Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:nuclear power means unintended geoengineering (Score 1) 331

Accidents happen, yes, but nuclear is still arguably the safest (deaths/TWh) form of energy on the planet: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja... Even wind, hydro and solar are more dangerous.

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

Comment: Re:Nuclear? (Score 1) 422

by falconwolf (#46761879) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

At this point Greenpeace is as stuck in its position of advocating against Nuclear Energy as the NRA is against gun control, and they are both looking like obstacles to any positive change in the status quo

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

Comment: France has done really well with nuclear. (Score 1) 422

by falconwolf (#46761111) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

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

Comment: Re:Why not Houston? (Score 1) 128

by falconwolf (#43422421) Attached to: Google Fiber's Austin, Texas Rollout Confirmed

Had you read my previous response in this very thread, you'd have noticed I was talking about metro Chicago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Metropolitan_Area

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

Comment: Re:Why not Houston? (Score 1) 128

by falconwolf (#43409439) Attached to: Google Fiber's Austin, Texas Rollout Confirmed

And yet Chicago, roughly 10,000 square miles, manages to do so nicely (contrary to what locals bitch about).

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

Comment: Re:is it worth it? (Score 1) 128

by falconwolf (#43409407) Attached to: Google Fiber's Austin, Texas Rollout Confirmed

I'm not sure what you're arguing with me about; this all started with me coming up with a use for which 1Gbit is useful. You make it sound like I'm saying we should all stick with 5Mbps cable modems, when I'm saying exactly the opposite.

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

Comment: Re:is it worth it? (Score 1) 128

by falconwolf (#43409341) Attached to: Google Fiber's Austin, Texas Rollout Confirmed

With 1Gbit upstream, your 750GB hard drive could be completely transferred in something like two hours.

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

Comment: Re:is it worth it? (Score 1) 128

by falconwolf (#43409177) Attached to: Google Fiber's Austin, Texas Rollout Confirmed

You can actually back up all your stuff to another machine across the Internet in a reasonable amount of time.

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

Comment: Re:a national roll out is only 100 years away (Score 1) 128

by falconwolf (#43408985) Attached to: Google Fiber's Austin, Texas Rollout Confirmed

In the very announcement they link to the FCC broadband page about how to build out your own community gigabit municipal fiber network. You don't have to wait for Google. They would rather you didn't.

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?

Comment: kansas city gives it up for google...., (Score 1) 128

by falconwolf (#43408925) Attached to: Google Fiber's Austin, Texas Rollout Confirmed

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

Comment: And where's your evidence of this? It is not clear (Score 1) 482

by falconwolf (#43272663) Attached to: Windfarm Sickness Spreads By Word of Mouth

To get an idea, consider the energy output of a windmill and divide it by the span of the prop to get the amount of energy removed per centimetre of length, assuming the width is about the same all the way is good enough. That puts it at the scale of a small fragile bat. The number you get is very small because it is less than the pressure of the prevailing wind on an area the size of a bat since you can't get all the energy out of the wind due to bearing friction etc.
Now do you see why I am dismissing the "bats killed by pressure drop" stupid bullshit as the PR campaign lie it is? It's the sort of thing that sounds OK initially due to technical terms thrown in to hide the really stupid lie, but if you think about how a windmill works the audacious lie is apparent. People caught out with it are also likely to be embarrassed that they fell for something so stupid so it's hard to talk them out of it.

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:

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

Comment: Re:California power crisis of 2000 and 2001 (Score 1) 482

by falconwolf (#43224235) Attached to: Windfarm Sickness Spreads By Word of Mouth

Your claim was that by deregulating the producers and distributors but leaving the *existing* price caps on the cost to consumers, the industry went aground.

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

FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies.

Working...