Or perhaps you could just fire the 'blade' itself, leave the generator behind. But I think that's disallowed under the 'rules' of lightsabers, which says the light blade goes out and then comes back
So what you're saying is that we need a light-boomerang?
Why is that so weird? It's obvious that Apple never thought that notifications could be handled by any means other than interrupting whatever the heck you're doing...
My subsidy numbers come from the US Department of Energy that I linked above; we subsidize nuclear to the tune of $1.59 per MWhr, and wind at $23.37 per MWhr - considerably higher. And and that subsidy is directly given to the power generators.
.
As far as costs for turbines, the actual deployment costs - cost of the turbine, land, and installation - is actually higher than I quoted, closer to $1.5 million. If it was the $160,000 you list, that would make our subsidy in the US even more insane, as it would represent a 25 times repayment of the cost of the turbine - we PAY the company 25 times over to put in the turbine AND we buy all the power they generate.
In your effort to be snarky, you're missing the point: if we can sustain the ENTIRE POPULATION just with the land area of the lower 48 States of the US (about 5% of the world's total land mass), and none of the oceans, then how can someone reasonably state the world is overpopulated?
You could as well say the other sources supplement solar and wind. What is the difference?
Not really; the minority share supplements the majority share. Since non-solar/wind sources provide - per your own numbers - at least half the total power, solar and wind are supplemental.
Not sur eif hydro power is added in the renewables here or in the last part.
Being from Washington State, the fact so many consider hydro "not renewable" simply boggles my mind. It makes it very hard to take "renewable energy" advocates seriously at all... WA State has massive amounts of hydro installed (we power our own State, most of Oregon, Idaho, and a good chunk of CA as well), and it's a once-a-decade event when there is even talk about maybe not enough water - I've never heard of it happening in the 40+ years I've lived there...
Hydro should be considered renewable, and should be the first source we turn to, due to its reliability, ability to be a baseload, and other beneficial results (irrigation reserves, recreational opportunities, etc).
What does that have to do with cost though? They are still cheaper, regardless of if the government picks up the tab or private industry. Plus nuclear gets a lot of support from the government anyway, just not necessarily through direct subsidy.
Well, in the US, for ever MWhr we get from solar or wind, we pay ~$24 additional in subsidies. That's the cost. It's an ongoing cost. Assume you pay the typical $1 million for purchase and deployment of a 1 MW wind turbine; after 41,700 hours (about 4 years, 9 months) we've subsidized the ENTIRE COST of the purchase and deployment. If that wind turbine has a 20 year lifespan, we've subsidized the original cost 4 times over.
Basically, the quoted "deployment costs" for wind in the US, on the typical 20 year lifespan, are understated by a factor of 4, once you consider the subsidies involved. That's what happens to the cost.
If the Government didn't subsidize it, you wouldn't find private industry installing it - it's too expensive to make you any money. It's only because the Government basically buys your wind turbine for you, and pays you an additional 300% of the purchase price over the course of 20 years that you can make a profit from it. It's a cash giveaway to GE and others, pure and simple. We buy their wind turbines for them, we pay them an additional 300% bonus on the price we paid, and then we buy all the energy they generate as well.
I am willing to spend $75-200K on the power subsystem for my house. In a nanosecond.
Wow. Assume a 30 year lifetime for your power subsystem (actually pretty optimistic) and zero maintenance costs. You're looking at $2500 per year, minimum, or over $200 per month. My typical electrical AND natural gas bills (1800 square foot home outside of Seattle, WA, typically with the thermostats set to keep it between 65 and 75 degrees) run right at $100 per month (3 people in the home for hot water consumption - natural gas for water and heat, electric for everything else). Going for solar or wind would be twice that amount minimum.
If you pack your windmills that tight, then you kill the efficiency of them. Spacing is critical, as is maintaining as little turbulence around the blade tips as possible. Consider Biglow Canyon wind farm, where you get 450 MW from 100 square kilometers - a power density of about 4.5W per square meter. Sure, it's 4.5 times higher than the original claim, but a few orders of magnitude lower than the number you suggested.
