.
I just saw a TED Talk on what is holding up energy investments. One big thing is the payback period. If costs go up because energy is expensive then the payback period gets longer. Cheaper energy shortens that period. If that period is too long then no one invests. The more we can shorten it then the more people will buy windmills.
I have more computers in my basement than I care to admit and I have upgraded two of them from the Windows XP that came with them to Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 using licenses from the university. I have yet to see any nagging to upgrade to Windows 10.
I'd like to keep those computers with the OS they have now for software testing and because of compatibility issues with older software I use. "Downgrading" to XP might actually be an improvement since both machines have Wi-Fi devices on board which drivers exist only for Windows XP. If I reinstall XP on those machines then I gain Wi-Fi, won't get nagged for an operating system that likely would not run on them anyway, and I can keep running the old software.
What I'd lose with reverting to XP is the ability to test in Windows 7 and 8.1 but if this fiasco works out like Microsoft seems to intend then there is no point to testing on those operating systems anyway.
Yes, Windows 7 is old and XP is ancient but for what I do they work just fine. I do networking stuff and web development. All I need those computers to do is run things like terminal emulators, ping, telnet, tftp, and some text editing. I use Windows instead of Linux because the drivers are there, they work well with the OS, and when it comes down to it I really don't think too much about what OS is there so long as it stays out of my way. Besides, with Windows XP I can run some of my old games and not have to tweak an emulator for it to work.
Obviously we're going to be using oil as fuel far into the future, since it has tremendous energy density. That doesn't mean we have to get all the oil we can right now.
If we don't drill for it soon then we might not have the time, energy, or resources to drill for it later. As pointed out elsewhere this oil reserve is a valuable military asset. If war breaks out then we are going to need access to oil right away, not a year later. Failing to drill now puts the USA at an economic and military disadvantage.
Equally obviously, the cheaper we make oil, the less incentive to look for any replacement.
Do you honestly believe that people will stop looking for oil alternatives if oil gets cheap? Energy is a trillion dollar industry. Anyone that can take a fraction of that will be very wealthy. People know this and will do everything that they can to take a slice of that pie. The problem is that it takes money to make money. By making energy expensive then there is less money for the luxury of energy research, people will be more focused on the necessities of food, water, clothing, and shelter.
A bit more on the necessities of food, water, clothing and shelter.... There are people in the USA that have a hard time paying for these necessities. Making energy expensive in the hope it will encourage alternatives means making the lives of these people less comfortable. It may mean having these people decide to pay the electric bill or buy medicine. Your desire to drive research in alternatives could kill people.
I don't want to see people dead, do you? These people must die for the benefit of mankind, perhaps? I do hope you don't believe that.
I saw a talk by a physicist/chemist that was working on new battery technologies. A very smart man, had a doctorate in his field, doing research on solid state physics. He explained that to do his research he needed to use equipment that took a lot of power, X-ray machines and such. This takes energy and money. The people that work in his lab needed to get paid or they will move on to other work. He said he'd do things like switch off the lights at the breaker box at the end of the day so that they'd kill off any "vampire loads" that would use up his electricity budget. It's going to take a lot of LED lighting to make up for the power used by that X-ray machine.
If energy prices go up then a lot of people like him will see their budget going to keep the lights on instead of hiring very smart graduate students and lab technicians. The margins on this are very thin like they are in any research endeavor. I have no doubt in my mind that his experience is not unique. If we don't keep energy cheap then this physicist can't do his research, we stay in an energy "stone age" and we end up burning oil longer than we should.
Another thing he pointed out in his talk is that tings just don't improve because time passes, it also takes effort and money. If you want to see something replace oil then we need to have the money to do so. Raising energy prices reduces the money that is available for such things. This is not just because it costs more money to pay the light bill but also because an economy hindered with high energy prices generally does not have the money to spare on research.
As you point out hydro power has peaked, we just can't build more dams to get more energy. The windmill and solar power industry is being propped up by subsidies from an economy that runs on oil. There are two ways out of this that I see, more research in alternative energy, or building more nuclear power. If we assume that nuclear power is bad and should be abandoned then we need money for research in alternatives.
I'm okay with building more nuclear power but many are not. Cutting ourselves off from oil before we have an alternative that is just as inexpensive and plentiful is asking for an economic disaster. It would also likely result in an environmental disaster. If you want to see the planet stripped of its trees then cut off oil and wait for one winter to pass.
"We are going to need oil, but less of it. Aircraft are getting more efficient. Cars are getting more efficient and going electric (hybrid/EV). Oil burning electricity generation is being phased out."
Do you believe that after 30 years of burning oil, and perhaps less and less every year, that we won't still need new wells to replace those that run dry? I don't know how long an oil well will produce oil but I'm quite certain that it's not more than 30 years. We will need more oil.
"Shipping is an interesting example. Large ships are already starting to go hybrid. Trucks are already hybrid, and some places have fully electric buses now."
These so called "hybrid" trucks and ships are not "hybrid" like we think of hybrid cars. That "hybrid" term is marketing speak for a diesel electric drive train much like how rail locomotives have been "hybrid" for decades. They burn diesel fuel to drive a generator which then drives electric motors to move the vehicle, there are no electric storage devices to charge up and power the vehicle for any part of it's journey, they are powered solely with energy from diesel fuel. This makes them marginally more efficient and cheaper to maintain. What it also does is make them last longer, so they will continue to burn diesel fuel for perhaps longer than the 30 years of their predecessors.
"Oil will get expensive because demand will go down, and economy of scale will decrease. Fortunately it will be made up for by improvements in efficiency and a move to electrically powering things. That's better for everyone."
I agree but if we make oil expensive artificially then we are only delaying this transition. The best way to speed this transition along is making energy cheap in whatever form it may take, free up resources for research, and encourage competition.
Let's assume that windmill subsidies are "good" for the moment, since I assume you believe them to be a good idea. Where does the money come from for this subsidy? It comes from things like leases on government land. If the federal government does not sell these leases then there is less money in the government coffers to spend on windmill subsidies. Certainly we could cut spending in other areas to make up for the loss in leases but then who in Congress is going to allow their baby to get killed to free up this money?
"In other words, of course one day oil will become irrelevant - but not because of green social engineering, or because we will use something greener. It will be because we will use something superior."
