How often do people build a new house on a lot? How often is a house remodeled to the point that new wiring is required by code? There's a lot of old houses in California and wiring them all for electrical service at every parking spot is not going to be trivial, or inexpensive.
Sure, it's not rocket science, but it is crazy to think every parking spot will have a electrical service for a car charger any time soon.
A cell phone is not typically put in a place where it can get a good picture of anything. If in a pocket the cell phone won't see much. If on a flat surface, like a bedside table or bathroom vanity, the camera is going to be facing up into the ceiling or down into the surface. I know that there are people that prop up a cell phone so that it can be used as an alarm clock or to stream video but this is not typical behavior.
The Echo Spot will be a target for getting video of bedrooms because it's primary function requires that it be place in a manner to get a good picture of people. A cell phone might be placed in a drawer at night, or left in another room, or whatever. Certainly a cell phone has the possibility for privacy invasions but this is something new.
Investing in nuclear power would allow UAE, or any nation, to reduce carbon output and still have power for their air conditioning. Someone might ask why not invest in solar power, especially for a nation with so much access to the sun. As the article I linked to points out UAE intends to invest in that as well, the plan is to get 50% from the sun and 50% from nuclear. I'm sure that such a plan would work well for sunny locations like UAE. For places with not so much sun, like Canada, they might want to lean more on nuclear power than solar.
There's two possible explanations for this behavior that come to mind for me.
First, the FM receiver is so tightly integrated into the WiFi/Bluetooth/cellular chip that it is impossible to disable one without also disabling the other. This may in fact be desired behavior to comply with "airplane mode" requirements.
Second, the software developers decided to include the ability to stream the radio station audio to make up for poor FM reception when cellular or WiFi is available.
I don't use NextRadio but I've heard their advertisements. They don't hide the fact that it uses data, they just say it uses *LESS* data than the competition, with the competition being those apps that don't take advantage of the FM radio. Your comments and others like it make me think that my phone not having an FM chip isn't so bad. If someone cannot offer an app that gives me access to FM radio and not also need internet access then the FM radio is effectively worthless.
Easily deployable, not deplorable - damn autocorrect.
I think you had it right the first time.
Amateur radio is great but I think it's being used in times and places where it is not appropriate. A bunch of Amateur radio network nodes, even if connected to the internet at some point, may not be all that useful given the practical (on different frequencies) and legal (no encryption) limitations of the Amateur Radio Service.
Where I think Amateur radio should shine in emergencies is in the collection of trained radio operators capable of using their skills and piles of electronics to provide communications. I envision Amateurs setting up their own COTS Part 15 devices, converted to comply with Part 97, in their spare time to learn how radios work. When an emergency comes along they can tear that down, carry it to where it's needed, and convert it back to Part 15 so that people with their iPhones and Android devices can communicate with family and friends. Now in Part 15 territory it works with non-Amateur devices that people have in their pockets and encryption is allowed.
The licensed Amateurs would also talk among themselves using Amateur radio bands and equipment to coordinate things and pass traffic that people wouldn't mind heard in the clear. Private communications among family could be encrypted though with commodity hardware. Providing assistance to first responders should also be encrypted. This might be with commercial grade radios though, but the Amatuers still bring technical expertise to operate the radios and free up others so they can do what they are best at, instead of having to work a radio.
I believe the real asset that Amateur radio provides is the people, not necessarily the gear they have. Get a bunch of Amateur radio operators together, hand them boxes of CB and FRS radios, and they'll still be effective communicators. Give them boxes of Wi-Fi gear, random computer parts, and they'll restore internet to a community. Bring your Amateur gear, but also bring your skills so you can get what you find there working for you too.
Those Amateur radio network nodes are going to look rather deplorable when people come by and they find out they can't connect their Apple and Droid pocket computers with it. The FCC might look the other way on a lot of the rules in an emergency, such as use of encryption to keep medical details private, or "salty" language slipping by when an Amateur allows a non-licensed person to use the radio. Using commodity hardware, not the "deplorable" Amateur stuff, would likely keep the FCC and the community served happier.
Power is still so cheap is not an issue. As long as my power bill is a 1/3rd of yours, you are the one who should think about power costs, not me.
What is the average electricity consumption per person in the USA and Germany? https://data.worldbank.org/ind... Germany 7,035 kWh United States 12,987 kWh
What is the average price paid for the electricity by people in the USA and Germany? http://www.worldatlas.com/arti... Germany 19.21 cents/kWh United States 10.00 cents/kWh
Multiply one by the other.... Germany $1352.42 United States $1298.70
Thats bollocks, google is your friend.
Indeed, Google is my friend. Americans pay less than half the rate for electricity and use nearly double the electricity, resulting in a smaller average electric bill than the average German.
Perhaps I can introduce you to Google? It seems that you've never met before.
