$9/W based on watt capacity not watts generated ever time.
That number is often used as a scare tactic to make people thing they will pay 9$ W.
Assuming you're build plants to produce more the 1 GW over time. Ob. if you were to shut it down after producing 1GW, it would need to cost$9 a watt.

Burning trees is carbon neutral. Adding trees is carbon neutral.

No, coal is not renewable.
The conditions that create coal during the Carboniferous era no longer exist.

Solar thermal does exactly that.
And yes, energy storage IS plausibly on that scale if it would be needed; which it wouldn't.

Just like the word "madrasa" can be used very broadly in Arabic to refer to many kinds of schools, even those have been reformed along the organizational and legal lines of a European-style university. And? Again, universitas was a kind of medieval European institution, and much later, one specific type of it later spread across the world. I'm sorry for your poor grasp of language logic and history, but if word X currently happens to be used in India to describe an institution of type Y that exists in India today, and a thousand years ago it was used in the same place to describe a different type of institution Z that existed in India a thousand years ago, that doesn't suddenly mean that institutions of type Y coexisted with institutions of type Z a thousand years ago. That only means the name was later co-opted for a purpose. But later language changes don't retroactively reshape historical facts. There's a lot of books you can read on the history of higher education, and they happen to be quite unanimous on the subject.

I like nuclear, but it does have issues, even 4th Gen plants. Why go to Nuclear when we an use solar? Seems like an unneeded step.
Sadly America is fighting 3 things right now:
A hard to change entrenched infrastructure. First developed tech issue.
A wider and increasing base if ignorant people.
The idea that somehow money should be all the determines anything. This is a lot worse the it was 30-40 years ago.

Well, at least you didn't say "from being much better writers than everyone else."

"This is also a private company too, which means they are profiting at this rate."
maybe, maybe not. Utilities are an odd beast.

I have a nexus, and it's a simple phone that just works, JUST LIKE EVERY PIECE OF ELECTRONICS IS SUPPOSE TO.
What other company wold have that kind of Gall. Samsung Microwave: It just works.

I think you missed the GP's point. Big corporations exhibit almost insatiable greed, and will do just about anything to save money, from H1Bs to outsourcing. Yet they don't hire women more than men. There are two possible explanations:

• They're ignoring their primary driving force—profit—in favor of hiring more men because they incorrectly believe that men are cheaper, when in fact women are.
• Men really are cheaper, in spite of the higher base wages.

In theory, they are both equally plausible. And in practice, that's also true, at least up until the first study was published. But these days, given the sheer number of studies that all say that women are cheaper, you'd expect a significant number of the more forward-thinking execs to take it to heart and hire mostly women as a cost-saving measure. If that is not happening, it suggests the possibility that they have studied those cost differences internally and have come to different conclusions based on more complete information.

The only way to know for sure would be to find an exec willing to disclose a company's own internal studies on the subject, and that's not likely to happen. With that said, the longer we go without corporations deciding to hire more women, the greater the chances that those studies are flawed. After all, the alternative requires us to believe that something matters more to a corporation than money, which for most companies would require an almost unimaginable suspension of disbelief.

I don't think software has much to be blamed for when the case is bending, and I don't think the case is to be blamed for buggy software.

And no, it's almost never a chicken and egg problem. It is often a blame game hidden behind people saying its a chicken and egg problem.

It's helpful if you read the fucking article: "We decided to use Rhizobacteria as this was the group specifically mentioned by our science teacher. We used one acidic strain (r.leguminosarum) and one basic strain (r.japonicum)."

Samsung phones don't get the same news coverage that Apple phones do. A new iPhone and any surrounding issues make it onto mainstream news sites and chat shows.

All large, thin phones bend. A plastic one is more likely to bend back than an aluminium one. But it depends also on the internals and how flexible or brittle they are.

"It's an event horizon, captain, but not as we know it."

Corn can be used to create ethanol fuel. Is such corn "wasted" because it is not eaten?

Uneaten food that is diverted from landfill serves a purpose when it is rescued for composting, albeit one that was not intended when it was sold in the grocery store. Also, it reduces the use of valuable landfill space, thereby lowering the cost of trash disposal. So I would contend that it is not wasted (at least not entirely) when it is diverted from landfill.