Read the first line of the article: "ALL electronic cigarettes emit harmful chemicals..."
Not a smart idea to base your argument on the assumption that these laboratories are putting the ejuice through some 'extreme' conditions. The fact of the matter is that the tobacco companies just put these devices on the market with no scientific testing, but with the subtle marketing campaign that they were 'safer'. Now that the science is coming in, we're discovering that these devices are not as harmless as their devotees would like to believe.
Did you read the article? That was the point of the article. Standard use of the ecig WILL produce these chemicals. Further, the amount and type of chemcials changes according to things like how much you're using the device, how old the device is and so on.
I get what you're saying but respectfully I would argue that the criteria for determining what you really believe is not all that hard to define.
If someone really believes something then it should have an impact on how they behave in the world. If folks who say they believe in something don't actually do anything that such a belief might lead them to do, even something as simple as showing up a building to discuss their faith on a semi regular basis, then we have no evidence that such a belief is real, yet we have ample evidence to suggest that they don't actually believe.
I would assume that it's correct that the freedom to believe whatever you want has been ruled on and should be enshrined in the constitution. When/if this goes to the supreme court, the question will be weather or not people actually believe in the tenets of something clearly intended as satire.
Maybe they will find an earnest believer or two, but if they do, how are the rest of the 'practitioners' going to react when they realize that they're promoting what has become a real religion?
Satire is not religion. Pastafarianism is satire not religion. Of course, if this bothers you, you could make it a religion by devoting your life and finances to earnestly spreading/practicing Pastafarianism.
This ruling has nothing to do with making a 'state' religion, it's just pointing out the obvious difference between satire and it's subject.
As a side note: If you don't understand what religion is for its practitioners, then you shouldn't be making fun if it as all you're really doing is making fun of somebody for something that you haven't taken the time to understand yourself.
Until the devotees of pastafarianism start doing crazy self destructive things in the name of the religion, it's a pretty safe bet that they don't take the faith all that seriously.
Of course your seemingly reasonable argument in favor of the status quo falls flat when you realize that the dollar cost of fixing the problem is actually less than the dollar cost of dealing with the ever-increasing problems.
No, a flaw was identified in 2012 that ALREADY forced 1 plant into an emergency situation and is also present in nearly all other nuclear reactors. This flaw HAS NOT been fixed, nor does the regulator have any interest in getting it fixed. The engineering group is now petitioning the NRC to force all plant operators to fix it or face closure. THAT is the story here.
This is not the only power plant in the country. The article states that their goal is to generate 42% of their energy from renewables. Considering that these plants run throughout the day and 3 hours after the sun sets (the peak time for power consumption), they will still be relying on traditional plants for the off-peak hour production. Of course a deduction like that would mean that you would actually have to have read the article and not simply jump to the comments to troll.
Good thing too. Regulation can drive innovation as in this case. I seriously doubt this tech would have been pursued if government hadn't mandated more efficiency. Still, it's not a good idea to regulate to the point of picking 'The Solution' and imposing it on everyone.
Even if efficient incandescents take off, it will now just be one choice among many. LEDs offer so many advantages that they're going nowhere. Even the bulk of the people who tell pollsters that they 'prefer the warm glow' of incandecents are not necessarily going to go back. People prefer what they were use to. Once a switch is made, many will decide that the new way is what they now prefer and will kick and scream just as hard with any further change.
No, it would just slow photosynthesis. Light will still reach any plants under the panels, though it would be less. The questions is whether specific plants could still grow with less light reaching them.
Of course, if you read the original comment, it was clear that the concern was that the panels will suck up all the energy and prevent photosynthesis basically anywhere near the panels. And this was from a school teacher, hence the global facepalm...
I'm not exactly sure if you're being ironic or not so I'll proceed by assuming you're serious.
A battery or ultra-capacitor is simply a device that stores energy. A heat tank is also a device that stores energy. They're basically both batteries. The real question is which method is the most efficient. Likely, as they are using the sun to generate heat, it's more efficient to store that energy as heat before they need it.
If this company thinks they can operate this plant, I see no reason to stop them.
I see no reason why you keep mentioning birds like it's some sort of game changer. In Canada between 16-42 million birds are killed each year through collisions with buildings. Should we stop building houses? http://www.ace-eco.org/vol8/is... North America wide that number may rise as high at 1 billion. http://www.flap.org/faqs.php Not to mention that you conveniently left out the death toll on all animals from pollution/habitat loss from the fossil fuel generators which far exceeds the numbers of 'streamers' that these plants will generate.
Improvements on all fronts, should not be abandoned because those improvements are not perfect.
I think you should look up the difference between fusion plants and solar thermal plants.
Solar thermal plants around the world have been in continual operation for the better part of a decade now. They work and each new generation brings improvements.
Slashdot Mirror
Read the first line of the article: "ALL electronic cigarettes emit harmful chemicals..."
Not a smart idea to base your argument on the assumption that these laboratories are putting the ejuice through some 'extreme' conditions. The fact of the matter is that the tobacco companies just put these devices on the market with no scientific testing, but with the subtle marketing campaign that they were 'safer'. Now that the science is coming in, we're discovering that these devices are not as harmless as their devotees would like to believe.