So, let's review. France, Germany, Japan, and USA have all built significant numbers of coal plants in the past few years to meet growing demand and to make up for retired nuclear. Canada, UK, USA, and Italy rely heavily on natural gas and are building more capacity, while this might not be replacing nuclear it is another fossil fuel being used instead of wind and solar. China, Russia, and South Korea are actually making significant investments in nuclear to replace fossil fuels, which is still consistent with my claim that one must choose nuclear, fossil fuels, or lights going out.
Why do you write such nonsense? Fukushima Daishi had ordinary emergency power generators, like every plant. They did not rely on external power. However, perhaps that escaped you, the emergency power generators got flooded. And for some dumb reason no one came to the idea to helicopter a few military units in.
That's just so much nonsense in one paragraph it's hard to even come up with a reply. Do you really think that no one thought to helicopter in some generators?
In your country? All other countries that introduced wind and solar show that they are very reliabel and cost effective.
Oh, you mean like how last year the German government paid wind energy producers to sit idle to prevent damage to the electrical grid? http://dailycaller.com/2016/04...
That doesn't sound very reliable or cost effective. Seriously, do some research before you post. You are looking like a fool.
There was a very slight increase of CO2 output after decades of dropping, what is your problem?
That Germany thought they'd be so smart in deploying unreliable energy, shutting down nuclear, and get cheaper energy too. The claim was a 35% reduction from levels in 1990 as I recall, what they got was rising prices and maybe a 10% reduction in CO2, only to see it increase again when the weather didn't cooperate.
Energy prices are dropping since 3 or 4 years, again: what is your problem?
You are paying double what your neighbors in France pay. Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Greece, Poland, and really all of Europe and much of the world pay less for electricity. The list of nations that pay more for electrical service compared to Germany is quite short.
Energy never was a majour part of the bill of an household anyway. E.g. I pay 80EUR a month for gas and electricity.
I'm sure the poor in Germany are made to feel better about this statement. They might instead disagree with you.
Power prices for consumers have not much to do with production costs. As someone who is arguing for a specific kind of power production: you should know that.
Power production and distribution costs create a minimum cost on the energy, and taxes are added on top. Even if Germans paid no taxes on their electricity they'd still be paying more than most Americans, Canadians, and parts of Europe.
In Germany the enduser is paying about 50% taxes on power. That has nothing to do with production costs, obviously.
Sure, and if those taxes go away then you might see elecrtricity prices near what nuclear powered France pays and only double, instead of triple what Americans like me pay.
I told you that now several time, get a damn clue.
Yep, and it makes me chuckle every time. I get it, you have higher taxes. Maybe you should do something about that instead of trying to excuse it as no big deal.
That would be relevant if anyone intended to build a nuclear power plant like we did in the 1970s.
No one is going to tip SCRAM control rods with carbon like at Chernobyl. No new nuclear reactor is going to rely on uninterrupted electrical service to power cooling pumps like Fukushima.
Every nuclear power plant has had a seismic risk evaluation and people are taking that into account on deciding upgrades or decommissioning. You want to see more old nuclear power plants decommissioned before they self destruct? Then you need to build new nuclear power plants, see carbon output rise from replacing them with coal, or energy prices triple from using unreliable energy like wind and solar.
As soon as we have a fully wind, water, solar powered planet, global warming is gone. So: we don't need the burden of nuclear waste.
Right, you'll just have a new burden of energy prices being triple that of nuclear and large tracts of land used by wind and solar that could have been used to grow food or other uses. You might be able to use the land under a solar panel or windmill but that adds to the cost since it complicates the installation and maintenance if there's stuff in the way of trucks and workers having to navigate around the stuff in the way.
I'll just laugh at Germany some more. About what particularly?
Seriously? I thought I was pretty clear. We laugh at Germany for shutting down their nuclear to only see both carbon output and energy prices increase. You are all looking very stupid from this side of the pond. It might not have been so bad if you saw your carbon output go down even though prices increased, or if your prices decreased while carbon output remained the same. Seeing prices and carbon output increase is making Germany an example of what to *NOT* do.
I really like how you turn lack of evidence into proof of your predetermined outcome.
Is that what you got from my comments? We get a claim that nuclear is "dangerous". I provide a citation that says nuclear is the safest energy source we have good data on, and safer by a wide margin. You want to say we should avoid nuclear anyway because... why? Because we have no good data on wind and solar, so therefore... we just throw out the provably safe history of nuclear power?
Tell me more about utility scale solar then. Is it cheaper than nuclear? Lower greenhouse gas emissions? What data do you have that makes nuclear look "dangerous", "dirty", or "expensive"?
Nuclear, by comparison looks really safe, inexpensive, and "green". Not perfect, of course, since solar and wind have slightly smaller carbon footprints, but being much cheaper and safer would seem to make up for it.
