If left to market forces, and not state planners, the markets would not build nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies. Notice how that is a CATO Institute reprint of a "Forbes" article first published on November 26, 2007. And in case you don't know what CATO is, from their about page "The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues."

FalconWolf

I oppose taxpayers paying for nuclear power. Actually I advocate eliminating all subsidies. And don't think energy companies aren't subsidized. Allocation of subsidies in the United States lists some subsidies different energy producers received between 1950 and 2010. Nuclear power received $73 billion in federal subsidies. "BusinessWeek" has the article When It Comes to Government Subsidies, Dirty Energy Still Cleans Up date 21 October 2012..

I also support the NRA and their stance on gun controls. The only effective gun control is when the shooter hits what they aim at. And if they hit someone they should pay for it. I find it ironic the first "environmentalists", those who cared for the environment, were conservationists and hunters. Now how can hunters be environmentalists? They kill wildlife. Guess what, they also want the environment that that wildlife lives in to be clean and not polluted. Teddy Roosevelt was an avid hunter who as president created the National Park Service. He wanted to preserve wild lands for hunting among other reasons. Many hunters supported this too.

FalconWolf

France has not done well with nuclear power. Sure they get most of their electricity from nuclear power plants, however despite their lead in reprocessing France still has trouble with storage. While reprocessing allows spent fuel to be reused and shortens it's half-life doing so creates toxins and hotter fuel.

As far as building nuclear power plants go state planners on free market determines what gets built. CATO, that is the institute "dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace" printed the article "Hooked on Subsidies that was first published in the November 26, 2007 issue of "Forbes". The opening statements is "Why conservatives should join the left’s campaign against nuclear power." Further down it says:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don’t. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

Now if private businesses want to build nuclear power plants they should get, and pay for, their own insurance. They would also have to finance the construction, not government. I might even invest in such a company that uses thorium as it's fuel. Provided the finances come out good.

FalconWolf

That post must of been below mine. Am I supposed to read all posts before replying? Now interestingly the wiki article you link to says that the Chicago area encloses parts of 3 different states, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. While I thought the greater Chicago area may include Gary, Indiana, I didn't know it included any of Wisconsin.

So, to follow up, can a person take public transit to go from Wisconsin to Gary, Indiana? That is other than Greyhound and other national or regional transportation systems? After all your reply was about public transit. And the Greater Houston is also 10,000 sq miles.

Since we're considering metro areas, why don't we expand that to include Megalopolis (city type)? Then Chicago is only a part of the Great Lakes Megalopolis.

Falcon

The Chicago area is 234 sq miles (606.1 km). Jacksonville, FL at 885 sq miles (2,292 km) is the largest city in the 48 contiguous states and is more than twice Chicago's size but still is not nearly as big as 10,000 square miles.

Falcon

I am arguing with your statement that "You can actually back up all your stuff to another machine across the Internet in a reasonable amount of time." As I've said twice, and will again, that statement depends on how "reasonable amount of time" is defined.

Falcon

And my 3TB drive? 8 hours? My 4 TB drive would take more than 10 hours. So again "You can actually back up all your stuff to another machine across the Internet in a reasonable amount of time" depends on how "reasonable amount of time" is defined. Of course 4TB is what I have now, who knows how big my storage will be in 1, 2, or 5 years? Saying "1Gbit upstream is reasonable" is just as ridiculous as saying "nobody will ever need 640KB of memory". Nobody can accurately see what the future will bring. That is except for a supernatural supreme deity, which I don't believe in.

Falcon

640K of memory should be enough for anybody.

Falcon

That depends on how "reasonable amount of time" is defined. I have a 750 GB hard disc drive in the PC I'm typing this on and it is mostly full. I want to replace the PC with another, as my main computer. Currently I use a 3 TB external drive for backups, along with smaller drives too. I have another PC I want to use as my main PC, it has a 120 GB HDD as well as a second HDD that's 4 TB. The first drive is for the OSes used and software to run so the second one is for my data. Of course as it's a laptop I can and will still use this PC. But I do not expect to use the internet to transfer my data for storage and backups.