At least in the US, we subidize solar and wind about 15 times more than nuclear, and nearly 100 times the subsidies granted to natural gas. Germany is obviously different, but in some nations solar and wind exist solely on the strength of the subsidies; they would lose quite a bit of money if not provided with large Government subsidies.
1. There are plenty of other references pegging the arable land needed per person to around 300 square meters. Is it doable? Sure - is it likely? No. But it is doable.
.
2. Note the OUTFLOW of the Columbia river is what I used - that is after it's use for farmland AND evaporation from the dams. We're not adding more farmland, so water already being used for farming can continue to be used - we need half the result from the Columbia (and none from any other river in the US) to bathe and quench thirsts.
3. Living in Shanghai, China - with some of the densest population around (the urban core is one of the densest places on Earth, in terms of people) - you learn that medicine is fine with large and dense populations as long as basic sanitation exists.
Apparently, you are missing the basic point: we COULD live in just the US alone - that is just 5% of the world's land area. Spread things out a factor of 5 and we're still on just 25% of the total land area, with a population of 7 billion. Fundamentally, there is still plenty of land and water - delivery of the fruits of that land and water is the problem, not the lack of it.
You could fit the entire world population into the state of Texas with a population density roughly the same as NYC. The world is not in danger of overpopulation anytime soon.
Hey, someone reads my site! Yes, you can fit the entire World's population inside Texas at acceptable density. And you can feed and water them no problem with just the EXISTING (no need to make more) farmland of the US, and half the water from the Columbia River. Power? Solar in the Mojave desert would provide all the power needs.
Yes, we'd dramatically change the environment in the US - but the rest of the world - Canada, Mexico, all of the other 6 continents, all the oceans - would be completely devoid of human life.
We have plenty of land and space and resources; what we do not have is a decent distribution system and that is a political - not scientific - problem.
So for a 25 dollar "insurance" fee I can match all the mp3s that I can find op my harddisk to songs in the itunes cloud and then those (legal) itunes songs will be downloaded to all my devices? That's an offer that I can't refuse.
And won't the music industry go apeshit over this?
Sorry, no - you still have to have a legal original copy of the song. This just uses your bandwidth to copy the song to all your registered iDevices. Interestingly, this also provides a 3rd party with a proven trail that you originally owned some music you weren't supposed to - all recorded in the iCloud that you can't erase.
This actually sounds more like Apple providing a way for your to replicate any piracy of music and provide a hard-copy of the fact, so the RIAA/MPAA can sue you many times for the multiple copies, rather than just once.
Here I am in Shanghai, nice and early Monday morning, reading/. about the Tiananmen square massacre on an open Internet connection in China - no VPN, no firewall, no blocking. The times they are a changin...
Seriously, 1 square meter from a 17" laptop? I have an HP G71 - a 17" laptop. It's 40.6 cm wide by 27.7 cm deep. Assume we can somehow magically get the entire back of the screen functioning as a solar panel at the same time as the entire base/keyboard area. We have (0.406 * 0.554) at most 0.22 square meters. We're looking at something around 6-8W of output with efficient solar cells in ideal conditions and no keyboard OR hands covering the computer - just sitting there, running unattended. In other words, we could use the entire space of 17" laptop opened to a full 180 degrees, to get enough power to drive an iPad.
The idiots are those that destroyed the potatoes. Apparently they didn't realize how they grow and propagate. And if you would have read TFA you would notice the LACK of "Montsanto" in it. This is just scare-mongering and terrorism. And a lot of displays of ignorance - including those who cannot read the article and realize that Montsanto wasn't involved.
Slashdot Mirror
With an engine from Fiat and wiring by Lucas...