Tell me, what outcome did you come to? I'm okay with collecting more data on utility solar. While you do that though how about we collect more data on nuclear power too? We can save a lot of lives in the mean time by building more nuclear power plants.
How does moving into a home near a military airport require you to enjoy noisy airplanes flying low over your new home?
I wouldn't say you are required to enjoy them but you are required to acknowledge that as a condition of buying the home. The prices of homes reflect things like their proximity to airports, train tracks, schools, churches, highways, hospitals, and so much more. If you want a house that doesn't have cargo planes flying low overhead then you'd have to choose a different house, and likely pay more for it.
I'm reminded of a bunch of people that complained of a navy base near them that would shoot off a ceremonial canon everyday. They've been doing this for something like 150 years. So, some people buy a retirement home near this base and complain about the noise. Well maybe they should have considered that before buying the property.
You say it happens every couple weeks? It's probably pilots getting their training. How bad can this be? Seems like a pretty minor thing to complain about.
We're nowhere close to any lower limit on energy use that would affect anyone's quality of life.
Bullshit.
Look behind you, there's the line on where lowering energy use affects quality of life.
Those stupid compact fluorescent bulbs that take a half hour to come to full brightness, interfere with IR remote controls, and give off a terrible color of light affected my quality of life. A small thing? Absolutely. I'm just getting started. Low flush toilets that leave streaks. "Cash for Clunkers" that delayed my selling off my piece of shit car for something that could handle the winter snow. Seeing ethanol in my gasoline reducing the miles I can get on a tank. And on and on.
Still a list of trivial inconveniences? Yep, absolutely. Still also a list of things that reduce my quality of life. I liked getting in the shower and having a gush of water wash over me, not this "Lo-Flo" crap I find in the hardware stores now. I liked having to flush only once after a bowel movement. I liked my 100 watt incandescent bulbs, especially in the winter where they became my own little piece of warm sunshine.
I'll still do what I can to save energy, because that saves me money. I'll save my money in places I choose so I can have my own small indulgences, like a warm light bulb on a cold and dreary day. It might seem like a small thing but I've had enough of of other people telling me how to live. Tell you what, don't tell me how to live and I won't tell you how to live.
Okay, start with the low hanging fruit and work your way up. So, tell me which is easier. First option is to engineer, breed, or whatever cattle and their gut biome to produce less methane. Second option is to realize that this is all bullshit since that methane is from plant matter that the cattle ate and is already part of the carbon cycle. If the cattle didn't eat the plants then it would rot in a field, get eaten by wild ruminant megafauna, or otherwise get turned to methane anyway.
I suppose we could short circuit this methane production by killing off all the ruminant fauna, and the grass, and just spray the countryside with Agent Orange.
You want some low hanging fruit to pick on reducing carbon output from digging up coal? Build nuclear power plants. Lots of nuclear power plants. Shut down the coal industry in a way that doesn't involve killing the economy. Make nuclear power so cheap that no one would even think of burning coal. Get the government to start issuing nuclear reactor permits. We know how to build them, and there's people standing in line to do so.
I know someone is just gearing up to reply on how putting nuclear power in the hands of greedy capitalists will mean another meltdown and the entire country becoming as inhabitable as if hosed down with Agent Orange. Here's why I know some greedy capitalist won't let another meltdown happen, they have to live on this planet too. You might have a handful of suicidal psychotics that think playing the fiddle while Rome burns is a good idea but there will be hundreds, or thousands, of people that will want to make sure that any given nuclear reactor is safe. Comparing modern nuclear power to Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island, is like saying we can't have any new cars because the Pinto, Corvair, and Bronco II were all unsafe vehicles.
Unlike Nambia, which is totally a real place, but the mainstream media doesn't want you to know that.
HAH! Now I know you are joking. Nambia is that place in those books where some British kids walked into a cupboard and met a talking lion. What was that lion's name? Aztec?
So you admit that we don't really know how many people died from utility solar. How can anyone call solar "safe" and nuclear "dangerous" if no one has data to work from? Seems pretty clear that nuclear is safe, we have lots of data on that. Compared to anything else we have data on nuclear is the safest energy we have.
Then there's calling nuclear "dirty" and "expensive". Compared to what? Is there data on that? Don't just say how much it takes to clean up a nuclear power plant because that's not enough information to make any kind of decision. This has to be compared to the energy produced and how "dirty" other energy sources are.
If we can't use nuclear because it is "dirty" and "expensive" then what should we use instead? Now tell me how "dirty" and "expensive" this alternative is, and perhaps nuclear starts to look real good.
when an Army chopper was struck by an illegally flying drone
If it flies then it's not an "Army chopper". I saw Echo Company's XO ride a "chopper" regularly, it had two wheels, a noisy muffler, and "Fuck You" laser cut in the chain guard. I'm surprised the base commander didn't chew his ass for having a vulgarity on the bike. I guess since he wore his helmet and a reflective vest when riding the Colonel didn't give a damn.
