Why, other then we are lazy? I mean seriously. Any more power coming from anywhere needs to be built. I get NO power from coal. No power from nuclear. I payed a lot for my instaltion, but I get a check every 3 months from central hudson. It has paid half of itself off in about 6 years.Spark wrote:
There's also 0% chance of wind turbines providing power to more than 1 billion people in the next 50 years. And even that's a 1% chance.nlsme1 wrote:
Why is it that nuclear is "the only" one?
As far as risk, I would say there is an absolute 0% chance of wind turbines causing the deaths of more then 100 people.
Well, why would they be unemployed?... The gender ratio is certainly a problem, but I don't get where they suddenly end up jobless.Spark wrote:
It won't be in 10 years when they have a massive unemployed underclass of upwards of a hundred million young, unemployed males.Turquoise wrote:
The one child policy is a good thing for China. It would also do wonders for India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.Spark wrote:
1-child policy is causing all kinda social issues in China. I'd rather not.
Well, if you're running off of solar, I have to make a few assumptions here.nlsme1 wrote:
Why, other then we are lazy? I mean seriously. Any more power coming from anywhere needs to be built. I get NO power from coal. No power from nuclear. I payed a lot for my instaltion, but I get a check every 3 months from central hudson. It has paid half of itself off in about 6 years.Spark wrote:
There's also 0% chance of wind turbines providing power to more than 1 billion people in the next 50 years. And even that's a 1% chance.nlsme1 wrote:
Why is it that nuclear is "the only" one?
As far as risk, I would say there is an absolute 0% chance of wind turbines causing the deaths of more then 100 people.
1) You had a decent amount of capital to start things up.
2) You're very energy conscious and consume probably a lot less energy than the average individual/family.
3) You live in a sunny area.
I know for a fact that solar power wouldn't work too well where I live, because we're overcast almost as much as Seattle.
There is a hard upper limit on the amount of power one can extract from wind. I don't remember the exact figure off hand but it's pretty low. If you're talking "pure" green energies, the only one that is actually capable of meeting power requirements is solar (i.e. in terms of the amount of energy that can be extracted)... but that requires covering a ludicrous amount of the earth in solar panels, which I remind you are not cheap and not simple.nlsme1 wrote:
Why, other then we are lazy? I mean seriously. Any more power coming from anywhere needs to be built. I get NO power from coal. No power from nuclear. I payed a lot for my instaltion, but I get a check every 3 months from central hudson. It has paid half of itself off in about 6 years.Spark wrote:
There's also 0% chance of wind turbines providing power to more than 1 billion people in the next 50 years. And even that's a 1% chance.nlsme1 wrote:
Why is it that nuclear is "the only" one?
As far as risk, I would say there is an absolute 0% chance of wind turbines causing the deaths of more then 100 people.
I mean, it's all well and good saying "no more coal!" as you are, but you actually have to look at how the fuck you're gonna achieve that. Sorry, wind is wonderful but way too small for our needs.
Because no one wants to employ them. They don't suddenly end up unemployed, they were never employed in the first place. The hundred-million figure was, obviously, an exaggeration, but there will still be a massive, angry, unmarried group of young men who probably won't have any kind of employment that could be described as stable.Well, why would they be unemployed?... The gender ratio is certainly a problem, but I don't get where they suddenly end up jobless.
Last edited by Spark (2010-06-12 22:53:20)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
EDIT: Ok, with the added stuff, you made a little more sense.Spark wrote:
Because no one wants to employ them. They don't suddenly end up unemployed, they were never employed in the first place. The hundred-million figure was, obviously, an exaggeration, but there will still be a massive, angry, unmarried group of young men who probably won't have any kind of employment that could be described as stable.
Still, I think it's a good policy for other countries to move towards. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh all really need it.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-06-12 22:55:11)
Your correct. The initial expense was put into the cost of a newly built home. I am rather energy concious, but I don't live in area one would think to be "sunny". I live in Upstate New York. It rained like a banshee all day, but I still produced. Just not as much as on sunny days. I have yet to a billing cycle where I didn't "make" more then I used. I get a check every 3 months, and my highest one was $180.