Falcon

What FCC broadband page? I didn't see a link this.

Falcon

What FCC broadband page would that be? The only FCC page I found linked to is WCB Announces Workshop on Gigabit Community Broadband Networks but it does not say how to build gigabit fiber. It may be in the video on the page, but that is more than 5 hours long. Searching FCC how to build gigabit municipal fiber networks doesn't return the how to either in the first five pages of results. Only the first result is an FCC link.

Falcon

Should there be a Law?

kansas city gives it up for google...., provides the first, third, and last paragraph of six paragraphs on what Kansas City gave up to Google printed in a Harper's Magazine article of the same title. The online article is only available to magazine subscribers.

In the second paragraph there's this:
"According to its contract, Kansas City must give Google access to its underground conduits, fiber, poles, rack space, nodes, buildings, facilities, and available land. It cannot charge the company for 'access to, or use of any city facilities...nor will it impose any permit and inspection fees.' And what does the city get in return? It has no say in the pricing of Google's services, nor can it ensure that Google will deliver fiber-optic service to all of the city's residents. Google's offices, meeting spaces, and showrooms are provided free of charge, and the city pays the company's electric bill. The major, moreover, is barred from commenting on Google's activities without the express permission of Google."

The Harper's page linked to does have this correction, "The space the company maintains in city-owned buildings is indeed free; its other local facilities are privately rented." Otherwise it appears Google is getting more than Kansas City is getting in return. And that does not count all the marketing data Google gains with all the eyeballs of surfers.

Falcon

You're playing semantic games as well as lying about what others say. This is my last reply to you.

Falcon

I don 't know if the length is directly proportional to the amount of energy captured by wind mills. I bet the area of the blade, as well as it's pitch, is more important. Oh, and obviously the height. The bottom of the blades are supposed to be higher than the tallest thing that can block the wind. That includes trees. And I bet that that is higher than most bats will be flying.

And no I don't expect your explanation as to why you dismiss the "bats killed by pressure drop" as stupid bullshit. For all I know what you said was bullshit. More of the NIMBY shit delaying wind farms, even off the coast. You still did not provide evidence which is what I asked for. Can you provide scientific studies supporting your position? That is what I'm looking for.

Now here are some of the things I found:

• Wind turbines make bat lungs explode
• The Wind Turbine Interactions with Birds, Bats, and their Habitats: A Summary of Research Results and Priority Questions [pdf] section "What is the effect of barotrauma injuries to bats" says
  "While direct collision is thought to be responsible for most of the bat fatalities observed at wind facilities (Horn et al. 2008), recent work by Baerwald et al. (2008) suggests that some of the observed bat fatality may be due to barotrauma (i.e., injury resulting from suddenly altered air pressure). Fast- moving wind turbine blades create vortices and turbulence in their wakes, and bats may experience rapid pressure changes as they pass through this disturbed air, potentially causing internal injuries leading to death. The occurrence of barotrauma in bats, the proportion of individuals that succumb immediately versus those that fly away injured, and the associated influences on the estimation of bat fatalities are uncertain."
• Adirondack Bats: Wind Turbine Bat Threat says there are 2 causes of death to bats found at wind generators, blunt-force trauma and barotrauma.
• On a Wing and Low Air: The Surprising Way Wind Turbines Kill Bats says "It is the pressure change--not the blades--that wipe out thousands of bats annually at wind farms".
• Bats' Lungs Burst When They Fly Close to Wind Turbines

That's 5 links to science to your zero links. I found those by Googling wind turbines danger to bats pressure. All results are in the top 6, I didn't use the second result which was from the New York Times as it may be too biased for some people. I didn't even click on the link to read it.

Falcon

I made no such claim. Throughout this thread I have said the opposite, that CA did not deregulate energy. "Deregulating the producers" is only partial, not full, deregulation. I have stated the state dropped some regulations but made new regulations too. That is reregulation, which I have been stating throughout though I admit I did not use the word "reregulation".

I think it's pretty obvious people either don't or can't read and if they do read they don't understand what they read. They also make ridiculous or outrageous claims about what others did say.

Falcon