If it's got a big propeller on the top, and flies, then it's a "helo". Even then it's rare to hear anyone call a helicopter a "helo". It might be a "Huey", a "Blackhawk", "Apache", or "my ride out of here". It's not a "chopper".
Can we get people to stop putting growth hormone and constant antibiotics into cows, and feed them properly as well?
No.
Is growth hormones in cattle even a thing? I grew up on a farm where we had dairy cattle, pigs, and some beef cattle. I know that the government inspectors would throw a fit if they saw hormones used. Antibiotics we used when dehorning cattle, castrating calves, and when bringing in a new batch of pigs. Unless an animal got really sick they'd get one, maybe two, shots of antibiotics in their life. Far from "constant", since the government requires milk and meat getting tested for antibiotics it's not getting in your food.
You know something, I got a shot of antibiotics when I got to Army boot camp. I still got sick though. I got another round of antibiotics too, made my skin burn in the sun. Not fun. Turns out the government thinks antibiotics are a good thing, for our cattle and our soldiers.
Go ahead, write your senator about banning antibiotic use in raising cattle. Maybe you'll get a form letter in response. It's not going to change anything. Antibiotics are a good thing, they keep people from getting sick.
Not so well it seems. Turns out that building that much solar and wind is hard. Turns out that it also means relying on wind that might not blow and sun that might not shine.
Nuclear power has serious problems: WASTE.
First, problem solved, drop it in a hole. Burying nuclear waste is a perfectly acceptable solution. We can get more complicated with recovering some valuable industrial and medical isotopes first, reducing considerably the mass that needs to be buried, but it's a solved problem.
Second, what's the greater risk? Is nuclear waste all that big of a problem if the alternative is choosing between global warming or energy prices tripling? Nuclear power keeps energy prices low, reduces greenhouse gases, for the small price of having to bury some of the waste it produces.
If you fear nuclear waste more than global warming then global warming is nothing to fear.
My country exited nuclear power long ago, if you have not noticed.
Oh, we noticed. You shut down your nuclear power to only see your carbon output increase and the cost of energy go up. We are all rolling on the floor laughing.
So arguing with me about nuclear power is completely pointless.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm replying for the benefit of others. If you want to keep this going then that's fine by me, I'll just laugh at Germany some more.
But don't let facts get in your way. Hunters never do.
Right, facts. Let's look at the facts. So they have lower disease rates? Not zero though, right? Can a deer that's been killed and taken for meat spread disease? Properly cooked it cannot.
Fewer auto collisions you say? Not zero. Can a butchered deer cause a collision? I suppose it can fall out of the back of a refrigerated truck and onto the road, but generally a dead buck doesn't bust up any cars.
Yawn. You just want them to spend millions so you can have a hunting party instead.
No, I want them to spend thousands, not millions, and just shoot the deer. Properly managed it can become a money maker for the city by selling deer tags for hunters.
Killing the deer once they've captured it would be cheaper than performing surgery on it and eliminate, not reduce, any future damage it could cause. The outrage is over spending MORE money for LESS effective population management.
You think it's about getting to hunt the deer? Aren't they hunted now? Catching them is still hunting. The difference is in using a tranquilizer instead of a lethal weapon. This isn't about stopping the hunting. The difference is in that the deer survives the hunt to still cause damage. Oh, and it costs more money.
Let me ask you something. Would this be tolerated if it wasn't deer? Would we be giving vasectomies to rats? Or dogs? Rats and dogs spread Lyme disease too. A dog attack can be just as deadly as an automotive collision. We wouldn't tolerate this for any other animal so why do we tolerate it for deer?
So, let's not let facts get in the way. Kill the deer. But people aren't just letting the facts make the decision. Deer are "cute" so we don't want to kill them. Well, deer aren't so cute after they bust up your headlight and bend your bumper.
Slashdot Mirror
Then offer people a large electric car.
Electric wiring isn't rocket science.
How often do people build a new house on a lot? How often is a house remodeled to the point that new wiring is required by code? There's a lot of old houses in California and wiring them all for electrical service at every parking spot is not going to be trivial, or inexpensive.
Sure, it's not rocket science, but it is crazy to think every parking spot will have a electrical service for a car charger any time soon.
A cell phone is not typically put in a place where it can get a good picture of anything. If in a pocket the cell phone won't see much. If on a flat surface, like a bedside table or bathroom vanity, the camera is going to be facing up into the ceiling or down into the surface. I know that there are people that prop up a cell phone so that it can be used as an alarm clock or to stream video but this is not typical behavior.
