In your model the power bill has 2 components: generation and delivery. You feel that it's fair for the customer to pay both.
In the scenario where the homeowner is generating the power, it is the utility that is the customer therefore according to your logic it should be the utility that pays for the delivery of that power. If the homeowner pays delivery charges on the power they use, so too should the utility company on the power they use.
Considering the power generation and consumption patterns of a typical home, perhaps the utility companies are not paying the homeowner enough delivery on the power generated...
As the amount of variable supply power grows so to does the demand for storage of that power. The market will force utilities to adapt or die through deploying grid storage. The scenario you speak of is still decades away and we have the technology today to make this work. It will only get more cost effective as time goes by.
So a public court of law weighs the evidence and agrees that the paper had been careless and indifferent to the facts and in your mind that makes the paper MORE credible?
How can we have an open debate when one side censors the other, through lawsuits, censorship, or even making discussion outright illegal (see Holocaust denial)?
How can you have an open debate when one side uses lies and personal attacks instead of facts?
It doesn't matter how ridiculously wrong the other side is. Doesn't matter if they are NAMBLA, Neo-Nazis, ISIS, whoever. Let them speak their mind and let the people figure out that their arguments are largely full of shit and let the people reject them on merit. Or, if they choose to, accept them.
It DOES matter how ridiculously wrong one side is when their goal is not to win a debate but to DELAY ACTION. By manufacturing controversy where there is none, one side wins.
I don't think they're surviving any better up here. I have not found a reason to purchase anything from one of their stores for a decade now. At one point they had hard to find components. Now they have what exactly? A small quantity of stuff that can be purchased cheaper elsewhere...
There is one element of oil creation that you forgot: A mechanism to trap the Oil. Otherwise after the hydrocarbon is created it disperses. Finding the trapping mechanism at whatever depth is more important that the age of the oil.
In traditional reserves this trapping mechanism has been a a limestone dome or some such but it doesn't have to be. Technology is now allowing us to exploit other trapping mechanisms (such as shale and sand). This means that we can exploit previously untouchable deposits. If the price of oil rises again, the same thing will happen and we will be awash with 'new' oil. The really scary part of all this is that we are now starting to transition to unconventionals, which are often trapped in different ways, such as methalhydrates frozen in the sea floor. This is a slow motion disaster for the planet as the amount of carbon trapped in these formations dwarfs anything we previously could have exploited.
What does this mean for peak oil? What does peak oil even mean? Does it mean peak conventional production? If so, we may already be there. Does it mean peak hydrocarbon production? In that case we are nowhere near how much we could dig up....
I'm with you man! We need to keep questioning all these fundamentally unsound 'scientific' theories.
I mean take Newton and his THEORY of gravity...
Call me a denier all you want. I'm not denying the "Science" part of this (Things fall). I am denying the predictive hyperbole from the likes of Issac Newton, who keeps making ridiculous claims, while having a huge gravity footprint (apple diet not withstanding).
Once battery tech is established, it kills the need for nuclear. Wind/solar is all you need. Wind/solar power the day and wind works at night when demand is lower anyway. Any gaps in coverage are absorbed by batteries. Legacy plants will have an increasingly difficult time generating cost competitive electricity as the years go by because despite the high upfront costs the generating costs for renewables are close to zero.
Currently the weak link IS battery tech, however, there has been a ton of work and research going into this area which seems to be showing promise in multiple areas. The next decade or so should yield major advances here pushing down costs and capacity up.
This strikes me as having potential to augment the traditional battery in a car. I don't think it will replace it, nor should it. Combine this with a moderate sized battery and you extend the range of the car dramatically. Better, you can have two different systems optimized for different uses, one a slow charging energy dense battery and the other a quick charging efficient capacitor mopping up regenerative breaking energy and delivering it in a quick burst. Add in a few other systems such as integrating solar power to help run the increasing number to gadgets in cars and the electric car starts to really shine.
True, most jobs simply require a skills based education. However, if you hope to run with any reasonable form of democratic government you need a population filled with people who can think and reason critically. The best way to generate such a population is with a robust education system.
This is stupid on so many levels it boggles the mind. I'll have to limit to just a few:
If this guy decided to start selling traffic analysis to the city, then he should be stopped. However, the individual who did this work was not doing it for a profit therefore the complaint is meaningless. With the proliferation of the internet, anybody can easily obtain and use once obscure and hoarded knowledge. If someone takes the time to research and complete a well thought out and presented argument, it is incumbent on the city to respond in a well thought out manner. If he made a mistake, reply and point it out at the level he or she is engaging you on. Obviously in this case, someone in the city got caught with their pants down and doesn't like it. There are a lot of cocky people out there who think that they are gods gift to... (fill in the blank)... and that they are irreplaceable. They don't like it when they are shown up. People need to realize that no matter how highly skilled and how much education you have, OTHER PEOPLE CAN DO WHAT YOU DO TOO! ( Sometimes even better than you;) )
If this complaint is allowed to stand, the precedent it sets is scary: Any government councilor had better not question the engineer of any project. Same goes for the public at large. At least nobody better complain using any sort of intelligent argument.