Just like the Stone Age didn't end out of a lack of stones.
Government actions that make oil use expensive will not bring a swifter end to the "oil age", quite the opposite really. Expensive energy makes it more difficult to find alternatives. Research into new technologies needs resources, and those resources become more difficult to obtain with expensive energy.
If people want to see an end to oil then we need an economy that is wealthy enough and free enough to invest in alternatives. Preventing oil drilling, carbon taxes, energy subsidies, does not help. What helps is cheap energy. Cheap energy does not come from a government fiat.
What does seem to help is competition. If wind and solar don't see oil as a competitor then they won't see the market pressures to lower prices. They'll become just as expensive as oil because that is how a free market works. If we want to see a future without oil then we need the resources to get there, and for the foreseeable future that means we need oil.
"(2) Because if it's dug up now, it gets used up. If it's underwater, we can start digging it up when the giant war starts. Because, who cares where the oil is dug up (militarily) during peace? We can get it from trade. But during war, that's when we need it."
If a war starts then it's too late to go drilling for oil. What do these ships that go drilling for oil run on? That's right, oil. If there is a shortage of oil then it could be real hard to find the oil to go looking for more oil. We need those wells drilled before a war starts. It's not like these wells can produce oil immediately, they need to be drilled first and how long does that take?
I remember people telling me years ago that we should not be drilling in ANWR because in the five years it takes to get the oil that oil could be worthless. What happened five years later? Oil hit record high prices. So, instead of Americans making money on that oil and adding to our economy we saw our economy take a hit, both from high oil prices and then again because we were shipping those dollars out of the country.
If it takes five years for a well in ANWR to produce, which is on flat and dry ground, then how long would it take to drill a well out in the ocean where the ground isn't so flat and dry?
If the goal is to have a reserve of oil in case of war then we need to drill now or that reserve could be closed off from us before we can get it.
Also, if there is a war then what do you suppose people would be fighting over? Could that war be over oil? Seems to me that one way to prevent that war in the first place is to make sure people are warm, fed, and comfortable. Plentiful energy seems to make that happen.
We are going to need oil for at least another 30 years. How can I say this? Simple. Boeing has been making planes on a 30 year schedule for a very long time. Any plane they produce today they intend to see flying for the next 30 years. These planes burn kerosene, and they will for 30 years. Therefore we need oil for the next 30 years.
Not enough for you? You think that isn't enough? That we'll just make new planes that don't need oil? What about trucks, tractors, bulldozers, ships... Let's stop here at shipping for a bit. As much as people might not like it but the world's shipping infrastructure runs on diesel fuel. No diesel fuel and shipping moves at the pace of horses and sails. That is unless we have the time to make a smooth transition to whatever comes next. Perhaps what comes next is synthetic diesel fuel, derived from algae or nuclear power. If we cut ourselves off from cheap oil then we could cut ourselves off from whatever could replace it.
To put up windmills takes coal fired aluminum smelting, diesel fueled trucks and construction equipment, and so on. If the price of oil goes up then the price of construction goes up, the price of shipping goes up, the price of materials goes up, therefore the price of windmills go up. Solar panel prices go up, ethanol prices go up, energy in whatever form gets more expensive.
Energy is energy. Expensive oil means expensive everything. Not drilling for oil does not make windmills or solar panels cheaper. As odd as it may sound we need cheap oil to move away from oil. We need to make oil so cheap that it becomes worthless. If we make energy cheap then it becomes unprofitable to drill for it. The path to cheap energy is infrastructure. Right now infrastructure is built with the energy from oil.
Besides, not drilling for oil in the USA means we buy it from somewhere else. Does anyone out there believe that any other nation will drill oil as responsibly, clean, and safe, as the USA would? If people want to prevent oil spills then we should be drilling for it under the supervision of the US EPA. Also, wars are fought over oil, what if oil from the USA were cheaper than from the dictators of the world? Would these despotic assholes be in power if they could not sell their oil? We need to make oil so cheap that they cannot profit from it. Impossible? Perhaps, but can we at least try?
Not drilling for oil in the USA is only making the world a less free, dirtier, and more dangerous place.
Solyndra, the now-defunct solar company that received $535 million in guaranteed federal loans, reported producing about 12.5 million pounds of hazardous waste, much of it carcinogenic cadmium-contaminated water, which was sent to waste facilities from 2007 through mid-2011.
Yes, I am doubly replying here. I do so because as I read further down in the comments I see these sailors were exposed to one BED, that's a single banana equivalent dose. These sailors were not injured in any meaningful way. The threat this contamination posed to them is statistically insignificant.
I do not question their honor, I question how well they comprehend the real threat that they were exposed to. It seems to me that the claims are based on ignorance of how much radiation they were exposed to and how that little amount of radiation will affect them in the future. We can fix ignorance with education.
I recall an article written by Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs" where he explains that safety is not first, the mission comes first. The mission here was to save lives, they had to do what was necessary to save the lives of others. I would hope that these sailors realize the honor in their sacrifice. They put their lives at risk so that others did not have to die. We should certainly compensate them for this, and I believe that they have and they will in the future. Some of that compensation comes in the form of knowing they made the world a better place.
"So basically Army, what you're saying is that it's OK for the government to do anything they want to members of the military because hey? They signed up for it."
I believe the term "informed consent" applies here. They signed up knowing that they'd be asked to do some dangerous things. In exchange the government will offer to pay for their education, medical care, and more. If in fact these sailors were instructed to perform decontamination duties without proper protective gear then heads need to roll and these sailors need to have things made right.
"The Fukushima contamination of those sailors and their ship was not normal or foreseeable. Those kids deserve compensation for any issues that arise."
There are very few things that one in uniform must do that are foreseeable. Lots of sailors are asked to do dangerous things. From the description in the article it sounds like they did everything possible to reduce radiation exposure to the crew. I do believe that they will be compensated for any issues that arise. What I find difficult to believe is that any officer would knowingly place those under their command at unnecessary risk.
"They didn't sign up for that - and you are completely wrong."
