Because our elected officials love to talk about public infrastructure, but as long as the decline isn't so bad that it's killing people left and right and causing a riot as a result, they don't care. Witness the complete lack of interest in Newt Gingrich's SHIELD Act which would have spent $100B on anti-EMP measures. EMP bursts could kill more people than a nuclear blast due to starvation and exposure in winter. Did anyone care? Nope.
I have 1X DVDs going back to 99/2K that still read too, that is what happens when you don't buy crap brands. Just keep 'em in a cool dry place away from light and check 'em every 3 years or so for signs of dye rot (which is easy to spot long before the disc becomes unreadable) and DVDs make a great long term storage medium for documents, pictures, videos, etc. And as a nice bonus nearly every PC on the planet can play back DVDs.I guess I'll have to bite the bullet and get a BD burner soon, does anybody here have exp with using BD for storage? How are they holding up?
As for TFA cost will end up wiping out tape, just not enough tapes and drives being sold, too many are opting for a NAS loaded with TBs of space and the large corps that traditionally bought tape are outsourcing to the cloud. Its a shame as LTO is long lasting as hell but the economies of scale just aren't there anymore.
OMG, you fucking moron, learn something, read a book, go read some jokes, humour obviously is not your strong suit, but maybe you can learn to pretend you understand it, moron.
Renewable biomass will expand (the largest portion of current non-Hydro renewables).
Geothermal will expand.
Wind will expand.
Solar will expand.
Geothermal is smaller than wind.
Actually no. My plan isn't calling for 1/4 of what yours is. Mine is looking at roughly a 3-4-fold increase across the board. What you're looking at is closer to a 500-fold increase for solar and 100-fold increase for 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
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.
A "natural park"? Really? Have you seen what the controlled area looks like?
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.
I whole heartedly disagree. A Chernobyl in Nebraska is a vastly worse case scenario.
That would be tough given that we pre-entomb our reactors in the USA.
These 60+ year old reactors have to be taken offline and replaced with modern technology.
Yeah, I've mentioned that a few times...
Pebble beds have been in operation since the 1980's and we still haven't made the jump.
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.
Again, this is only >Human deaths. If you look at the full ecological impact that number is dramatically higher. As it is for coal and oil as well.
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.
Gotta love democracy, eh!! Forcing people who disagree with you to do what you feel is right just warms the cockles of your heart...
No, I oppose it. Fascists like you favor it.
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.
You're paper is based on the same data.
"YOUR" FFS. I can't even go on after that. It's not even my paper./P
But they don't say anything like this:
The problem isn't cheap energy but man made global warming and climate change; the CO2 levels are now so massive that inventing a zero emission ultra cheap energy source, that globally replaced all other polluting energy sources in an instant, no longer is enough stop the global warming process going on for hundreds of years.
They didn't address the "what if everything changed in an instant" case in their article.
I assert that most people want the government to improve society.
Well, yes, they do; they want lots of non-sensical things. A large part want there to be an invisible omnipotent spirit that watches them every minute of the day too. Those kinds of delusions are the reason why nations repeatedly deteriorate into fascism, theocracy, or communism.
The error isn't in wanting a better world--everybody does that--the error is in how you people go about it, usually by trying to force other people to do things for you.
I completely agree. If it had been up to the prosecutor, this wouldn't even have gone to the grand jury. But because a lynch mob was calling for blood the prosecutor took it to a grand jury to cover his ass. There simply is no legal case against Wilson. The prosecutor knows that and the grand jury confirmed it. If this had gone to court, it would have ended in an acquittal. So what exactly is it you want?
So you would pay $1200 for a hard drive "without hesitation"?
100% Yes for that storage space that ran at Samsung's claimed 1.6GB/s speed...
It would make a huge difference for image management where I'm often loading many 60MB TIFF files in the course of looking over processed images.
Now mind you I'd be backing that up on the cheaper "real" hard drives, but for working with that speed would be fantastic and easily worth the money in terms of saved time and frustration over the life of the drive.
The thing is, that drive will probably be more like $5k which is a much harder amount to take... probably $2k is the edge for my own use.
What's the alternative motivation besides profit? How do you get some people to do what you want without paying them?
Fear won't work. People can just decide not to be afraid. And, since doomsday predictions have always been wrong, they would be wise not to fear the end you're warning them about. Altruism won't work either.
People focus on profit/money because its a clear way to motivate others. Everything else is just salesmanship, putting a gun to someone's head, or asking "pretty please".
We need to stop charging money to our children's credit cards, start sending money to it, pay it off completely, and start putting money in savings.
Hmm, sounds like you're ignoring the advice of all the best economists - remember, saving for a rainy day is bad for the economy...we're supposed to spend every penny we make or the economy will go south....