Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Coal currently produces a ballpark average of 200,000 Megawatts of power for the US continuously (based on the published annual generation totals). So we use that number to figure out how much of alternative generation sources you would need.
Lets start with Nucular since that is (relatively) simple with almost continuous output: Most recent power plan under construction in the US is Watts Bar 2 (look it up) that will produce 1180 megawatts at a cost of ~4.5Billion. To replace 200,000 megawatts you would need about 170 of those Watts Bar 2 plants at a total cost of approximately $763Billion in today's dollars! Wowser. Also note that there is a fuel shortage looming that makes spinning up new multi-billion $ reactors a potential waste of time and $. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10...
Ok, lets move on to renewables. There are lots of options here...wind, solar, concentrated solar, tidal power, ect. The thing with non-hydro renewables is that most of them are cyclical or random like the weather. So you need huge storage capacity to go with them. Projects like the Bath County Pumped Storage Station are a great solution for this, but for 200,000 megawatts of renewables, you would need about 70 of those at a cost of $100Billion+. Thats just for the glorified "battery" and does not count the cost of the generation facilities themselves which would be hundreds of billions if not $1Trillion+.
Just keeping things in perspective:)
"Your "Second Amendment Rights" to bear a gun or a Blue-Rhino gas can have not been infringed.".
The usage in the constitution is the same as definition #2. To have our privacy "infringed" on does not necessarily mean that all privacy was taken away, it just means that some of it was taken away. So, likewise, any law that summarily prohibits all citizens from keeping and carrying (bearing) arms (weapons) of a certain "commonly used" type is a violation of the 2nd Amendment as that is "Infringement" by definition (the supreme court has previously allowed restrictions on "firearms not commonly used for self defense or militia purposes". Clearly, some of the firearms covered in this ban are very commonly used for self defense AND militia purposes, so I don't see how this law could be considered constitutional by any stretch of the imagination...especially the portion banning the possession of magazines over 7 rounds.