Yes, they still have caps, however, I go over my cap every month and have yet to be charged for it. As long as the threat of the independent operator is out there, the big guys will be less willing to make an issue out of it.
Perhaps I have mistaken how evolution works, however, just having babies in space or elsewhere is not enough to evolve a new species. You need selective pressures which only allow certain individuals to survive. I doubt very much that babies born off-world will face such a high mortality rate that many will not survive to have children of their own.
All caps is annoying and if this stops half the nitwits from using it excessively I'm all for it. If you have something so important to say that it must be in all caps... YOU CAN HOLD DOWN THE SHIFT KEY.
While it's not much of a deterrent to this kind of garbage that we've come to expect from apple in the short term. I'll still take a decision 5-10 years from now that might humble them a bit.
Although, take what I have to say with a grain of salt. I use to pull for Apple, but I've got a growing distaste for the business practices of almighty Jobs. Not that any of this would really matter to Apple because I'm not, nor will I ever be, a customer unless or until they amend their ways! Come to think of it: I've got to be the least desireable customer out there. I'm not an early adopter, nor do I feel the slighted pressure to buy the new 'it' item. Frankly, I'll go out of my way to spite a company that I feel deserves it and do my best to make sure others do as well.
1. If alcohol is legal pot should be too. The former has far more potential for harm than the latter.
2. Half the population feels or has felt the law is contemptible and contemptible laws breed contempt for the law.
3. Pot should be regulated much the same as alcohol and cigarettes, in your home or licensed establishment. Obviously, one should not drive or engage in other potentially harmful activities when stoned. Common sense must prevail.
4. If governments wish, the level of THC in the product could be regulated in order to prevent ever more potent strains from being engineered.
5. Don't expect a huge tax windfall from legalizing pot, the stuff is dirt cheap to produce because it grows like a weed. Pun intended. Once the risk is removed, absent government mandated pricing competition will drive prices through the floor just like the rest of agriculture.
6. Stop putting people in jail for smoking pot. It makes no sense when places like California have such huge budgetary issues. A ballot initiative should be put to the people, de-criminalize or tax increase proportional to the cost of keeping all those locked up for the offense in jail. Halting the lock ups is really the only area you will see savings from legalization.
7. If Pot is legalized, then discourage smoking as a delivery method... Smoking is still harmful to your health.
8. At some point, it will happen so why not be ahead of the curve? The benefit is generally the greatest for the early adopter of these sorts of things.
9. No system is perfect. The best we can do is always try to make things better!
Not true... this January the GG of Canada had a choice to make about who would be the prime minister of Canada, when the current Prime minister approached her and told her that he wished to shut down parliament after something like three days. The opposition signed a powersharing deal in which they would be able to form a coalition government. Shuttering parliament was seen across the country as a political maneuver to avoid defeat. All eyes across the country turned to the GG as she was the arbiter who would ultimately decide who became prime minister.
No, they REPORT that they get 64 miles/gallon. Who verified this? Lots of startups make outrageous claims to suck in investors. Is this under optimal conditions? In the lab, the Prius gets amazing mileage too. How heavy is their prototype? That's one funky, aerodynamic looking car... why not use a standard automobile... you know, something that might actually be driven by you on your way to work.
Oh, but I'm sure when the technology never quite makes it to market, die hard conspiracy nuts will claim some Oil company bought the technology only to destroy it so they can sell more oil.
The outrage is because no other power plant has the potential for essentially permanent environmental contamination. This is not helped by the fact that the industry is deliberately lying to government regulators. If we can't trust the industry to come clean with, what you describe as a 'so what' incident, how can we trust industry when it come to a major incident? Oh, and if you're not concerned about Trituim in your water, then I suggest you walk the walk and start drinking and bathing in it.
FYI, there is outrage over coal plants in general. But this is a story about nuclear plants, hence, people are talking about them.
Slashdot Mirror
In your model the power bill has 2 components: generation and delivery. You feel that it's fair for the customer to pay both. In the scenario where the homeowner is generating the power, it is the utility that is the customer therefore according to your logic it should be the utility that pays for the delivery of that power. If the homeowner pays delivery charges on the power they use, so too should the utility company on the power they use. Considering the power generation and consumption patterns of a typical home, perhaps the utility companies are not paying the homeowner enough delivery on the power generated...