The Echo Spot will be a target for getting video of bedrooms because it's primary function requires that it be place in a manner to get a good picture of people. A cell phone might be placed in a drawer at night, or left in another room, or whatever. Certainly a cell phone has the possibility for privacy invasions but this is something new.
Well, good thing that UAE is investing in nuclear power.
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
Investing in nuclear power would allow UAE, or any nation, to reduce carbon output and still have power for their air conditioning. Someone might ask why not invest in solar power, especially for a nation with so much access to the sun. As the article I linked to points out UAE intends to invest in that as well, the plan is to get 50% from the sun and 50% from nuclear. I'm sure that such a plan would work well for sunny locations like UAE. For places with not so much sun, like Canada, they might want to lean more on nuclear power than solar.
There's two possible explanations for this behavior that come to mind for me.
First, the FM receiver is so tightly integrated into the WiFi/Bluetooth/cellular chip that it is impossible to disable one without also disabling the other. This may in fact be desired behavior to comply with "airplane mode" requirements.
Second, the software developers decided to include the ability to stream the radio station audio to make up for poor FM reception when cellular or WiFi is available.
I don't use NextRadio but I've heard their advertisements. They don't hide the fact that it uses data, they just say it uses *LESS* data than the competition, with the competition being those apps that don't take advantage of the FM radio. Your comments and others like it make me think that my phone not having an FM chip isn't so bad. If someone cannot offer an app that gives me access to FM radio and not also need internet access then the FM radio is effectively worthless.
Easily deployable, not deplorable - damn autocorrect.
I think you had it right the first time.
Amateur radio is great but I think it's being used in times and places where it is not appropriate. A bunch of Amateur radio network nodes, even if connected to the internet at some point, may not be all that useful given the practical (on different frequencies) and legal (no encryption) limitations of the Amateur Radio Service.
Where I think Amateur radio should shine in emergencies is in the collection of trained radio operators capable of using their skills and piles of electronics to provide communications. I envision Amateurs setting up their own COTS Part 15 devices, converted to comply with Part 97, in their spare time to learn how radios work. When an emergency comes along they can tear that down, carry it to where it's needed, and convert it back to Part 15 so that people with their iPhones and Android devices can communicate with family and friends. Now in Part 15 territory it works with non-Amateur devices that people have in their pockets and encryption is allowed.
The licensed Amateurs would also talk among themselves using Amateur radio bands and equipment to coordinate things and pass traffic that people wouldn't mind heard in the clear. Private communications among family could be encrypted though with commodity hardware. Providing assistance to first responders should also be encrypted. This might be with commercial grade radios though, but the Amatuers still bring technical expertise to operate the radios and free up others so they can do what they are best at, instead of having to work a radio.
I believe the real asset that Amateur radio provides is the people, not necessarily the gear they have. Get a bunch of Amateur radio operators together, hand them boxes of CB and FRS radios, and they'll still be effective communicators. Give them boxes of Wi-Fi gear, random computer parts, and they'll restore internet to a community. Bring your Amateur gear, but also bring your skills so you can get what you find there working for you too.
Those Amateur radio network nodes are going to look rather deplorable when people come by and they find out they can't connect their Apple and Droid pocket computers with it. The FCC might look the other way on a lot of the rules in an emergency, such as use of encryption to keep medical details private, or "salty" language slipping by when an Amateur allows a non-licensed person to use the radio. Using commodity hardware, not the "deplorable" Amateur stuff, would likely keep the FCC and the community served happier.
That's my humble opinion of course.
Provide a citation or I'll assume you are just giving me more bullshit.
Next time you google make sure your links are remotely plausible.
At least I gave something. You gave me nothing. I've proven you've been feeding me lies many many times now, why should I believe you this time?
Power is still so cheap is not an issue. As long as my power bill is a 1/3rd of yours, you are the one who should think about power costs, not me.
What is the average electricity consumption per person in the USA and Germany?
https://data.worldbank.org/ind...
Germany 7,035 kWh
United States 12,987 kWh
What is the average price paid for the electricity by people in the USA and Germany?
http://www.worldatlas.com/arti...
Germany 19.21 cents/kWh
United States 10.00 cents/kWh
Multiply one by the other....
Germany $1352.42
United States $1298.70
Thats bollocks, google is your friend.
Indeed, Google is my friend. Americans pay less than half the rate for electricity and use nearly double the electricity, resulting in a smaller average electric bill than the average German.
Perhaps I can introduce you to Google? It seems that you've never met before.
No one is replacing old nuclear power plants with coal.
Germany has done just that.
https://carboncounter.wordpres...
France too.
http://instituteforenergyresea...
Sadly, so is the USA.
https://instituteforenergyrese...
https://www.vox.com/energy-and...
Or maybe the USA is replacing nuclear with natural gas.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
Japan is almost famous for replacing nuclear with coal
https://www.equaltimes.org/jap...