Having gone through Army training and having spoken with people that served in the Navy they were trained in how to deal with radiological hazards. While this was a humanitarian effort the threat of radiation exposure is always there. The threat of a nuclear weapon is small but not zero, this effort has much in common with the cleanup after a nuclear weapon attack. They did sign up for this. If any service is best trained for a nuclear event it is the US Navy, they deal with radiation all the time because of the power plants on their carriers and subs. They signed up knowing that they might be called up for humanitarian efforts. While it is unusual for a sailor to be exposed to radiation while providing humanitarian aid they were trained in handling this.
If we let these ambulance chasers cash in on this then this can set a very dangerous precedent. Military service is dangerous and they knew that when they volunteered. If we let them get compensation for what appears to be a minor increase in background radiation then we'll have a serious problem in our future fighting capability.
"You know for someone who was injured in training you have a lotta "I got mine" attitude towards those who if they are injured were injured actually in the line of duty."
Yep, I got mine and so did they. Everyone that signed up got the same deal. They signed up knowing they'd be put at risk. When they leave they will be taken care of, just like I am now.
I have to wonder who is making these claims since, as you point out, the military instills the virtues of honor and loyalty. Are the sailors claiming harm or a bunch of civilian lawyers with dollar signs in their eyes?
I believe that a vast majority of the sailors on those vessels are not seeking compensation for the dangers they were exposed to. I believe that a handful of sailors are dishonoring themselves and their country with what appear to be baseless claims of being unnecessarily exposed to preventable harm.
"I say let the fucking doctors sort them out, and keep your skepticism to yourself."
It is because I feel a few bad apples are making the US Navy, and all in uniform, look bad that I believe it is only right to speak out against this. My skepticism lies mostly in that these sailors claim they were not provided proper protective gear. The DOD learned from past mistakes that protective gear is vital and those in command will punish those that do anything unsafe.
I don't want you mad at me. I only hoped to put this in the perspective of someone that did sign on that line. We can disagree and not resort to calling each other names. I just think back to the few I trained with that dropped out because they found out that being a soldier was difficult and dangerous work, as if no one told them that before they signed up. They knew what might happen. It appears to me that a few failed to realize the honor of serving their nation and humanity. They failed to see the benefits the government offered for their sacrifice. I cannot dishonor them, they can only dishonor themselves.
It would be interesting to see how many people died of arsenic induced skin cancer due to solar panel production.
Your mentioning of Chernobyl is irrelevant to modern nuclear power. Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen, badly designed, poorly constructed, and what little safety systems it had were disabled at the time it blew its top. If we did the same things with solar power we'd have panels falling on people, electrocutions, fires, and arsenic poisonings. Nuclear is only as unsafe as you allow it to be, just like anything else.
Why are you ignoring the cancer deaths from current solar panel production and yet bring up a nuclear accident from thirty years ago?
So the USS Ronald Reagan has a measurable amount of radiation in it's ventilation systems. What also has a measurable amount of radiation are bananas. Could someone please tell me how many bananas the sailors on these "contaminated" vessels would have to eat to get the same radioactive dose?
I suggest that whatever that number is that the US Navy subtract that from the daily rations for those sailors. Let them eat oranges instead.
Life in the military is dangerous. These sailors volunteered knowing, or should have known, that they'd be asked to do things that might very well shorten their lifespan. They might be asked to do things that result in what's left of them being mailed home to their family in a shoebox. In return for their service they get things like their education paid for, real world work experience, and preferential hiring.
I served in the US Army, was injured in training, now I'm in college part time while working part time. A job I got in part because I showed I was someone to the trusted with sensitive information and around dangerous people & items, because the Army does not take people that cannot be trusted. My education is paid for by the GI Bill. I also get my medical care paid for and a few bucks every month for my screwed up feet and knees.
These sailors served on a nuclear powered ship, it would not be inconceivable that they'd be exposed to radiation while on that vessel. Granted, and fortunately, the radiation did not come from the ship's power plant. These sailors were undoubtedly trained in the handling of radioactive material and in the methods to protect themselves from it.
It used to be that if you served in the US Navy you were almost certain to have damaged hearing. I know a few old sailors that can't hear so well. It was common for such people to get disability pay for this but no more. Why is that? Because the US DOD figured out that they could give their sailors, and all that serve, training in how to protect their ears and the gear to save their hearing. If they end up deaf then it's on them now. I believe that the same should apply here. They were trained, provided protective gear, and as far as I can tell were never asked to do anything out of the ordinary. If they end up sick from radiation then I say it's on them unless they can prove something extraordinary. Also, by extraordinary I mean that a fraction of those 5000 sailors would be eligible for compensation, not the entire crew.
I recall hearing of a Navy helicopter that got caught in an unexpected radioactive plume. Of the half dozen or so on that craft one came back with what might be considered a dangerous radioactive dose because that sailor was sitting by the opened side door. Upon return to the ship that sailor was showered, got a fresh uniform, and was given on ship duty for the remainder of the cruise, which I was told was the best thing to do because the shower and new uniform removed anything radioactive that the sailor would have been exposed to. The change in duty was merely out of an abundance of caution. That's third hand information so I have no means to verify the accuracy but if true then we have one, perhaps a handful more in a similar situation, that might have a case for getting an unsafe dose of radiation.
A common claim is, "I didn't sign up for this." Well, I believe you did.
Slashdot Mirror
"Fer God's sake, fusion energy is just around the corner... :)"
And nuclear fission is here now.
A good measure of the quality of an energy source is the energy return on energy investment (EROEI). Oil, natural gas, wind, and nuclear fission all can get 10:1 or better. Hydro and coal can get near 100:1 or better. We see ground based solar getting less than 10:1 with 2:1 being common. For space based solar to work it'd have to compete with what we have now and whatever else might come along in the time it'd take to get this going.
I've seen estimates that we could quadruple the output for a given solar panel by taking it from the ground and putting it into orbit. Part of this is because the air shields the panels from about 1/3 of the sun's power but most of the gain comes from getting only 4 to 12 hours of sun (based on location) per day to getting 23.99 hours of sun (even the best orbits will be in Earth's shadow for several minutes every year and changing orbits takes a lot of energy). That means a 10:1 solar panel on Earth gets to be a 40:1 EROEI, but a more realistic number would be more like the 10:1. We'd get that same 10:1 if we only optimized the panels on Earth and not have to deal with having to launch it from the moon. It would also be much easier to optimize ground based solar because to get to the proper height would require an 8 foot ladder instead of a rocket.