Or perhaps you could just fire the 'blade' itself, leave the generator behind. But I think that's disallowed under the 'rules' of lightsabers, which says the light blade goes out and then comes back
So what you're saying is that we need a light-boomerang?
I'm not gonna catch that one on the return...
It is, after all, the only way to be sure...
That's what she said?
Yet for 4 years - it wasn't implemented. If it was obvious, Apple certainly weren't in any hurry to implement it...
What about Shemp? Everyone forgets about Shemp!
Why is that so weird? It's obvious that Apple never thought that notifications could be handled by any means other than interrupting whatever the heck you're doing...
As far as costs for turbines, the actual deployment costs - cost of the turbine, land, and installation - is actually higher than I quoted, closer to $1.5 million. If it was the $160,000 you list, that would make our subsidy in the US even more insane, as it would represent a 25 times repayment of the cost of the turbine - we PAY the company 25 times over to put in the turbine AND we buy all the power they generate.
In your effort to be snarky, you're missing the point: if we can sustain the ENTIRE POPULATION just with the land area of the lower 48 States of the US (about 5% of the world's total land mass), and none of the oceans, then how can someone reasonably state the world is overpopulated?
You could as well say the other sources supplement solar and wind. What is the difference?
Not really; the minority share supplements the majority share. Since non-solar/wind sources provide - per your own numbers - at least half the total power, solar and wind are supplemental.
Not sur eif hydro power is added in the renewables here or in the last part.
Being from Washington State, the fact so many consider hydro "not renewable" simply boggles my mind. It makes it very hard to take "renewable energy" advocates seriously at all... WA State has massive amounts of hydro installed (we power our own State, most of Oregon, Idaho, and a good chunk of CA as well), and it's a once-a-decade event when there is even talk about maybe not enough water - I've never heard of it happening in the 40+ years I've lived there...
Hydro should be considered renewable, and should be the first source we turn to, due to its reliability, ability to be a baseload, and other beneficial results (irrigation reserves, recreational opportunities, etc).
What does that have to do with cost though? They are still cheaper, regardless of if the government picks up the tab or private industry. Plus nuclear gets a lot of support from the government anyway, just not necessarily through direct subsidy.
Well, in the US, for ever MWhr we get from solar or wind, we pay ~$24 additional in subsidies. That's the cost. It's an ongoing cost. Assume you pay the typical $1 million for purchase and deployment of a 1 MW wind turbine; after 41,700 hours (about 4 years, 9 months) we've subsidized the ENTIRE COST of the purchase and deployment. If that wind turbine has a 20 year lifespan, we've subsidized the original cost 4 times over.
Basically, the quoted "deployment costs" for wind in the US, on the typical 20 year lifespan, are understated by a factor of 4, once you consider the subsidies involved. That's what happens to the cost.
If the Government didn't subsidize it, you wouldn't find private industry installing it - it's too expensive to make you any money. It's only because the Government basically buys your wind turbine for you, and pays you an additional 300% of the purchase price over the course of 20 years that you can make a profit from it. It's a cash giveaway to GE and others, pure and simple. We buy their wind turbines for them, we pay them an additional 300% bonus on the price we paid, and then we buy all the energy they generate as well.
So what provides the other 50-80% of power needs? And when you identify that, you'll understand why the GP said "supplements". Good word to know...
I am willing to spend $75-200K on the power subsystem for my house. In a nanosecond.
Wow. Assume a 30 year lifetime for your power subsystem (actually pretty optimistic) and zero maintenance costs. You're looking at $2500 per year, minimum, or over $200 per month. My typical electrical AND natural gas bills (1800 square foot home outside of Seattle, WA, typically with the thermostats set to keep it between 65 and 75 degrees) run right at $100 per month (3 people in the home for hot water consumption - natural gas for water and heat, electric for everything else). Going for solar or wind would be twice that amount minimum.
