your opinion saddens and frightens me for two reasons. 1) he deserved to serve 4 years in prison for being an angry idiot that might be dangerous? and 2) your presumption that spending 4 years in prison at a massive tax payer expense would somehow improve the situation? because angry, pointlessly imprisoned, unemployable ex-cons somehow benefit society?
People who contribute more to society are entitled to a better standard of living afforded by that society than those who don't contribute.
A few major issues here: 1) Contribution to society based on what rules? Increasing GDP? Where did anyone sign up for that or agree it was a social goal? Is it written somewhere? How are we really going to define this? We can identify lots of economic activity that is directly harmful to society, would these people be penalized and subject to even lower standard of living than loafers who do nothing?
Secondly hard work is great and will tip the balance, but we do not have a society that rewards based on merit (hard work). So long as power is structured with dynasty and wealth we will never have it. So in practice, this really turns into an argument that is proportionate to someone's level of disadvantage. Hey poor people: work hard, but neglect the nepotism, cronyism, corruption, and loafing of everyone above* you. *Where "above" often means experience, age, aggression, unethical, etc, in addition to power and wealth. Basically it seems you want to only hold disadvantaged people accountable for their work ethic.
this thinking is comical. I'd really like to see the the contents of your root cellar to validate your choice of a vapor compression cycle machine to store your perishables. And I could take this in a thousand other directions to demonstrate your absurdity. Oh what's that you're just making some obscene argument based off inconsistent personal values? yeah. right. While you dig holes to refrigerate your eggs and vegetables (or more likely just proceed in a state of self delusion), options will be made available to the rest of us that leverage technology to save money, reduce operating costs, and shockingly, improve reliability.
You can maintain your crude systems with high operating costs. I certainly won't infringe on your freedom to make bad choices as long as I don't have to subsidize them anyway.
I had a similar experience. Only it didn't stop when I quit working retail at 15. I've encountered it over the next 17 years; high school, college, design engineering, process engineering, volunteerism, volunteerism x2, graduate school, graduate school x2, consulting, relationships, chores, other social and community responsibilities, etc. Let's say even in high-performance environments half the people are lazier than me. And I'm also lazy relative to my potential. And probably so are you. I also know a disturbing large number of lazy, stupid, intelligent, poor, rich, disabled, deserving, and undeserving people who leverage entitlements to the maximum. All of these anecdotes, as yours, are irrelevant. It's just reasoning from an arbitrary value system, one that doesn't even accurately reflect reality.
what entitles them to a life better than poverty?
The same thing that entitles you to a better life through hard work: Nothing.
This isn't true at all. We are very quickly destroying our ability to produce agricultural excess and that existing excess isn't really valuable. We can grow grains for everyone on earth. Not meat, seafood, and vegetables. Of course we're also depleting aquifers, losing top soil, and destroying ocean ecosystems at a rate that will manifest in serious issues within a couple generations. Not to mention that any real perturbation in fossil fuel costs or availability will severely hamper our ability to farm and distribute food.
He studied,completed a degree, and wrote a dissertation presumably in the field of astrophysics, which should be enough. But he has apparently published too. http://www.haydenplanetarium.o...
I don't have friends with smart TVs, I do have friends working on refrigerators that can coordinate fast demand response with the grid, thus enabling the second or third largest appliance of every dwelling in the country to actually contribute services that increase the predictability and reliability while decreasing the cost of distribution and generation. Not bad for $8 of electronics.
what? they are unnecessary middle men, but their ppas generally reduce costs for customers. They would just rather not share that a solar investment would be even better without them using personal credit via HELOC.
That solar power is most valuable in the mid afternoon when the utility would might otherwise request peaking natural gas facilities which can cost upwards of 0.5 $/kWh...
removing thirsty non-native turf in favor of sparse drought tolerant sedge-type vegetation will cause global warming on a state wide scale? what does this mean? any of it?
you read too much into anonymous text comments, I am not insulted by needlessly derisive comments against international corporate conglomerates. my extremely limited experience with kias suggest they offer models conforming to my prior comment. Actually the only Kia I know is excessively luxurious, so basically what you said makes no sense, which I surmise is a consequence of your poorly conceived statement. However I am open to additional explanation.
And upon reading about the east german automobile you have referenced, I find no relevance to Kia, a modern, competitive auto manufacturer, that effectively behaves as any other modern auto manufacturer. So I will not attempt to infer why you are writing weird nonsensical things, but I expect that your point is lost on other readers as well.
good for you. I want sophisticated software based digital controls in all my appliances that are run on the same $8 internet connected computer that I can replace, flash, customize, update, optimize for my lifestyle, for my local utility programs and incentives, renewable power systems, energy storage, peak demand reduction, etc.
