It does seam coal in general is being reduced though.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...

You mean temperatures have not risen since the super el-nino that put a lot of heat from the ocean into the atmosphere?

What happens if you look at 10 or 20 years?

So people are wanting to get back down to 280 and somehow this would mean going down to 150?

Yeah the Republicans are that. Renaming it to climate change so that it sounds less scary.

If it replaces a coal or natural gas station it does.

Although the Tea Party has embraced home solar.

Of course the far right likes to ignore that China has so many people that it's per captia emissions are much lower.

2.45 * 10 ^ 4 J per M^2 * 10^9 m ^2 = 1 X 10 ^ 13 J per change in state.

Oops.

So using your assumptions, with the triangle. 1 billion m^3 of water

The height is 1/40th of the 100m referred to from Wikipedia. So about 6GWh per tide.

To use an example of a real word situation. 28.6 million metres^3 at 100m would generate 5GWh. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wivenhoe_Power_Station)

What I was saying about the pot hole was , I rarely see them at all public or private.

The only cost I can think of is labor + permits to put the fiber into the conduit.

Yeah the US governments are really bad at doing things. Although what is your opinion of the US postal service? From down here in Australia they seem to be doing the job they were made for(Although losing money as time change). From what I understand the government only owns but does not control it.

I will tell you what I know. Their were two companies Telstra And Optus who both laid cable. Mostly around Melbourne Victoria (which is in the south of Australia but not the state of South Australia). I am not too sure about the details and most of the things online is about the NBN. (which was a full fibre to the home rollout until a new government came in and decided to use copper instead)

Here electricity is run mostly be a company ( http://www.aemo.com.au/About-t... ) that covers the whole east coast and South Australia. Everyone bids and they get the price of the amount they need. (I.e if they need 1000MW and the bids are -$5 100MW, 20 for 500 MW , 40 for 1000MW , 1000 for 1000MW , would mean the first 3 companies get $40 and the 3rd only provides 400MW)

It is not just the ISP, Down here their are quotes of 40k for electricity connections. (of course with solar and storage they are competing their)

Was it TWC last mile cable or backhaul cable? Apparently you can't just hook into backhaul cable for consumers.

It is also possibly that it the council and permits that drive the cost up so much.

$100,000 is too much to run a cable 2 miles though, for what ever reason the cost is so much. Especially when I believe you could get away with 500 for routers. And I would put multiple fiber lines through the conduit. Cheaper to have the lines in their in case one breaks then have to run another one though later.

I am not justifying it, I just believe you do not want the other extreme either. Two networks that only cover a small part of a city with neither making a profit like what happened down south in Australia.

On roads

2)You only need to take a road to the backbone road system. And you do need to connect cables at some place otherwise you have two systems that do not connect to one another.

The last time I saw a pot hole was on one of my streets. (All public)

Electricity

1) That is exactly the model I am advocating for internet.

4) I am in Australia. The grid here is about 200% met. Needless to say the grid company is charging for it.

Gas
1)Tanks are like the mobile network. If I want to start delivery of either it is much easier then running a connection to my customers.

Factory:

I sell 1000 units and I pay handling and shipping on 1000 units. I sell 500 units I only pay for 500.

With internet If I have 500 customers spread out over the 1000 customers in the area I still have to pay for the connection to go pass the 1000 to get to my 500,

Actually I don't think the ISPs should be in charge of the last mile. Who ever is in charge of that should only be in charge of that. Completely separate from everyone else. The way I would probably do it is set a price and standards , (Plus a possible tax for expanding the network where it is not profitable to do so). Anyone can use the cables for that price. If an ISP can do it themselves cheaper then will lay cable, dearer to lay cable and they will lease instead.

Here in Australia we did have an attempt at two independent cable networks. The two competitors both started to build a network down the same streets, the competition meant neither made a profit and did not expand the network.

That is the situation I am advocating for. One company that is only responsible for the connection from the user to the ISP. (who can then access the backhaul market which as you said before is competitive)

The same thing can be done with the cable as well. When it hits 70% capacity they have the requirement to upgrade it.

You may even be able to do both. One company leases the conduit to the cable company who can lease space on their cable. (And any one can lease from either company) Of course then you may get the issue of who responsibility is maintenance with both companies blaming the other.

Why do we not have multiple road,water,gas(line not bottled), electricity companies. According to you having multiple ones would make things cheaper.

The difference with your analogy is your factory does not have to pay to pass people who will not use it.

With networks you have to duplicate the infrastructure and the cost to the economy is double as well. (not including conduit costs)

In the US case that extra cost will be covered by the reduced profits of the big ISPs. But their is more then two options. A third option is too allow other ISPs access to the last mile that has already been built allowing for even more competition then making the ISPs have to lay their own cables as well.

(See here in Australia where any ISP can access the Telstra last-mile at a regulated price)