If we rule out coal because coal is bad, and we rule out hydro because we just can't dam any more rivers, then we're still left with the 10:1 EROEI that wind and nuclear fission can provide with current technology. If we allow for some advancements in technology and economies of scale then we could easily see wind double its EROEI. With nuclear fission we've really only begun to try new technologies, we're doing fission today much like we did 50 years ago. If we get some sane policies on nuclear power then we could see fission get 100:1 EROEI quite easily. Some speculate 1000:1 EROEI using molten salt reactors with a breeding cycle.
Other technologies like bio-diesel, ethanol (corn or sugar beets), geothermal, and such get EROEI that barely exceed 1:1, which makes them barely worth considering. They might have value within narrow parameters but these are not technologies to use as a primary energy source to drive a modern economy.
I see a future that is driven by nuclear fission, nothing else can compare.
They also gave smallpox blankets to Native Americans.
Why does this myth keep coming up? The germ theory of disease did not come into common medical practice until years after the Native Americans were infected with smallpox. That is assuming the smallpox came from the blankets to begin with.
The US Army did not wage germ warfare on the Native Americans because at that time no one knew what a "germ" was.
So... What was the point of CS for all again?
It appears you are under the mistaken belief that a computer science program from a typical college exists to teach it's students how to program a computer. It is not and really never was. Computer science is the discipline of, wait for it... learning the science of computing. That means getting some physics so that you know how the electrons move on the circuitry. It also means getting enough mathematics to understand algorithms and number theory.
If you wanted to just learn how to program then you could have gone to a trade school, community college, or just sit in your basement with a computer and Google the rest.
I studied computer engineering and with the large overlap with the computer science program at the school I went to there were a number of computer science majors in many of my classes. Talking with them I found this delusion that computer science was supposed to teach people how to program was a rather common delusion. A few people understood that computer science is applied mathematics and these people further understood that if they are going to be successful in creating software that they'd need to understand proper engineering.
A fairly recent trend is the emergence of software engineering programs for people that want to learn how to write quality software. There still is the requirements to know physics and mathematics because without knowing how the bits and bytes are represented in the computer it can be difficult to resolve some uncommon errors in software and impossible to write low level code.
Another aspect of a typical computer science program is that it is a liberal arts program. With a liberal arts education comes things beyond just computer science. I did a computer science program for a while and it's quite different than a typical engineering program. The computer science program required much more in the fine arts. I chose to learn how to play the upright bass as part of that program, something I'd never do as an engineering major. I also took a modern literature course, where we had to read a comic book (or is it a "graphic novel"?) among other things. Had I not sat through four years of Spanish in high school I'd have had to take a foreign language too.
If you are complaining about the coursework required in a typical computer science program then I think that your academic advisor lied to you or as the program was being explained you chose to lie to yourself.
Complaining that an employer won't hire someone to program a computer without a college degree is a different matter. I don't know if I'd hire someone to program for me if they did not have a college education. I would not want to hire a programmer that did not understand what "big O" meant, hadn't seen even the most basic of sort algorithms, didn't understand the difference between iteration and recursion, or did not understand some basics of statistics and probability. I've seen people write code that did not go to college and some of them do very well. These people are also not the norm. A college degree is a shortcut for determining if someone has a basic understanding of many different aspects within programming a computer. One of them being having the ability to get up in the morning to show up on time.
Speaking of which, I must go now because I have my numeric analysis class tomorrow morning, I need my sleep.
Another space based solar panel plan, excepting the reference to 3D printing I'd swear I read this same thing in Omni Magazine in the early 1990s.
The problem with space based solar is not technological, we have the technology, it's economics. The payback period of this power is much too long and we have more profitable alternatives. A primary one is nuclear fission. There is no shortage of uranium and thorium on Earth for fuel. This stuff is everywhere. Even if someone was unfortunate enough that the highest quality source of fission fuel was seawater they'd still be better off than space based solar. While it would be an elaborate process to get uranium from seawater that is a much easier task than building and maintaining a lunar manufacturing plant.
Building the nuclear reactor would be much easier as well. While building a nuclear reactor is not exactly trivial there are many designs to use as a starting point. The materials required to build are abundant and cheap. Just generally it's a solved problem. The radioactive waste issue is also a solved problem, the only reason it is viewed as a problem today is because we have backward laws on how to deal with radioactive material and because we have not yet built a truly modern reactor. We've been building what is basically the same backward reactors for 60 years.
If someone is serious about solving this problem of burning fossil fuels then they'd have come to the conclusion that nuclear power is the answer, or at least part of the answer. Anyone that thinks we can stop burning fossil fuels and not use nuclear power is ignorant, delusional, or has something to sell.
The human brain has developed over a very long period of time to detect what is largely regarded as "beauty" in others. This ability boils down to detecting a high probability of producing healthy offspring. Producing a machine that can fool a human brain to the point it can bypass this defense mechanism is something I would consider quite the feat.
Consider people that have undergone sex reassignment surgery, people with botched cosmetic surgery, people that had appearance altering accidents (even after having "successful" corrective surgery), people with even mild genetic abnormalities, or even just badly done make-up. We can see this as a problem even if we cannot put into words what the problem might be.
In rare cases these uncanny faces might not appear as frightening but fascinating, such as making a person appear "angelic" or "otherworldly". While this might not trigger a "fight or flight" response it would still make someone unlikely to see this person as someone that they'd fall in love with.
Attractiveness goes beyond just appearance too. A picture may be worth a thousand words but to fall in love with someone beyond the superficial takes more. This robot demonstration shows a face that is very lifelike but when it moves it does so in a manner that is less than lifelike. The voice matters too, this is likely also a matter of detecting health in a potential mate. What they say with that voice matters too.
Now we'd get into a different place if the question is, "would you fuck this robot?" That get's to a different part of the brain that wishes to find an avenue for something other than propagation of the species. In which case the robot could look very much less than lifelike and still serve well for that purpose.
Why tele-presence when this technology can be adapted to produce lifelike "carriages" for the person? We've seen something like this already with those powered leg braces that can allow paraplegics to walk. If there is a technology for a person to control limbs with a brain implant, twitching of muscles that they do have control over, or whatever, then have the robot carry the person along rather than have them control from afar.