As the amount of variable supply power grows so to does the demand for storage of that power. The market will force utilities to adapt or die through deploying grid storage. The scenario you speak of is still decades away and we have the technology today to make this work. It will only get more cost effective as time goes by.
Please name the governments you consider pro-ACC
Funding grants are given irrespective of the findings. ...unless you're referring to the funding which comes from the fossil fuel industry.
Do you have examples where Al Gore and the Sierra club are promoting belief over science?
Could you clarify your comment? Are you trying to say that the newspaper was promoting good science? Who is the Church of Environmentalism?
So a public court of law weighs the evidence and agrees that the paper had been careless and indifferent to the facts and in your mind that makes the paper MORE credible?
How can we have an open debate when one side censors the other, through lawsuits, censorship, or even making discussion outright illegal (see Holocaust denial)?
How can you have an open debate when one side uses lies and personal attacks instead of facts?
It doesn't matter how ridiculously wrong the other side is. Doesn't matter if they are NAMBLA, Neo-Nazis, ISIS, whoever. Let them speak their mind and let the people figure out that their arguments are largely full of shit and let the people reject them on merit. Or, if they choose to, accept them.
It DOES matter how ridiculously wrong one side is when their goal is not to win a debate but to DELAY ACTION. By manufacturing controversy where there is none, one side wins.
I don't think they're surviving any better up here. I have not found a reason to purchase anything from one of their stores for a decade now. At one point they had hard to find components. Now they have what exactly? A small quantity of stuff that can be purchased cheaper elsewhere...
There is one element of oil creation that you forgot: A mechanism to trap the Oil. Otherwise after the hydrocarbon is created it disperses. Finding the trapping mechanism at whatever depth is more important that the age of the oil.
In traditional reserves this trapping mechanism has been a a limestone dome or some such but it doesn't have to be. Technology is now allowing us to exploit other trapping mechanisms (such as shale and sand). This means that we can exploit previously untouchable deposits. If the price of oil rises again, the same thing will happen and we will be awash with 'new' oil. The really scary part of all this is that we are now starting to transition to unconventionals, which are often trapped in different ways, such as methalhydrates frozen in the sea floor. This is a slow motion disaster for the planet as the amount of carbon trapped in these formations dwarfs anything we previously could have exploited.
What does this mean for peak oil? What does peak oil even mean? Does it mean peak conventional production? If so, we may already be there. Does it mean peak hydrocarbon production? In that case we are nowhere near how much we could dig up....
I'm with you man! We need to keep questioning all these fundamentally unsound 'scientific' theories. I mean take Newton and his THEORY of gravity... Call me a denier all you want. I'm not denying the "Science" part of this (Things fall). I am denying the predictive hyperbole from the likes of Issac Newton, who keeps making ridiculous claims, while having a huge gravity footprint (apple diet not withstanding).
Once battery tech is established, it kills the need for nuclear. Wind/solar is all you need. Wind/solar power the day and wind works at night when demand is lower anyway. Any gaps in coverage are absorbed by batteries. Legacy plants will have an increasingly difficult time generating cost competitive electricity as the years go by because despite the high upfront costs the generating costs for renewables are close to zero. Currently the weak link IS battery tech, however, there has been a ton of work and research going into this area which seems to be showing promise in multiple areas. The next decade or so should yield major advances here pushing down costs and capacity up.
This strikes me as having potential to augment the traditional battery in a car. I don't think it will replace it, nor should it. Combine this with a moderate sized battery and you extend the range of the car dramatically. Better, you can have two different systems optimized for different uses, one a slow charging energy dense battery and the other a quick charging efficient capacitor mopping up regenerative breaking energy and delivering it in a quick burst. Add in a few other systems such as integrating solar power to help run the increasing number to gadgets in cars and the electric car starts to really shine.
True, most jobs simply require a skills based education. However, if you hope to run with any reasonable form of democratic government you need a population filled with people who can think and reason critically. The best way to generate such a population is with a robust education system.