In the UK natural gas is replacing coal and nuclear.
https://arstechnica.com/scienc...
I just realized I covered 5 of the "Group of Seven" so let's finish this out and see what Canada and Italy are doing.
Turns out Italy shut down their nuclear a long time ago and relies largely on natural gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Looks like Canada is neither closing or building new nuclear, demand growth has been met with natural gas and hydro.
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/art...
Also in the above article is mention of Russia, China, and South Korea. More about that here:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
So, let's review. France, Germany, Japan, and USA have all built significant numbers of coal plants in the past few years to meet growing demand and to make up for retired nuclear. Canada, UK, USA, and Italy rely heavily on natural gas and are building more capacity, while this might not be replacing nuclear it is another fossil fuel being used instead of wind and solar. China, Russia, and South Korea are actually making significant investments in nuclear to replace fossil fuels, which is still consistent with my claim that one must choose nuclear, fossil fuels, or lights going out.
Why do you write such nonsense? Fukushima Daishi had ordinary emergency power generators, like every plant. They did not rely on external power. However, perhaps that escaped you, the emergency power generators got flooded. And for some dumb reason no one came to the idea to helicopter a few military units in.
That's just so much nonsense in one paragraph it's hard to even come up with a reply. Do you really think that no one thought to helicopter in some generators?
In your country? All other countries that introduced wind and solar show that they are very reliabel and cost effective.
Oh, you mean like how last year the German government paid wind energy producers to sit idle to prevent damage to the electrical grid?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04...
That doesn't sound very reliable or cost effective. Seriously, do some research before you post. You are looking like a fool.
There was a very slight increase of CO2 output after decades of dropping, what is your problem?
That Germany thought they'd be so smart in deploying unreliable energy, shutting down nuclear, and get cheaper energy too. The claim was a 35% reduction from levels in 1990 as I recall, what they got was rising prices and maybe a 10% reduction in CO2, only to see it increase again when the weather didn't cooperate.
Energy prices are dropping since 3 or 4 years, again: what is your problem?
You are paying double what your neighbors in France pay. Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Greece, Poland, and really all of Europe and much of the world pay less for electricity. The list of nations that pay more for electrical service compared to Germany is quite short.
Energy never was a majour part of the bill of an household anyway. E.g. I pay 80EUR a month for gas and electricity.
I'm sure the poor in Germany are made to feel better about this statement. They might instead disagree with you.
Power prices for consumers have not much to do with production costs. As someone who is arguing for a specific kind of power production: you should know that.
Power production and distribution costs create a minimum cost on the energy, and taxes are added on top. Even if Germans paid no taxes on their electricity they'd still be paying more than most Americans, Canadians, and parts of Europe.
In Germany the enduser is paying about 50% taxes on power. That has nothing to do with production costs, obviously.
Sure, and if those taxes go away then you might see elecrtricity prices near what nuclear powered France pays and only double, instead of triple what Americans like me pay.
I told you that now several time, get a damn clue.
Yep, and it makes me chuckle every time. I get it, you have higher taxes. Maybe you should do something about that instead of trying to excuse it as no big deal.
That would be relevant if anyone intended to build a nuclear power plant like we did in the 1970s.
No one is going to tip SCRAM control rods with carbon like at Chernobyl. No new nuclear reactor is going to rely on uninterrupted electrical service to power cooling pumps like Fukushima.
Every nuclear power plant has had a seismic risk evaluation and people are taking that into account on deciding upgrades or decommissioning. You want to see more old nuclear power plants decommissioned before they self destruct? Then you need to build new nuclear power plants, see carbon output rise from replacing them with coal, or energy prices triple from using unreliable energy like wind and solar.
As soon as we have a fully wind, water, solar powered planet, global warming is gone.
So: we don't need the burden of nuclear waste.
Right, you'll just have a new burden of energy prices being triple that of nuclear and large tracts of land used by wind and solar that could have been used to grow food or other uses. You might be able to use the land under a solar panel or windmill but that adds to the cost since it complicates the installation and maintenance if there's stuff in the way of trucks and workers having to navigate around the stuff in the way.
I'll just laugh at Germany some more.
About what particularly?
Seriously? I thought I was pretty clear. We laugh at Germany for shutting down their nuclear to only see both carbon output and energy prices increase. You are all looking very stupid from this side of the pond. It might not have been so bad if you saw your carbon output go down even though prices increased, or if your prices decreased while carbon output remained the same. Seeing prices and carbon output increase is making Germany an example of what to *NOT* do.
I really like how you turn lack of evidence into proof of your predetermined outcome.
Is that what you got from my comments? We get a claim that nuclear is "dangerous". I provide a citation that says nuclear is the safest energy source we have good data on, and safer by a wide margin. You want to say we should avoid nuclear anyway because... why? Because we have no good data on wind and solar, so therefore... we just throw out the provably safe history of nuclear power?