You will always be able to buy the cheap refrigerator with a poorly controlled compressor. unfortunately that's also the model with poor insulation, bad stripping, and a nasty compressor. Also the administrative overhead of figuring the additional energy and operating cost you waste from this choice is very small. Maybe you can spend this saved time investigating your hypothesis about the complexity and potential reliability of digital controls.
There is an abundance of extremely long-lived, well scrutinized science focused solely on the answers to your questions. Mainly the quantity and extraction costs of fossil fuel reserves and the energy payback and economics of all energy conversion technologies are well studied from dozens of professional perspectives over several generations of scientists. The most conservative estimates lean one way, the optimistic estimates lean the other, but on the order of a generation, or 1/3 of anyone's life, the differences have been minor. Despite their specific results, credible researchers all over the world have uniformly found (for a couple decades) that overall economic harm is minimized or overall economic return is maximized by engaging change sooner rather than later, neglecting the (IMO stronger) arguments on the environment, ecology, equality, health, etc
Economic risks are important to recognize, especially the ones that cater toward our own selfishness. The risks of affecting change are vastly overstated due to the economic and power inertia of the status quo. The "risk" and "cost" necessary to achieve the status quo are conveniently neglected (aka along with any acknowledgement for what our lifestyles cost us), despite their overwhelming importance to global industry for at least 150 years and their vast magnitude compared to anything proposed in the past few decades (possibly with the exception of China). The risk associated with neglecting other geopolitical and economic appetites is completely neglected. All in all, if you think about the science, the economics, the history, and the agenda's of important stakeholders, the right choices are trivial and obvious. Recognizing and accepting that they do not fit personal interests is difficult. Narcissism, selfishness and the capacity for wanton ignorance and self-delusion readily interfere with progress.
Whether replacement energy conversion technologies become cost effective in 2005 or 2017 doesn't matter by 2030. The trend is our friend. The cumulative increase in certainty developed from continuous study of these issues has shown that in aggregate we know what we're doing. A 150 year scientific record is there to study. There are no game changers. High quality and easily gathered resources are used first. Subsequently extraction and processing costs rise. New techniques and processes are developed. They are hailed as miraculous and game changing, but in fact they are/were already incorporated into the record long ago. Minor forecast adjustments are made. Alternative solutions are proposed with fundamentally different development and operational profiles. They are hailed as miraculous and game changing. They are not, they will require endless study and refinement. If pursued, their manufacture will improve and costs decrease with scale and experience. Predictions come true. The slow march of progress is boring. Economics would sort it out eventually, but those not preoccupied by the past will be the first to take advantage of the future. Those who take the "risk" reap the reward. Then their interests will become the obstinate status quo of the future.
looking back on my comment, a figure is offered for every assumption (efficiency or cost) as well as its basis. The rest are physical constants. net efficiency * input * cost per output. good luck.
It is a guess, a very educated one, undoubtedly it seems a big leap to someone who has no experience or education on the topic. Unfortunately, my comments here will not correct that ignorance. My assumptions are simple. There is essentially a single step to be added to existing facilities to accomplish this task. Lets say I have an above average understanding of that step. I also have an above average understanding of associated industries and hence comes some ability to casually ballpark capital costs of such things. But these are just words.
I'm using numbers based on my academic familiarity of the thermodynamics of a specific solid oxidation reduction cycle (as I mentioned and cited numbers for in the post...). What remains is the duplication of conventional solar thermal plants and chemical processing & transport facilities, which have accepted and highly scrutinized capital costs. I've topped that off with generous assumptions on "extra" capex expenditures and I'm confident that my napkin calculation is a high estimate.
The rest of your comment is irrelevant (re hydrogen, input, transport) and reveals an ignorance of what I have presented (which undoubtedly is my fault for simplifying complicated cutting edge science and engineering).
I encourage you to assume as you wish, after all this is a random internet comment. But I think you might refine your process for skeptical analysis. I think you might divine from my language that my arguments are worth more than opinions from abject ignorance. But I accept that you do not. It is the safe play. Good luck. PS Advanced apologizes if I am a condescending ass.
That was my attempt at a favorable comparison. Lower profitability requires even more revenue to justify their valuation. That is more difficult than the challenge I propose.