This is stupid on so many levels it boggles the mind. I'll have to limit to just a few:
If this guy decided to start selling traffic analysis to the city, then he should be stopped. However, the individual who did this work was not doing it for a profit therefore the complaint is meaningless. With the proliferation of the internet, anybody can easily obtain and use once obscure and hoarded knowledge. If someone takes the time to research and complete a well thought out and presented argument, it is incumbent on the city to respond in a well thought out manner. If he made a mistake, reply and point it out at the level he or she is engaging you on. Obviously in this case, someone in the city got caught with their pants down and doesn't like it. There are a lot of cocky people out there who think that they are gods gift to... (fill in the blank)... and that they are irreplaceable. They don't like it when they are shown up. People need to realize that no matter how highly skilled and how much education you have, OTHER PEOPLE CAN DO WHAT YOU DO TOO! ( Sometimes even better than you;) )
If this complaint is allowed to stand, the precedent it sets is scary: Any government councilor had better not question the engineer of any project. Same goes for the public at large. At least nobody better complain using any sort of intelligent argument.
Yes, they still have caps, however, I go over my cap every month and have yet to be charged for it. As long as the threat of the independent operator is out there, the big guys will be less willing to make an issue out of it.
No, but it is cheating if you lash your Toyota to the Ford then claim better fuel economy.
Perhaps I have mistaken how evolution works, however, just having babies in space or elsewhere is not enough to evolve a new species. You need selective pressures which only allow certain individuals to survive. I doubt very much that babies born off-world will face such a high mortality rate that many will not survive to have children of their own.
At least somebody in the legal profession can clearly see what the internet was built for!
All caps is annoying and if this stops half the nitwits from using it excessively I'm all for it. If you have something so important to say that it must be in all caps... YOU CAN HOLD DOWN THE SHIFT KEY.
Do it.
While it's not much of a deterrent to this kind of garbage that we've come to expect from apple in the short term. I'll still take a decision 5-10 years from now that might humble them a bit.
Although, take what I have to say with a grain of salt. I use to pull for Apple, but I've got a growing distaste for the business practices of almighty Jobs. Not that any of this would really matter to Apple because I'm not, nor will I ever be, a customer unless or until they amend their ways! Come to think of it: I've got to be the least desireable customer out there. I'm not an early adopter, nor do I feel the slighted pressure to buy the new 'it' item. Frankly, I'll go out of my way to spite a company that I feel deserves it and do my best to make sure others do as well.
1. If alcohol is legal pot should be too. The former has far more potential for harm than the latter.
2. Half the population feels or has felt the law is contemptible and contemptible laws breed contempt for the law.
3. Pot should be regulated much the same as alcohol and cigarettes, in your home or licensed establishment. Obviously, one should not drive or engage in other potentially harmful activities when stoned. Common sense must prevail.
4. If governments wish, the level of THC in the product could be regulated in order to prevent ever more potent strains from being engineered.
5. Don't expect a huge tax windfall from legalizing pot, the stuff is dirt cheap to produce because it grows like a weed. Pun intended. Once the risk is removed, absent government mandated pricing competition will drive prices through the floor just like the rest of agriculture.
6. Stop putting people in jail for smoking pot. It makes no sense when places like California have such huge budgetary issues. A ballot initiative should be put to the people, de-criminalize or tax increase proportional to the cost of keeping all those locked up for the offense in jail. Halting the lock ups is really the only area you will see savings from legalization.
7. If Pot is legalized, then discourage smoking as a delivery method... Smoking is still harmful to your health.
8. At some point, it will happen so why not be ahead of the curve? The benefit is generally the greatest for the early adopter of these sorts of things.
9. No system is perfect. The best we can do is always try to make things better!
Not true... this January the GG of Canada had a choice to make about who would be the prime minister of Canada, when the current Prime minister approached her and told her that he wished to shut down parliament after something like three days. The opposition signed a powersharing deal in which they would be able to form a coalition government. Shuttering parliament was seen across the country as a political maneuver to avoid defeat. All eyes across the country turned to the GG as she was the arbiter who would ultimately decide who became prime minister.
No, they REPORT that they get 64 miles/gallon. Who verified this? Lots of startups make outrageous claims to suck in investors. Is this under optimal conditions? In the lab, the Prius gets amazing mileage too. How heavy is their prototype? That's one funky, aerodynamic looking car... why not use a standard automobile... you know, something that might actually be driven by you on your way to work.
Oh, but I'm sure when the technology never quite makes it to market, die hard conspiracy nuts will claim some Oil company bought the technology only to destroy it so they can sell more oil.
The outrage is because no other power plant has the potential for essentially permanent environmental contamination. This is not helped by the fact that the industry is deliberately lying to government regulators. If we can't trust the industry to come clean with, what you describe as a 'so what' incident, how can we trust industry when it come to a major incident? Oh, and if you're not concerned about Trituim in your water, then I suggest you walk the walk and start drinking and bathing in it.
FYI, there is outrage over coal plants in general. But this is a story about nuclear plants, hence, people are talking about them.