Not only do I believe this to be more healthy for the person, barring things like an extreme immune disorder that prevents leaving a controlled environment, but also a much easier problem to solve. The problem of a long distance, short latency, high bandwidth, secure, and reliable link for the controls is just one problem that does not have to be solved.
The uncanny appearance of the robotic face is likely to make interactions with the person's avatar uncomfortable. It would probably be better to have an obviously false face or have a camera on the person controlling the robot to live stream the person's face to a display on the robot. Again there is precedent for this with home bound students "attending" classes in school like this.
I would think that even a person with a badly disfigured face (I'm thinking something like Two-Face from comic books) would be treated better with their real face than with even a very expensive robotic face instead. Perhaps I think too highly of my fellow humans.
I remember seeing a business that would re-sell Apple computers but not call them such on the order form, just so people could get around a "no Apple" policy at big corporations. You seem to have a similar problem where Linux computers are not supported but your post reminded me of that company.
I don't recall their name and I don't know if they are still in business but it must have been a good business to be in since they seemed to stick around for a few years at least. They offered two kinds of Apple's, the first was untouched, all they did was mask to the corporate powers that be that the person making the computer request was buying an Apple. The second product line was still an Apple computer but with Linux installed, for those that likes the hardware more than the operating system. Either way the purchase order would read something like "Unix based system" and no mention of Apple as the manufacturer.
Pretty sneaky, makes me wonder if I could make a business doing something like that. Maybe resell Apple computers with Windows pre-installed, sounds like there is a market for that.
I've been accused of Apple fanboi-isms and I'm not sure if I in even my "best" (or "worst", depends on where you stand) Apple fanboi days would be as condescending as you.
I'm taking a programming course at the local university to update my skills. In this class we are to program a "robot" (it has motors and sensors but it's not much more than an RC toy) to do various tasks. We were offered use of the university computers, but those I cannot take home to work on, or bring our own. The instructor gave instructions on how to setup the IDE on our own computer as well as the programming interface we'd need to program the robot. I chose Linux because that was the path of least resistance for me, even though I also have laptops that run MacOSX, and different variants of Windows.
My lab partner chose to use Windows and she seemed to be able to do things with greater ease than I in some respects and I with greater ease than her. The IDE was easier to install and run on Linux but the programming interface gave me trouble. She had no trouble programming but the IDE acted a bit "odd" for her. Perhaps I'll try this on one of my Macs to see how it works there but that's time I don't feel like spending right now. Point is that every OS has it's pros and cons.
I've done development on a number of platforms, mostly for the web, through the years (perhaps I should say "decades" now) and I've found it really comes down to choosing a good editor and getting proficient with it. Unfortunately with my contract work I must use whatever computer I am provided for my job and so I have not had the chance to become really good with any editor but I've seen others do amazing things after years figuring out all kinds of "tricks" and building a library of macros that they've made for themselves or copied from others. It seems you've found what works for you, congratulations... I guess.
Claiming one operating system, one text editor, or one whatever as an "ultimate" of all time is childish. Grow up. I did some web development and some HDL coding on SunOS way back when. Being as you used to develop on SunOS as well then I suspect that you are likely about the same age as I but age alone does not mean one is mature.
"Why anybody would pay extra for Apple hardware to run OSX is a mystery."
I remember a conversation with some co-workers after a very public announcement of the latest Apple laptop. They were scoffing at it's lack of I/O ports, small screen, high price, or whatever. So I began to ask them some questions, such as how many computers they own, how often they actually use the ports they claim they need, how often they actually carry their laptop from their home. I was able to show them that they simply were not the demographic for which these computers were built.
I often wonder why people would pay extra to buy hardware that runs Windows when Linux machines can be obtained for less. Then I remember that conversation I had. People will pay extra for things that they value. That Apple laptop I bought (with taxpayer money, BTW, but that's another story) was because it was the most powerful laptop I could buy within budget, and also happened to be the lightest. Some people pay extra for Windows because they value the familiarity of the interface, or what ever else Windows might bring.
Perhaps you lack the imagination to see what others might value in a computer. Also this....
"Well, not a mystery, just like it's not really a mystery why people become Scientologists."
just shows you are not only ignorant but also a prick. Grow up.
"It really sounds like she knew she might need a secure channel of communication, was denied it, and now is being raked over the coals for not having one. In short, the Republicans are playing dirty pool again, and using the media to make it look like Hillary is attempting to flaunt national security, when the NSA deemed information she received wouldn't be important enough to set up a secure channel."
She was told she could use a secure laptop or desktop. She was not without secure e-mail, she was without secure e-mail on a device she preferred.
I do not believe for even a nanosecond that she was denied a secure means to communicate with POTUS and ambassadors. It has been said many times and many ways that she was provided access to secure e-mail. When she could not get the e-mails she wanted on her insecure device she ordered her staff to copy sensitive data from the secure systems, strip it of the marks identifying it as secure, and send it to her on the insecure system. She knowingly violated the laws on protecting state secrets for her own convenience.
You call this "dirty pool" by the Republicans. Here's something that bothers me, we have a public official that broke the law, where are the Democrats in enforcing these laws? Where is the press on this? I see the press covering up for her more than anything.
Do you believe that if Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio had been accused of a similar violation of the law that they'd get the same treatment? Of course not, Democrats AND Republicans would be demanding they leave the race for POTUS. The press would be talking about this daily. I don't know if the press respects or fears the Clintons but they've been largely silent on the gross violations of the laws that the Clintons have committed. This CBS article is just further evidence of the mainstream press being little more than the PR department for the Democratic Party.
Maybe we should tax oil to make it more expensive and then use the proceeds to subsidize the low-income population. After all, global climate change could kill people. I don't want to see people dead, do you?
So, we tax carbon so that the price goes up, then we give subsidies so that the poor can afford the taxes? How does this actually lower the amount of carbon produced? I believe that you didn't think this through.
Is it also possible that the carbon taxes raise the costs to businesses to the point that they have to lay off people? How does being unemployed help out the poor?
Sure, climate change could kill people but that's years from now. Being unemployed or taxed to the point a family cannot afford both food and medicine, can mean being dead much sooner. If starvation doesn't kill them then it's freezing to death in the next winter.