The more focus that is put on solar, the cheaper it will get. And it is already to the point where the return on investment is less then 20 years.
The more focus that is put on solar, the cheaper it will get. And it is already to the point where the return on investment is less then 20 years.
Complex, but the best way to put it is "well, if they had a stable job, they'd be married, wouldn't they?". But there is strong evidence that this underclass is seriously underemployed... at least in normal jobs.
Most of these single men tend to have little prospect of career or financial progression. This stands to reason since those that do tend to have no problems finding a bride.
These unmarried men are a problem for the Government. Many of them are beginning to congregate in large groups in public areas such as bus depots, train stations and shopping malls. Indeed, they unofficially will be banned from Olympic sites by image-conscious officials.
Moreover, these groups of single men with few prospects are beginning to engage in criminal activity and even form gangs.
Many others are hired by businesses or local officials as "thugs" used to extract rents, taxes or payments.
It is no coincidence that urban areas with the highest crime rates have the highest proportion of single men.
On a smoggy morning in Lanzhou, a gritty industrial city in China's Gansu province, crowds of young men gather outside a half-built construction site. Dressed in torn jeans and dirty shirts and carrying thermoses of tea, they push toward the exterior fence, jostling for the attention of a site manager who hands out short-term jobs. Most of the men are unmarried and have no families. Finding no work, they drift away from the site and, by midday, congregate at a riverside park, where they trade tea for large bottles of beer, which they gulp down. Many of them soon stumble in circles.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Well, I applaud you for making a personal effort toward this, but I think you'll find that nuclear is, at the very least, a much more viable option for a nationwide energy restructuring plan in the short run.nlsme1 wrote:
Your correct. The initial expense was put into the cost of a newly built home. I am rather energy concious, but I don't live in area one would think to be "sunny". I live in Upstate New York. It rained like a banshee all day, but I still produced. Just not as much as on sunny days. I have yet to a billing cycle where I didn't "make" more then I used. I get a check every 3 months, and my highest one was $180.
The more focus that is put on solar, the cheaper it will get. And it is already to the point where the return on investment is less then 20 years.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-06-12 23:16:28)
Indeed. Unfortunately fusion is decades away (and still produces very radioactive waste, although nothing that could be turned into a nuclear bomb) and I really don't see solar/wind/geothermal/hydro being able to pick up the majority of the slack.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I applaud you for making a personal effort toward this, but I think you'll find that nuclear is, at the very least, a much more viable option for a nationwide energy restructuring plan.nlsme1 wrote:
Your correct. The initial expense was put into the cost of a newly built home. I am rather energy concious, but I don't live in area one would think to be "sunny". I live in Upstate New York. It rained like a banshee all day, but I still produced. Just not as much as on sunny days. I have yet to a billing cycle where I didn't "make" more then I used. I get a check every 3 months, and my highest one was $180.
The more focus that is put on solar, the cheaper it will get. And it is already to the point where the return on investment is less then 20 years.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Central Hudson? So if you lived on the grid... your power would come from Indian Point Nuclear Power Facility. You more than likely live within 50 miles of the facility and there has never been an issue there, yet you're still crying about nuclear scaring you?nlsme1 wrote:
Your correct. The initial expense was put into the cost of a newly built home. I am rather energy concious, but I don't live in area one would think to be "sunny". I live in Upstate New York. It rained like a banshee all day, but I still produced. Just not as much as on sunny days. I have yet to a billing cycle where I didn't "make" more then I used. I get a check every 3 months, and my highest one was $180.
The more focus that is put on solar, the cheaper it will get. And it is already to the point where the return on investment is less then 20 years.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
My power COULD come from Indian Point. Does it matter? The closer I live, the less right I have to say I would rather see a push towards solar/wind, over nuclear? Seriously, you lack in your posting for someone who is intelligent. Please follow your sig.