Slashdot Mirror
your opinion saddens and frightens me for two reasons. 1) he deserved to serve 4 years in prison for being an angry idiot that might be dangerous? and 2) your presumption that spending 4 years in prison at a massive tax payer expense would somehow improve the situation? because angry, pointlessly imprisoned, unemployable ex-cons somehow benefit society?
I don't really understand the problem here? Isn't this to be expected? Part of the cost of having a complicated entitlement system?
People who contribute more to society are entitled to a better standard of living afforded by that society than those who don't contribute.
A few major issues here: 1) Contribution to society based on what rules? Increasing GDP? Where did anyone sign up for that or agree it was a social goal? Is it written somewhere? How are we really going to define this? We can identify lots of economic activity that is directly harmful to society, would these people be penalized and subject to even lower standard of living than loafers who do nothing?
Secondly hard work is great and will tip the balance, but we do not have a society that rewards based on merit (hard work). So long as power is structured with dynasty and wealth we will never have it. So in practice, this really turns into an argument that is proportionate to someone's level of disadvantage. Hey poor people: work hard, but neglect the nepotism, cronyism, corruption, and loafing of everyone above* you. *Where "above" often means experience, age, aggression, unethical, etc, in addition to power and wealth. Basically it seems you want to only hold disadvantaged people accountable for their work ethic.
this thinking is comical. I'd really like to see the the contents of your root cellar to validate your choice of a vapor compression cycle machine to store your perishables. And I could take this in a thousand other directions to demonstrate your absurdity. Oh what's that you're just making some obscene argument based off inconsistent personal values? yeah. right. While you dig holes to refrigerate your eggs and vegetables (or more likely just proceed in a state of self delusion), options will be made available to the rest of us that leverage technology to save money, reduce operating costs, and shockingly, improve reliability.
You can maintain your crude systems with high operating costs. I certainly won't infringe on your freedom to make bad choices as long as I don't have to subsidize them anyway.
what entitles them to a life better than poverty?
The same thing that entitles you to a better life through hard work: Nothing.
This isn't true at all. We are very quickly destroying our ability to produce agricultural excess and that existing excess isn't really valuable. We can grow grains for everyone on earth. Not meat, seafood, and vegetables. Of course we're also depleting aquifers, losing top soil, and destroying ocean ecosystems at a rate that will manifest in serious issues within a couple generations. Not to mention that any real perturbation in fossil fuel costs or availability will severely hamper our ability to farm and distribute food.
yep that's definitely the root cause of all poor people. They complain to much and don't work hard enough. Great discovery there.
He studied,completed a degree, and wrote a dissertation presumably in the field of astrophysics, which should be enough. But he has apparently published too. http://www.haydenplanetarium.o...
Very true. I have not yet mastered multi-stage sealed vapor compression technology yet.
It's ok to be ignorant. It's not ok to get angry and lash out.
I don't have friends with smart TVs, I do have friends working on refrigerators that can coordinate fast demand response with the grid, thus enabling the second or third largest appliance of every dwelling in the country to actually contribute services that increase the predictability and reliability while decreasing the cost of distribution and generation. Not bad for $8 of electronics.
I do know that model Kia. It isn't the ugliest car I've seen. The comparison to the Trabant is shallow like the rest of your humor.
what? they are unnecessary middle men, but their ppas generally reduce costs for customers. They would just rather not share that a solar investment would be even better without them using personal credit via HELOC.
That solar power is most valuable in the mid afternoon when the utility would might otherwise request peaking natural gas facilities which can cost upwards of 0.5 $/kWh...
removing thirsty non-native turf in favor of sparse drought tolerant sedge-type vegetation will cause global warming on a state wide scale? what does this mean? any of it?
I think you confused India for Texas
you read too much into anonymous text comments, I am not insulted by needlessly derisive comments against international corporate conglomerates. my extremely limited experience with kias suggest they offer models conforming to my prior comment. Actually the only Kia I know is excessively luxurious, so basically what you said makes no sense, which I surmise is a consequence of your poorly conceived statement. However I am open to additional explanation.
And upon reading about the east german automobile you have referenced, I find no relevance to Kia, a modern, competitive auto manufacturer, that effectively behaves as any other modern auto manufacturer. So I will not attempt to infer why you are writing weird nonsensical things, but I expect that your point is lost on other readers as well.
good for you. I want sophisticated software based digital controls in all my appliances that are run on the same $8 internet connected computer that I can replace, flash, customize, update, optimize for my lifestyle, for my local utility programs and incentives, renewable power systems, energy storage, peak demand reduction, etc.
