What about the human effort required to make the machine? Or perhaps I'm expanding the scope of the machine you're looking at - beyond the storage system to also encompass the generation systems, because if you make the storage systems more efficient you need less generation, and on average that will indeed save you human effort if the extra efficiency isn't too expensive(in human labor and such).

If only that "close and dont show me this again" button...

...Fucking worked?

As far as I can tell, it works exactly once, per browser session. Close and reopen /. even on the same computer, and get the "deals" BS again.

Of course, I can't rule out the possibility that it would remember the setting for logged-in users. But - oh bother - it appears that I need to load Slashdot before I can log in.

You could get a partial refund of whatever you paid for your vote.

So 80% of my income taxes over the past six years, then? Well, I'd rather have a functional, non-full-of-shit government, but, I'll take what I can get - Cut me a check, Barry!

Bush was horrible at business as well.

And just look how well he did as PUSA! XD

I might seriously vote for Jeb before I'd vote for Carly - And I say that as someone who would vote for a Satan/Hitler ticket before I'd vote for Jeb.

Why would those businesses be targeted if the rioters weren't racist?

Uhh.....

Reminds me of a story my grandfather told me about his experience in the South Pacific. Punchline was "You're a dumb kid, that Japanese guy is a dumb kid, and you both stumbled upon each other. You've got nothing against each other, but because of something people thousands of miles away decided, only one of you was going to walk away that day."

Despite running some masterful election campaigns, he has displayed an amazing ineptitude when it comes to messaging during his reign.

Ahh so he has joined the likes of Trotsky and Che? He'll be in good company, helping Van Jones keep the bench warm.

I suspect your journal will be used as an endorsement for deals.monetize.slashdot.org in the near future.

In GCHQ's eyes, that probably the worst thing about this leaking. Not because of what they did, but because now the other companies know how much the paid and will raise their rates.

Make a basic income available to everyone (funded by the Fed, not the taxpayer, at zero cost).

The point is that it's not zero cost. Every penny of money "funded by the Fed" comes from your and my pockets - sometimes with a big multiplier - by paths that are not as obvious, but just as costly, as a tax bill.

The biggest one is inflation: If the Fed just prints money, it dilutes the rest of the money. Your wages go down (though the numbers don't change.) Got retirement savings? They go down, too. Your investments go down - but the numbers make it look like they wen't up, and the government taxes the fake "gain". Everything you buy gets more expensive.

Geothermal is smaller than wind.

Your target: 25%. Subtract the 7% hydro, because we both agree it's maxed: 18% remaining.
Per the EIA, in 2013 wind actually led behind hydro at 4.13%, not 2.08, and solar was at .23%, not .39%, so I'm curious where your numbers come from.
Biomass: 1.48
Geothermal: .41%
Solar: .23%
Wind: 4.13%
Actually adds up to 6%. To reach 18% we'd need to build 3x as much of 'all of the above'.
To reach my goal(60%), we'd need 10X as much. 10X/3=3.33. I should have said 1/3rd, not 1/4, sorry.
To reach my goal you 'only' need a 5 fold uptick on wind, not 100x, solar would be 100x, not 500x. I'm curious as to how you worked your math, because 100*2.08%= 208% of current generation, which means we'd be more than doubling our generation capability in wind alone.

Given that solar has had a relatively late start over wind, the fact is that it only needs another 4% of total generation over wind. That's a better way to look at it than goal percentage/current percentage = difficulty.

Biomass and geothermal would need around a 6X increase(they only need to hit ~12%). Of course, to outright state it again: There's a reason I said rough percentages. I'm not going to cry if the mix ends up being 50% nuclear, 15% wind, 10% solar, 25% 'other'. I also didn't state any real timeline, though 'sooner is better' should be implied.
source

Yes I have. Most of it's green. Like most northern areas if you take pictures at the right time you can get very dead looking terrain.

Let's see: Green grass, check, mold check, lichen check, green trees, check.

That would be tough given that we pre-entomb our reactors in the USA.

Yeah, I've mentioned that a few times...

I suggest you check your research. They've been testing/developing pebble bed reactors, but they've run into issues such that they're not replacements for rod type reactors yet.

Where's the huge ecological impact for nuclear coming from? Like I said earlier, no argument from me about coal/oil. My point has always been not that nuclear is harmless, but that it's less harmful than the alternatives while still remaining affordable(minus political stuff).

I'd also love thorium-salt reactors. There's a reason why I mentioned 5 designs spread over 200 reactors - I want some experimentals in there that will hopefully become standard.

It's not that there's no problems. It's just that if you do an honest assessment that includes externalities nuclear beats coal hand over fist. They're mostly captured with nuclear plants, not so with coal.

1. The total death impact from Chernobyl is roughly 4k people. There's some high end estimates like 985k, but those seem to assume that humans are snorting all the radioactive material.
2. The exclusion zone is 1k km, 1 a year would add up to 1M 'off limits', most of it indistinguishable from a natural park. About 2% of our land mass, assuming we don't smarten up and keep plants on previously 'disallowed' areas.
3. 1 Chernobyl/year is an absolute worst case scenario. Even if we multiplied our nuclear power 100 fold we wouldn't have that disaster rate, especially as we transition past the legacy plants the US uses now.
4. Estimates range from 4k to 93k deaths from the accident and resulting radiation. Meanwhile the death toll from coal in the USA alone is 10k..., and 170k world wide.