Last edited by nlsme1 (2010-06-13 00:33:01)
I never said you didn't have a right to complain, just that your complaint was unfounded and illogical. Solar and wind are not viable energy sources as a primary means. Not only is solar limited by battery technology to creating energy during daylight hours, it's prohibitively expensive to install, needs to be replaced every twenty years and doesn't work in the winter. Wind is dependent on the wind blowing, has the same energy storage issues as solar and creates noise pollution as well. I know you don't care and will just blow me off, but our AC power grid needs a constant, reliable source of energy for it to transmit at all, not just efficiently. The peaks and valleys that current alternative technology has intrinsically within its makeup prohibits its use on a wide scale for generation. Because it's all over the place, we'll always need fired up generators on standby ready to take up the slack.nlsme1 wrote:
My power COULD come from Indian Point. Does it matter? The closer I live, the less right I have to say I would rather see a push towards solar/wind, over nuclear? Seriously, you lack in your posting for someone who is intelligent. Please follow your sig.
Whether you get your ideas from Sim City or what, you can't just plop down wind and solar farms all over the place and get reliable constant power out of them. It doesn't work. Your own system is forced to use the grid as a backup plan. You may make money off of the setup but I guarantee it's because you aren't home during the day during your peak generating times. At night you are forced to use power from the grid (which in your case is nuclear power *cough*).
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-06-13 00:42:03)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Actually, I made power all day today. While it rained. It produces in the winter as well. Your right in the reason I am tied into the grid. But central hudson lets you choose who you get your energy from. Mine is NOT from nuclear. I am not saying wind or solar can replace 100%, but I would like the focus on them.
Why? It might make you feel better about living in this world but it would be a massive waste of resources. They aren't viable because they aren't efficient. Why on earth should we pour money into projects that will lose money? You make no sense.nlsme1 wrote:
Actually, I made power all day today. While it rained. It produces in the winter as well. Your right in the reason I am tied into the grid. But central hudson lets you choose who you get your energy from. Mine is NOT from nuclear. I am not saying wind or solar can replace 100%, but I would like the focus on them.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Having a secondary focus on solar and wind is feasible. As research improves these technologies, they become more efficient.JohnG@lt wrote:
Why? It might make you feel better about living in this world but it would be a massive waste of resources. They aren't viable because they aren't efficient. Why on earth should we pour money into projects that will lose money? You make no sense.nlsme1 wrote:
Actually, I made power all day today. While it rained. It produces in the winter as well. Your right in the reason I am tied into the grid. But central hudson lets you choose who you get your energy from. Mine is NOT from nuclear. I am not saying wind or solar can replace 100%, but I would like the focus on them.
Granted, nuclear power should still be the primary focus.
Let me know when solar cells have a conversion rate higher than 20%.Turquoise wrote:
Having a secondary focus on solar and wind is feasible. As research improves these technologies, they become more efficient.JohnG@lt wrote:
Why? It might make you feel better about living in this world but it would be a massive waste of resources. They aren't viable because they aren't efficient. Why on earth should we pour money into projects that will lose money? You make no sense.nlsme1 wrote:
Actually, I made power all day today. While it rained. It produces in the winter as well. Your right in the reason I am tied into the grid. But central hudson lets you choose who you get your energy from. Mine is NOT from nuclear. I am not saying wind or solar can replace 100%, but I would like the focus on them.
Granted, nuclear power should still be the primary focus.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Okay, my fear of nuclear has nothing to do with money. But, since that is all you care about, how much does it cost to clean up a nuclear catastrophe?
I dunno. It's never happened in the USnlsme1 wrote:
Okay, my fear of nuclear has nothing to do with money. But, since that is all you care about, how much does it cost to clean up a nuclear catastrophe?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Came close. There was never a 100 million gallon oil spill in the US. Technology is prone to failure.