I'm pretty sure that the only way out of this spiral is nuclear power or some future technology. Raising the costs of energy only delays either more. Lowering energy prices brings them sooner.
Do you honestly believe that people will stop looking for oil alternatives if oil gets cheap?
Due to natural market incentives? Yes, obviously.
Natural market incentives also means that if we raise the price of oil then the price of the alternative will only drop to the price of the oil. Cheaper oil means cheaper wind, solar, and bio-fuels too. Raising the price of energy artificially doesn't give an incentive to improve, it gives an incentive to stay put. Wind is already cheaper than coal in some places, if we want to see that spread then we need an incentive to get lower, and the resources to do it. We free more resources with cheap energy.
I just saw a TED Talk on what is holding up energy investments. One big thing is the payback period. If costs go up because energy is expensive then the payback period gets longer. Cheaper energy shortens that period. If that period is too long then no one invests. The more we can shorten it then the more people will buy windmills.
I have more computers in my basement than I care to admit and I have upgraded two of them from the Windows XP that came with them to Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 using licenses from the university. I have yet to see any nagging to upgrade to Windows 10.
I'd like to keep those computers with the OS they have now for software testing and because of compatibility issues with older software I use. "Downgrading" to XP might actually be an improvement since both machines have Wi-Fi devices on board which drivers exist only for Windows XP. If I reinstall XP on those machines then I gain Wi-Fi, won't get nagged for an operating system that likely would not run on them anyway, and I can keep running the old software.
What I'd lose with reverting to XP is the ability to test in Windows 7 and 8.1 but if this fiasco works out like Microsoft seems to intend then there is no point to testing on those operating systems anyway.
Yes, Windows 7 is old and XP is ancient but for what I do they work just fine. I do networking stuff and web development. All I need those computers to do is run things like terminal emulators, ping, telnet, tftp, and some text editing. I use Windows instead of Linux because the drivers are there, they work well with the OS, and when it comes down to it I really don't think too much about what OS is there so long as it stays out of my way. Besides, with Windows XP I can run some of my old games and not have to tweak an emulator for it to work.
Obviously we're going to be using oil as fuel far into the future, since it has tremendous energy density. That doesn't mean we have to get all the oil we can right now.
If we don't drill for it soon then we might not have the time, energy, or resources to drill for it later. As pointed out elsewhere this oil reserve is a valuable military asset. If war breaks out then we are going to need access to oil right away, not a year later. Failing to drill now puts the USA at an economic and military disadvantage.
Equally obviously, the cheaper we make oil, the less incentive to look for any replacement.
Do you honestly believe that people will stop looking for oil alternatives if oil gets cheap? Energy is a trillion dollar industry. Anyone that can take a fraction of that will be very wealthy. People know this and will do everything that they can to take a slice of that pie. The problem is that it takes money to make money. By making energy expensive then there is less money for the luxury of energy research, people will be more focused on the necessities of food, water, clothing, and shelter.
A bit more on the necessities of food, water, clothing and shelter.... There are people in the USA that have a hard time paying for these necessities. Making energy expensive in the hope it will encourage alternatives means making the lives of these people less comfortable. It may mean having these people decide to pay the electric bill or buy medicine. Your desire to drive research in alternatives could kill people.
I don't want to see people dead, do you? These people must die for the benefit of mankind, perhaps? I do hope you don't believe that.
I saw a talk by a physicist/chemist that was working on new battery technologies. A very smart man, had a doctorate in his field, doing research on solid state physics. He explained that to do his research he needed to use equipment that took a lot of power, X-ray machines and such. This takes energy and money. The people that work in his lab needed to get paid or they will move on to other work. He said he'd do things like switch off the lights at the breaker box at the end of the day so that they'd kill off any "vampire loads" that would use up his electricity budget. It's going to take a lot of LED lighting to make up for the power used by that X-ray machine.
If energy prices go up then a lot of people like him will see their budget going to keep the lights on instead of hiring very smart graduate students and lab technicians. The margins on this are very thin like they are in any research endeavor. I have no doubt in my mind that his experience is not unique. If we don't keep energy cheap then this physicist can't do his research, we stay in an energy "stone age" and we end up burning oil longer than we should.
Another thing he pointed out in his talk is that tings just don't improve because time passes, it also takes effort and money. If you want to see something replace oil then we need to have the money to do so. Raising energy prices reduces the money that is available for such things. This is not just because it costs more money to pay the light bill but also because an economy hindered with high energy prices generally does not have the money to spare on research.
As you point out hydro power has peaked, we just can't build more dams to get more energy. The windmill and solar power industry is being propped up by subsidies from an economy that runs on oil. There are two ways out of this that I see, more research in alternative energy, or building more nuclear power. If we assume that nuclear power is bad and should be abandoned then we need money for research in alternatives.
I'm okay with building more nuclear power but many are not. Cutting ourselves off from oil before we have an alternative that is just as inexpensive and plentiful is asking for an economic disaster. It would also likely result in an environmental disaster. If you want to see the planet stripped of its trees then cut off oil and wait for one winter to pass.
"We are going to need oil, but less of it. Aircraft are getting more efficient. Cars are getting more efficient and going electric (hybrid/EV). Oil burning electricity generation is being phased out."
Do you believe that after 30 years of burning oil, and perhaps less and less every year, that we won't still need new wells to replace those that run dry? I don't know how long an oil well will produce oil but I'm quite certain that it's not more than 30 years. We will need more oil.
"Shipping is an interesting example. Large ships are already starting to go hybrid. Trucks are already hybrid, and some places have fully electric buses now."
These so called "hybrid" trucks and ships are not "hybrid" like we think of hybrid cars. That "hybrid" term is marketing speak for a diesel electric drive train much like how rail locomotives have been "hybrid" for decades. They burn diesel fuel to drive a generator which then drives electric motors to move the vehicle, there are no electric storage devices to charge up and power the vehicle for any part of it's journey, they are powered solely with energy from diesel fuel. This makes them marginally more efficient and cheaper to maintain. What it also does is make them last longer, so they will continue to burn diesel fuel for perhaps longer than the 30 years of their predecessors.