Did you read the article? That was the point of the article. Standard use of the ecig WILL produce these chemicals. Further, the amount and type of chemcials changes according to things like how much you're using the device, how old the device is and so on.
It all just works, assuming that you only want to use it for whatever apple decides to allow you to do...
Here's why I rarely come to /. anymore. First comment is nothing but an ad hominem attack, yet gets an 'insightful' rating.
Why add the step of creating hydrogen? Just run your process during the day using electricity.
Slashdot: where ad hominems go to be considered informative!
Places like India have a ton of areas currently without any power whatsoever. Even having power that works in the day is a vast improvement.
I get what you're saying but respectfully I would argue that the criteria for determining what you really believe is not all that hard to define.
If someone really believes something then it should have an impact on how they behave in the world. If folks who say they believe in something don't actually do anything that such a belief might lead them to do, even something as simple as showing up a building to discuss their faith on a semi regular basis, then we have no evidence that such a belief is real, yet we have ample evidence to suggest that they don't actually believe.
I would assume that it's correct that the freedom to believe whatever you want has been ruled on and should be enshrined in the constitution. When/if this goes to the supreme court, the question will be weather or not people actually believe in the tenets of something clearly intended as satire.
Maybe they will find an earnest believer or two, but if they do, how are the rest of the 'practitioners' going to react when they realize that they're promoting what has become a real religion?
Satire is not religion. Pastafarianism is satire not religion. Of course, if this bothers you, you could make it a religion by devoting your life and finances to earnestly spreading/practicing Pastafarianism.
This ruling has nothing to do with making a 'state' religion, it's just pointing out the obvious difference between satire and it's subject.
As a side note: If you don't understand what religion is for its practitioners, then you shouldn't be making fun if it as all you're really doing is making fun of somebody for something that you haven't taken the time to understand yourself.
Until the devotees of pastafarianism start doing crazy self destructive things in the name of the religion, it's a pretty safe bet that they don't take the faith all that seriously.
Of course your seemingly reasonable argument in favor of the status quo falls flat when you realize that the dollar cost of fixing the problem is actually less than the dollar cost of dealing with the ever-increasing problems.
Safe to ignore if you don't like the messenger eh?
No, a flaw was identified in 2012 that ALREADY forced 1 plant into an emergency situation and is also present in nearly all other nuclear reactors. This flaw HAS NOT been fixed, nor does the regulator have any interest in getting it fixed. The engineering group is now petitioning the NRC to force all plant operators to fix it or face closure. THAT is the story here.
...the land around it is unusable for a while... LOL, I guess if you consider several generations 'a while'.
Everything is magnified in a nuclear reactor since the cost of failure is so high.
After they're not much good for auto use, they can be bundled together as cheap home or grid storage.
This is not the only power plant in the country. The article states that their goal is to generate 42% of their energy from renewables. Considering that these plants run throughout the day and 3 hours after the sun sets (the peak time for power consumption), they will still be relying on traditional plants for the off-peak hour production. Of course a deduction like that would mean that you would actually have to have read the article and not simply jump to the comments to troll.
^Obviously didn't read the article
Good thing too. Regulation can drive innovation as in this case. I seriously doubt this tech would have been pursued if government hadn't mandated more efficiency. Still, it's not a good idea to regulate to the point of picking 'The Solution' and imposing it on everyone.
Even if efficient incandescents take off, it will now just be one choice among many. LEDs offer so many advantages that they're going nowhere. Even the bulk of the people who tell pollsters that they 'prefer the warm glow' of incandecents are not necessarily going to go back. People prefer what they were use to. Once a switch is made, many will decide that the new way is what they now prefer and will kick and scream just as hard with any further change.
No, it would just slow photosynthesis. Light will still reach any plants under the panels, though it would be less. The questions is whether specific plants could still grow with less light reaching them. Of course, if you read the original comment, it was clear that the concern was that the panels will suck up all the energy and prevent photosynthesis basically anywhere near the panels. And this was from a school teacher, hence the global facepalm...
I'm not exactly sure if you're being ironic or not so I'll proceed by assuming you're serious.
A battery or ultra-capacitor is simply a device that stores energy. A heat tank is also a device that stores energy. They're basically both batteries. The real question is which method is the most efficient. Likely, as they are using the sun to generate heat, it's more efficient to store that energy as heat before they need it.
If this company thinks they can operate this plant, I see no reason to stop them.
I see no reason why you keep mentioning birds like it's some sort of game changer. In Canada between 16-42 million birds are killed each year through collisions with buildings. Should we stop building houses? http://www.ace-eco.org/vol8/is... North America wide that number may rise as high at 1 billion. http://www.flap.org/faqs.php Not to mention that you conveniently left out the death toll on all animals from pollution/habitat loss from the fossil fuel generators which far exceeds the numbers of 'streamers' that these plants will generate.
Improvements on all fronts, should not be abandoned because those improvements are not perfect.
'If by cool new thing' you mean 'run for a few hours longer after dark.'
I see no reason to doubt that refinements in design can squeeze out a few more hours of run-time.
I think you should look up the difference between fusion plants and solar thermal plants.
Solar thermal plants around the world have been in continual operation for the better part of a decade now. They work and each new generation brings improvements.