Which is exactly what I was saying, you just said it from a technical, engineer's point of viewJohnG@lt wrote:
I never said you didn't have a right to complain, just that your complaint was unfounded and illogical. Solar and wind are not viable energy sources as a primary means. Not only is solar limited by battery technology to creating energy during daylight hours, it's prohibitively expensive to install, needs to be replaced every twenty years and doesn't work in the winter. Wind is dependent on the wind blowing, has the same energy storage issues as solar and creates noise pollution as well. I know you don't care and will just blow me off, but our AC power grid needs a constant, reliable source of energy for it to transmit at all, not just efficiently. The peaks and valleys that current alternative technology has intrinsically within its makeup prohibits its use on a wide scale for generation. Because it's all over the place, we'll always need fired up generators on standby ready to take up the slack.nlsme1 wrote:
My power COULD come from Indian Point. Does it matter? The closer I live, the less right I have to say I would rather see a push towards solar/wind, over nuclear? Seriously, you lack in your posting for someone who is intelligent. Please follow your sig.
Whether you get your ideas from Sim City or what, you can't just plop down wind and solar farms all over the place and get reliable constant power out of them. It doesn't work. Your own system is forced to use the grid as a backup plan. You may make money off of the setup but I guarantee it's because you aren't home during the day during your peak generating times. At night you are forced to use power from the grid (which in your case is nuclear power *cough*).
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
This is about as dumbed down as I can make itSpark wrote:
Which is exactly what I was saying, you just said it from a technical, engineer's point of viewJohnG@lt wrote:
I never said you didn't have a right to complain, just that your complaint was unfounded and illogical. Solar and wind are not viable energy sources as a primary means. Not only is solar limited by battery technology to creating energy during daylight hours, it's prohibitively expensive to install, needs to be replaced every twenty years and doesn't work in the winter. Wind is dependent on the wind blowing, has the same energy storage issues as solar and creates noise pollution as well. I know you don't care and will just blow me off, but our AC power grid needs a constant, reliable source of energy for it to transmit at all, not just efficiently. The peaks and valleys that current alternative technology has intrinsically within its makeup prohibits its use on a wide scale for generation. Because it's all over the place, we'll always need fired up generators on standby ready to take up the slack.nlsme1 wrote:
My power COULD come from Indian Point. Does it matter? The closer I live, the less right I have to say I would rather see a push towards solar/wind, over nuclear? Seriously, you lack in your posting for someone who is intelligent. Please follow your sig.
Whether you get your ideas from Sim City or what, you can't just plop down wind and solar farms all over the place and get reliable constant power out of them. It doesn't work. Your own system is forced to use the grid as a backup plan. You may make money off of the setup but I guarantee it's because you aren't home during the day during your peak generating times. At night you are forced to use power from the grid (which in your case is nuclear power *cough*).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
That is an excuse to build more nuclear? Something potentially more dangerous. I would rather see dams retrofitted. I would rather see Natural Gas play a larger role. Even geothermal. All of these are constant, and can be turned on or off to deal with the flunctuations in demand. I would like to see more incentive from the government into clean energy. Nuclear is not "clean". It is "clean" until it fucks up.
CNN has a story claiming that half the oil tested from beaches around the oil spill is fuel oil, not crude, indicating that ships are taking advantage of the spill to wash out their tanks for free.
Story here http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/06/10/cs … index.html
*not sure if already posted
Story here http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/06/10/cs … index.html
*not sure if already posted
You're nothing more than an ignorant, petulant child. Back on my ignore list you go.nlsme1 wrote:
That is an excuse to build more nuclear? Something potentially more dangerous. I would rather see dams retrofitted. I would rather see Natural Gas play a larger role. Even geothermal. All of these are constant, and can be turned on or off to deal with the flunctuations in demand. I would like to see more incentive from the government into clean energy. Nuclear is not "clean". It is "clean" until it fucks up.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Ignorant? You are the one assuming my electric came from Nuclear. Cough. Petulant? Your the one taking valid points and getting upset. Child? I have a son of my own, older then you. I suggested you follow your sig a while ago.