You will always be able to buy the cheap refrigerator with a poorly controlled compressor. unfortunately that's also the model with poor insulation, bad stripping, and a nasty compressor. Also the administrative overhead of figuring the additional energy and operating cost you waste from this choice is very small. Maybe you can spend this saved time investigating your hypothesis about the complexity and potential reliability of digital controls.
what is a minimalist freakbox? a cost effective an reliable form of transportation?
There is an abundance of extremely long-lived, well scrutinized science focused solely on the answers to your questions. Mainly the quantity and extraction costs of fossil fuel reserves and the energy payback and economics of all energy conversion technologies are well studied from dozens of professional perspectives over several generations of scientists. The most conservative estimates lean one way, the optimistic estimates lean the other, but on the order of a generation, or 1/3 of anyone's life, the differences have been minor. Despite their specific results, credible researchers all over the world have uniformly found (for a couple decades) that overall economic harm is minimized or overall economic return is maximized by engaging change sooner rather than later, neglecting the (IMO stronger) arguments on the environment, ecology, equality, health, etc
Economic risks are important to recognize, especially the ones that cater toward our own selfishness. The risks of affecting change are vastly overstated due to the economic and power inertia of the status quo. The "risk" and "cost" necessary to achieve the status quo are conveniently neglected (aka along with any acknowledgement for what our lifestyles cost us), despite their overwhelming importance to global industry for at least 150 years and their vast magnitude compared to anything proposed in the past few decades (possibly with the exception of China). The risk associated with neglecting other geopolitical and economic appetites is completely neglected. All in all, if you think about the science, the economics, the history, and the agenda's of important stakeholders, the right choices are trivial and obvious. Recognizing and accepting that they do not fit personal interests is difficult. Narcissism, selfishness and the capacity for wanton ignorance and self-delusion readily interfere with progress.
Whether replacement energy conversion technologies become cost effective in 2005 or 2017 doesn't matter by 2030. The trend is our friend. The cumulative increase in certainty developed from continuous study of these issues has shown that in aggregate we know what we're doing. A 150 year scientific record is there to study. There are no game changers. High quality and easily gathered resources are used first. Subsequently extraction and processing costs rise. New techniques and processes are developed. They are hailed as miraculous and game changing, but in fact they are/were already incorporated into the record long ago. Minor forecast adjustments are made. Alternative solutions are proposed with fundamentally different development and operational profiles. They are hailed as miraculous and game changing. They are not, they will require endless study and refinement. If pursued, their manufacture will improve and costs decrease with scale and experience. Predictions come true. The slow march of progress is boring. Economics would sort it out eventually, but those not preoccupied by the past will be the first to take advantage of the future. Those who take the "risk" reap the reward. Then their interests will become the obstinate status quo of the future.
looking back on my comment, a figure is offered for every assumption (efficiency or cost) as well as its basis. The rest are physical constants. net efficiency * input * cost per output. good luck.
It is a guess, a very educated one, undoubtedly it seems a big leap to someone who has no experience or education on the topic. Unfortunately, my comments here will not correct that ignorance. My assumptions are simple. There is essentially a single step to be added to existing facilities to accomplish this task. Lets say I have an above average understanding of that step. I also have an above average understanding of associated industries and hence comes some ability to casually ballpark capital costs of such things. But these are just words.
I'm using numbers based on my academic familiarity of the thermodynamics of a specific solid oxidation reduction cycle (as I mentioned and cited numbers for in the post...). What remains is the duplication of conventional solar thermal plants and chemical processing & transport facilities, which have accepted and highly scrutinized capital costs. I've topped that off with generous assumptions on "extra" capex expenditures and I'm confident that my napkin calculation is a high estimate. The rest of your comment is irrelevant (re hydrogen, input, transport) and reveals an ignorance of what I have presented (which undoubtedly is my fault for simplifying complicated cutting edge science and engineering).
I encourage you to assume as you wish, after all this is a random internet comment. But I think you might refine your process for skeptical analysis. I think you might divine from my language that my arguments are worth more than opinions from abject ignorance. But I accept that you do not. It is the safe play. Good luck. PS Advanced apologizes if I am a condescending ass.
thanks for the follow up
That was my attempt at a favorable comparison. Lower profitability requires even more revenue to justify their valuation. That is more difficult than the challenge I propose.
On the contrary, when you clear your panels off they will get 20-60% extra insolation from those high reflective white surfaces.