Tell me more about utility scale solar then. Is it cheaper than nuclear? Lower greenhouse gas emissions? What data do you have that makes nuclear look "dangerous", "dirty", or "expensive"?
I did some quick research on this and I posted it here:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Nuclear, by comparison looks really safe, inexpensive, and "green". Not perfect, of course, since solar and wind have slightly smaller carbon footprints, but being much cheaper and safer would seem to make up for it.
Tell me, what outcome did you come to? I'm okay with collecting more data on utility solar. While you do that though how about we collect more data on nuclear power too? We can save a lot of lives in the mean time by building more nuclear power plants.
How does moving into a home near a military airport require you to enjoy noisy airplanes flying low over your new home?
I wouldn't say you are required to enjoy them but you are required to acknowledge that as a condition of buying the home. The prices of homes reflect things like their proximity to airports, train tracks, schools, churches, highways, hospitals, and so much more. If you want a house that doesn't have cargo planes flying low overhead then you'd have to choose a different house, and likely pay more for it.
I'm reminded of a bunch of people that complained of a navy base near them that would shoot off a ceremonial canon everyday. They've been doing this for something like 150 years. So, some people buy a retirement home near this base and complain about the noise. Well maybe they should have considered that before buying the property.
You say it happens every couple weeks? It's probably pilots getting their training. How bad can this be? Seems like a pretty minor thing to complain about.
BACON!
Excellent idea! All we need now are some electric horsemen to herd them to market. Someone call Robert Redford!
We're nowhere close to any lower limit on energy use that would affect anyone's quality of life.
Bullshit.
Look behind you, there's the line on where lowering energy use affects quality of life.
Those stupid compact fluorescent bulbs that take a half hour to come to full brightness, interfere with IR remote controls, and give off a terrible color of light affected my quality of life. A small thing? Absolutely. I'm just getting started. Low flush toilets that leave streaks. "Cash for Clunkers" that delayed my selling off my piece of shit car for something that could handle the winter snow. Seeing ethanol in my gasoline reducing the miles I can get on a tank. And on and on.
Still a list of trivial inconveniences? Yep, absolutely. Still also a list of things that reduce my quality of life. I liked getting in the shower and having a gush of water wash over me, not this "Lo-Flo" crap I find in the hardware stores now. I liked having to flush only once after a bowel movement. I liked my 100 watt incandescent bulbs, especially in the winter where they became my own little piece of warm sunshine.
I'll still do what I can to save energy, because that saves me money. I'll save my money in places I choose so I can have my own small indulgences, like a warm light bulb on a cold and dreary day. It might seem like a small thing but I've had enough of of other people telling me how to live. Tell you what, don't tell me how to live and I won't tell you how to live.
Now get off my lawn, hippie.
Okay, start with the low hanging fruit and work your way up. So, tell me which is easier. First option is to engineer, breed, or whatever cattle and their gut biome to produce less methane. Second option is to realize that this is all bullshit since that methane is from plant matter that the cattle ate and is already part of the carbon cycle. If the cattle didn't eat the plants then it would rot in a field, get eaten by wild ruminant megafauna, or otherwise get turned to methane anyway.
I suppose we could short circuit this methane production by killing off all the ruminant fauna, and the grass, and just spray the countryside with Agent Orange.
You want some low hanging fruit to pick on reducing carbon output from digging up coal? Build nuclear power plants. Lots of nuclear power plants. Shut down the coal industry in a way that doesn't involve killing the economy. Make nuclear power so cheap that no one would even think of burning coal. Get the government to start issuing nuclear reactor permits. We know how to build them, and there's people standing in line to do so.
I know someone is just gearing up to reply on how putting nuclear power in the hands of greedy capitalists will mean another meltdown and the entire country becoming as inhabitable as if hosed down with Agent Orange. Here's why I know some greedy capitalist won't let another meltdown happen, they have to live on this planet too. You might have a handful of suicidal psychotics that think playing the fiddle while Rome burns is a good idea but there will be hundreds, or thousands, of people that will want to make sure that any given nuclear reactor is safe. Comparing modern nuclear power to Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island, is like saying we can't have any new cars because the Pinto, Corvair, and Bronco II were all unsafe vehicles.
Unlike Nambia, which is totally a real place, but the mainstream media doesn't want you to know that.
HAH! Now I know you are joking. Nambia is that place in those books where some British kids walked into a cupboard and met a talking lion. What was that lion's name? Aztec?
So your citation is weak, weak tea.
So you admit that we don't really know how many people died from utility solar. How can anyone call solar "safe" and nuclear "dangerous" if no one has data to work from? Seems pretty clear that nuclear is safe, we have lots of data on that. Compared to anything else we have data on nuclear is the safest energy we have.