"Oil will get expensive because demand will go down, and economy of scale will decrease. Fortunately it will be made up for by improvements in efficiency and a move to electrically powering things. That's better for everyone."
I agree but if we make oil expensive artificially then we are only delaying this transition. The best way to speed this transition along is making energy cheap in whatever form it may take, free up resources for research, and encourage competition.
Let's assume that windmill subsidies are "good" for the moment, since I assume you believe them to be a good idea. Where does the money come from for this subsidy? It comes from things like leases on government land. If the federal government does not sell these leases then there is less money in the government coffers to spend on windmill subsidies. Certainly we could cut spending in other areas to make up for the loss in leases but then who in Congress is going to allow their baby to get killed to free up this money?
"In other words, of course one day oil will become irrelevant - but not because of green social engineering, or because we will use something greener. It will be because we will use something superior."
Just like the Stone Age didn't end out of a lack of stones.
Government actions that make oil use expensive will not bring a swifter end to the "oil age", quite the opposite really. Expensive energy makes it more difficult to find alternatives. Research into new technologies needs resources, and those resources become more difficult to obtain with expensive energy.
If people want to see an end to oil then we need an economy that is wealthy enough and free enough to invest in alternatives. Preventing oil drilling, carbon taxes, energy subsidies, does not help. What helps is cheap energy. Cheap energy does not come from a government fiat.
What does seem to help is competition. If wind and solar don't see oil as a competitor then they won't see the market pressures to lower prices. They'll become just as expensive as oil because that is how a free market works. If we want to see a future without oil then we need the resources to get there, and for the foreseeable future that means we need oil.
"(2) Because if it's dug up now, it gets used up. If it's underwater, we can start digging it up when the giant war starts. Because, who cares where the oil is dug up (militarily) during peace? We can get it from trade. But during war, that's when we need it."
If a war starts then it's too late to go drilling for oil. What do these ships that go drilling for oil run on? That's right, oil. If there is a shortage of oil then it could be real hard to find the oil to go looking for more oil. We need those wells drilled before a war starts. It's not like these wells can produce oil immediately, they need to be drilled first and how long does that take?
I remember people telling me years ago that we should not be drilling in ANWR because in the five years it takes to get the oil that oil could be worthless. What happened five years later? Oil hit record high prices. So, instead of Americans making money on that oil and adding to our economy we saw our economy take a hit, both from high oil prices and then again because we were shipping those dollars out of the country.
If it takes five years for a well in ANWR to produce, which is on flat and dry ground, then how long would it take to drill a well out in the ocean where the ground isn't so flat and dry?
If the goal is to have a reserve of oil in case of war then we need to drill now or that reserve could be closed off from us before we can get it.
Also, if there is a war then what do you suppose people would be fighting over? Could that war be over oil? Seems to me that one way to prevent that war in the first place is to make sure people are warm, fed, and comfortable. Plentiful energy seems to make that happen.
We are going to need oil for at least another 30 years. How can I say this? Simple. Boeing has been making planes on a 30 year schedule for a very long time. Any plane they produce today they intend to see flying for the next 30 years. These planes burn kerosene, and they will for 30 years. Therefore we need oil for the next 30 years.
Not enough for you? You think that isn't enough? That we'll just make new planes that don't need oil? What about trucks, tractors, bulldozers, ships... Let's stop here at shipping for a bit. As much as people might not like it but the world's shipping infrastructure runs on diesel fuel. No diesel fuel and shipping moves at the pace of horses and sails. That is unless we have the time to make a smooth transition to whatever comes next. Perhaps what comes next is synthetic diesel fuel, derived from algae or nuclear power. If we cut ourselves off from cheap oil then we could cut ourselves off from whatever could replace it.
To put up windmills takes coal fired aluminum smelting, diesel fueled trucks and construction equipment, and so on. If the price of oil goes up then the price of construction goes up, the price of shipping goes up, the price of materials goes up, therefore the price of windmills go up. Solar panel prices go up, ethanol prices go up, energy in whatever form gets more expensive.
Energy is energy. Expensive oil means expensive everything. Not drilling for oil does not make windmills or solar panels cheaper. As odd as it may sound we need cheap oil to move away from oil. We need to make oil so cheap that it becomes worthless. If we make energy cheap then it becomes unprofitable to drill for it. The path to cheap energy is infrastructure. Right now infrastructure is built with the energy from oil.
Besides, not drilling for oil in the USA means we buy it from somewhere else. Does anyone out there believe that any other nation will drill oil as responsibly, clean, and safe, as the USA would? If people want to prevent oil spills then we should be drilling for it under the supervision of the US EPA. Also, wars are fought over oil, what if oil from the USA were cheaper than from the dictators of the world? Would these despotic assholes be in power if they could not sell their oil? We need to make oil so cheap that they cannot profit from it. Impossible? Perhaps, but can we at least try?
Not drilling for oil in the USA is only making the world a less free, dirtier, and more dangerous place.
My bad, it's not arsenic that is making ground water carcinogenic, it's cadmium.
From the Associated Press:
http://news.yahoo.com/solar-in...
Solyndra, the now-defunct solar company that received $535 million in guaranteed federal loans, reported producing about 12.5 million pounds of hazardous waste, much of it carcinogenic cadmium-contaminated water, which was sent to waste facilities from 2007 through mid-2011.
Yes, I am doubly replying here. I do so because as I read further down in the comments I see these sailors were exposed to one BED, that's a single banana equivalent dose. These sailors were not injured in any meaningful way. The threat this contamination posed to them is statistically insignificant.
I do not question their honor, I question how well they comprehend the real threat that they were exposed to. It seems to me that the claims are based on ignorance of how much radiation they were exposed to and how that little amount of radiation will affect them in the future. We can fix ignorance with education.
I recall an article written by Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs" where he explains that safety is not first, the mission comes first. The mission here was to save lives, they had to do what was necessary to save the lives of others. I would hope that these sailors realize the honor in their sacrifice. They put their lives at risk so that others did not have to die. We should certainly compensate them for this, and I believe that they have and they will in the future. Some of that compensation comes in the form of knowing they made the world a better place.
"So basically Army, what you're saying is that it's OK for the government to do anything they want to members of the military because hey? They signed up for it."