If you pack your windmills that tight, then you kill the efficiency of them. Spacing is critical, as is maintaining as little turbulence around the blade tips as possible. Consider Biglow Canyon wind farm, where you get 450 MW from 100 square kilometers - a power density of about 4.5W per square meter. Sure, it's 4.5 times higher than the original claim, but a few orders of magnitude lower than the number you suggested.
At least in the US, we subidize solar and wind about 15 times more than nuclear, and nearly 100 times the subsidies granted to natural gas. Germany is obviously different, but in some nations solar and wind exist solely on the strength of the subsidies; they would lose quite a bit of money if not provided with large Government subsidies.
2. Note the OUTFLOW of the Columbia river is what I used - that is after it's use for farmland AND evaporation from the dams. We're not adding more farmland, so water already being used for farming can continue to be used - we need half the result from the Columbia (and none from any other river in the US) to bathe and quench thirsts.
3. Living in Shanghai, China - with some of the densest population around (the urban core is one of the densest places on Earth, in terms of people) - you learn that medicine is fine with large and dense populations as long as basic sanitation exists.
Apparently, you are missing the basic point: we COULD live in just the US alone - that is just 5% of the world's land area. Spread things out a factor of 5 and we're still on just 25% of the total land area, with a population of 7 billion. Fundamentally, there is still plenty of land and water - delivery of the fruits of that land and water is the problem, not the lack of it.
You could fit the entire world population into the state of Texas with a population density roughly the same as NYC. The world is not in danger of overpopulation anytime soon.
Hey, someone reads my site! Yes, you can fit the entire World's population inside Texas at acceptable density. And you can feed and water them no problem with just the EXISTING (no need to make more) farmland of the US, and half the water from the Columbia River. Power? Solar in the Mojave desert would provide all the power needs.
Yes, we'd dramatically change the environment in the US - but the rest of the world - Canada, Mexico, all of the other 6 continents, all the oceans - would be completely devoid of human life.
We have plenty of land and space and resources; what we do not have is a decent distribution system and that is a political - not scientific - problem.
You're walking wrong.
Nope. But then, Microsoft doesn't mandate that you only use Visual Studio to develop Windows apps...
So for a 25 dollar "insurance" fee I can match all the mp3s that I can find op my harddisk to songs in the itunes cloud and then those (legal) itunes songs will be downloaded to all my devices? That's an offer that I can't refuse.
And won't the music industry go apeshit over this?
Sorry, no - you still have to have a legal original copy of the song. This just uses your bandwidth to copy the song to all your registered iDevices. Interestingly, this also provides a 3rd party with a proven trail that you originally owned some music you weren't supposed to - all recorded in the iCloud that you can't erase.
This actually sounds more like Apple providing a way for your to replicate any piracy of music and provide a hard-copy of the fact, so the RIAA/MPAA can sue you many times for the multiple copies, rather than just once.
Probably several more times, since he hasn't paid attention yet...
If we're not expected to RTFA, how do you expect us to RTFC(omment)?
Here I am in Shanghai, nice and early Monday morning, reading /. about the Tiananmen square massacre on an open Internet connection in China - no VPN, no firewall, no blocking. The times they are a changin...
Seriously, 1 square meter from a 17" laptop? I have an HP G71 - a 17" laptop. It's 40.6 cm wide by 27.7 cm deep. Assume we can somehow magically get the entire back of the screen functioning as a solar panel at the same time as the entire base/keyboard area. We have (0.406 * 0.554) at most 0.22 square meters. We're looking at something around 6-8W of output with efficient solar cells in ideal conditions and no keyboard OR hands covering the computer - just sitting there, running unattended. In other words, we could use the entire space of 17" laptop opened to a full 180 degrees, to get enough power to drive an iPad.
The idiots are those that destroyed the potatoes. Apparently they didn't realize how they grow and propagate. And if you would have read TFA you would notice the LACK of "Montsanto" in it. This is just scare-mongering and terrorism. And a lot of displays of ignorance - including those who cannot read the article and realize that Montsanto wasn't involved.