Then there's calling nuclear "dirty" and "expensive". Compared to what? Is there data on that? Don't just say how much it takes to clean up a nuclear power plant because that's not enough information to make any kind of decision. This has to be compared to the energy produced and how "dirty" other energy sources are.
If we can't use nuclear because it is "dirty" and "expensive" then what should we use instead? Now tell me how "dirty" and "expensive" this alternative is, and perhaps nuclear starts to look real good.
when an Army chopper was struck by an illegally flying drone
If it flies then it's not an "Army chopper". I saw Echo Company's XO ride a "chopper" regularly, it had two wheels, a noisy muffler, and "Fuck You" laser cut in the chain guard. I'm surprised the base commander didn't chew his ass for having a vulgarity on the bike. I guess since he wore his helmet and a reflective vest when riding the Colonel didn't give a damn.
If it's got a big propeller on the top, and flies, then it's a "helo". Even then it's rare to hear anyone call a helicopter a "helo". It might be a "Huey", a "Blackhawk", "Apache", or "my ride out of here". It's not a "chopper".
Can we get people to stop putting growth hormone and constant antibiotics into cows, and feed them properly as well?
No.
Is growth hormones in cattle even a thing? I grew up on a farm where we had dairy cattle, pigs, and some beef cattle. I know that the government inspectors would throw a fit if they saw hormones used. Antibiotics we used when dehorning cattle, castrating calves, and when bringing in a new batch of pigs. Unless an animal got really sick they'd get one, maybe two, shots of antibiotics in their life. Far from "constant", since the government requires milk and meat getting tested for antibiotics it's not getting in your food.
You know something, I got a shot of antibiotics when I got to Army boot camp. I still got sick though. I got another round of antibiotics too, made my skin burn in the sun. Not fun. Turns out the government thinks antibiotics are a good thing, for our cattle and our soldiers.
Go ahead, write your senator about banning antibiotic use in raising cattle. Maybe you'll get a form letter in response. It's not going to change anything. Antibiotics are a good thing, they keep people from getting sick.
You simply can replace all coal plants by wind and solar, as Germany is doing.
How that working out?
http://www.environmentalprogre...
Not so well it seems. Turns out that building that much solar and wind is hard. Turns out that it also means relying on wind that might not blow and sun that might not shine.
Nuclear power has serious problems: WASTE.
First, problem solved, drop it in a hole. Burying nuclear waste is a perfectly acceptable solution. We can get more complicated with recovering some valuable industrial and medical isotopes first, reducing considerably the mass that needs to be buried, but it's a solved problem.
Second, what's the greater risk? Is nuclear waste all that big of a problem if the alternative is choosing between global warming or energy prices tripling? Nuclear power keeps energy prices low, reduces greenhouse gases, for the small price of having to bury some of the waste it produces.
If you fear nuclear waste more than global warming then global warming is nothing to fear.
My country exited nuclear power long ago, if you have not noticed.
Oh, we noticed. You shut down your nuclear power to only see your carbon output increase and the cost of energy go up. We are all rolling on the floor laughing.
So arguing with me about nuclear power is completely pointless.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm replying for the benefit of others. If you want to keep this going then that's fine by me, I'll just laugh at Germany some more.
But don't let facts get in your way. Hunters never do.
Right, facts. Let's look at the facts. So they have lower disease rates? Not zero though, right? Can a deer that's been killed and taken for meat spread disease? Properly cooked it cannot.
Fewer auto collisions you say? Not zero. Can a butchered deer cause a collision? I suppose it can fall out of the back of a refrigerated truck and onto the road, but generally a dead buck doesn't bust up any cars.
Yawn. You just want them to spend millions so you can have a hunting party instead.
No, I want them to spend thousands, not millions, and just shoot the deer. Properly managed it can become a money maker for the city by selling deer tags for hunters.
Killing the deer once they've captured it would be cheaper than performing surgery on it and eliminate, not reduce, any future damage it could cause. The outrage is over spending MORE money for LESS effective population management.
You think it's about getting to hunt the deer? Aren't they hunted now? Catching them is still hunting. The difference is in using a tranquilizer instead of a lethal weapon. This isn't about stopping the hunting. The difference is in that the deer survives the hunt to still cause damage. Oh, and it costs more money.
Let me ask you something. Would this be tolerated if it wasn't deer? Would we be giving vasectomies to rats? Or dogs? Rats and dogs spread Lyme disease too. A dog attack can be just as deadly as an automotive collision. We wouldn't tolerate this for any other animal so why do we tolerate it for deer?
So, let's not let facts get in the way. Kill the deer. But people aren't just letting the facts make the decision. Deer are "cute" so we don't want to kill them. Well, deer aren't so cute after they bust up your headlight and bend your bumper.
Citation needed.
Nuclear is the safest energy source we currently have. My citation: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...