I believe the term "informed consent" applies here. They signed up knowing that they'd be asked to do some dangerous things. In exchange the government will offer to pay for their education, medical care, and more. If in fact these sailors were instructed to perform decontamination duties without proper protective gear then heads need to roll and these sailors need to have things made right.
"The Fukushima contamination of those sailors and their ship was not normal or foreseeable. Those kids deserve compensation for any issues that arise."
There are very few things that one in uniform must do that are foreseeable. Lots of sailors are asked to do dangerous things. From the description in the article it sounds like they did everything possible to reduce radiation exposure to the crew. I do believe that they will be compensated for any issues that arise. What I find difficult to believe is that any officer would knowingly place those under their command at unnecessary risk.
"They didn't sign up for that - and you are completely wrong."
Having gone through Army training and having spoken with people that served in the Navy they were trained in how to deal with radiological hazards. While this was a humanitarian effort the threat of radiation exposure is always there. The threat of a nuclear weapon is small but not zero, this effort has much in common with the cleanup after a nuclear weapon attack. They did sign up for this. If any service is best trained for a nuclear event it is the US Navy, they deal with radiation all the time because of the power plants on their carriers and subs. They signed up knowing that they might be called up for humanitarian efforts. While it is unusual for a sailor to be exposed to radiation while providing humanitarian aid they were trained in handling this.
If we let these ambulance chasers cash in on this then this can set a very dangerous precedent. Military service is dangerous and they knew that when they volunteered. If we let them get compensation for what appears to be a minor increase in background radiation then we'll have a serious problem in our future fighting capability.
"You know for someone who was injured in training you have a lotta "I got mine" attitude towards those who if they are injured were injured actually in the line of duty."
Yep, I got mine and so did they. Everyone that signed up got the same deal. They signed up knowing they'd be put at risk. When they leave they will be taken care of, just like I am now.
I have to wonder who is making these claims since, as you point out, the military instills the virtues of honor and loyalty. Are the sailors claiming harm or a bunch of civilian lawyers with dollar signs in their eyes?
I believe that a vast majority of the sailors on those vessels are not seeking compensation for the dangers they were exposed to. I believe that a handful of sailors are dishonoring themselves and their country with what appear to be baseless claims of being unnecessarily exposed to preventable harm.
"I say let the fucking doctors sort them out, and keep your skepticism to yourself."
It is because I feel a few bad apples are making the US Navy, and all in uniform, look bad that I believe it is only right to speak out against this. My skepticism lies mostly in that these sailors claim they were not provided proper protective gear. The DOD learned from past mistakes that protective gear is vital and those in command will punish those that do anything unsafe.
I don't want you mad at me. I only hoped to put this in the perspective of someone that did sign on that line. We can disagree and not resort to calling each other names. I just think back to the few I trained with that dropped out because they found out that being a soldier was difficult and dangerous work, as if no one told them that before they signed up. They knew what might happen. It appears to me that a few failed to realize the honor of serving their nation and humanity. They failed to see the benefits the government offered for their sacrifice. I cannot dishonor them, they can only dishonor themselves.
No, I suppose not. Solar panels don't cause cancer. Because they are made of safe materials like silicon, aluminum, gallium, and arsenic.
Oh, wait, arsenic causes cancer, no?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It would be interesting to see how many people died of arsenic induced skin cancer due to solar panel production.
Your mentioning of Chernobyl is irrelevant to modern nuclear power. Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen, badly designed, poorly constructed, and what little safety systems it had were disabled at the time it blew its top. If we did the same things with solar power we'd have panels falling on people, electrocutions, fires, and arsenic poisonings. Nuclear is only as unsafe as you allow it to be, just like anything else.
Why are you ignoring the cancer deaths from current solar panel production and yet bring up a nuclear accident from thirty years ago?
So the USS Ronald Reagan has a measurable amount of radiation in it's ventilation systems. What also has a measurable amount of radiation are bananas. Could someone please tell me how many bananas the sailors on these "contaminated" vessels would have to eat to get the same radioactive dose?
I suggest that whatever that number is that the US Navy subtract that from the daily rations for those sailors. Let them eat oranges instead.
Life in the military is dangerous. These sailors volunteered knowing, or should have known, that they'd be asked to do things that might very well shorten their lifespan. They might be asked to do things that result in what's left of them being mailed home to their family in a shoebox. In return for their service they get things like their education paid for, real world work experience, and preferential hiring.
I served in the US Army, was injured in training, now I'm in college part time while working part time. A job I got in part because I showed I was someone to the trusted with sensitive information and around dangerous people & items, because the Army does not take people that cannot be trusted. My education is paid for by the GI Bill. I also get my medical care paid for and a few bucks every month for my screwed up feet and knees.
These sailors served on a nuclear powered ship, it would not be inconceivable that they'd be exposed to radiation while on that vessel. Granted, and fortunately, the radiation did not come from the ship's power plant. These sailors were undoubtedly trained in the handling of radioactive material and in the methods to protect themselves from it.
It used to be that if you served in the US Navy you were almost certain to have damaged hearing. I know a few old sailors that can't hear so well. It was common for such people to get disability pay for this but no more. Why is that? Because the US DOD figured out that they could give their sailors, and all that serve, training in how to protect their ears and the gear to save their hearing. If they end up deaf then it's on them now. I believe that the same should apply here. They were trained, provided protective gear, and as far as I can tell were never asked to do anything out of the ordinary. If they end up sick from radiation then I say it's on them unless they can prove something extraordinary. Also, by extraordinary I mean that a fraction of those 5000 sailors would be eligible for compensation, not the entire crew.
I recall hearing of a Navy helicopter that got caught in an unexpected radioactive plume. Of the half dozen or so on that craft one came back with what might be considered a dangerous radioactive dose because that sailor was sitting by the opened side door. Upon return to the ship that sailor was showered, got a fresh uniform, and was given on ship duty for the remainder of the cruise, which I was told was the best thing to do because the shower and new uniform removed anything radioactive that the sailor would have been exposed to. The change in duty was merely out of an abundance of caution. That's third hand information so I have no means to verify the accuracy but if true then we have one, perhaps a handful more in a similar situation, that might have a case for getting an unsafe dose of radiation.
A common claim is, "I didn't sign up for this." Well, I believe you did.